The debate between Big Oil and environmentalists has finally begun to push the pendulum in the other direction… or has it? Looking back at our dependence on foreign oil, it’s interesting that we, yes we, are currently making the oil companies record profits while simultaneously paying record prices for fuel. After OPEC decided it was going to have more of a say in pricing of oil being sold overseas there was practically a rationing of gasoline in the west. Long lines of cars waited, hoping to make it before the stations ran empty. One of the prevailing themes of this scene was the size of the vehicles at that time. They were huge! Take a look at a ’78 Oldsmobile or GMC truck. It’s no wonder they were referred to as “boats.”
All of that began to change in 1978 under the Carter administration. While American manufactures continued rolling out gas guzzlers the Japanese introduced the Honda Civic, at that time, quite a small automobile. They weren’t even taken seriously at first. Some of the Europeans began exporting diesel engines a less than great solution at the time. Originally an environmentally sound concept, diesel had changed from its original purpose of being a safer alternative to carbon fuels.
By 1985, Americans had decreased their imports of foreign oil by 87 percent. Some argue that had we remained in that direction, we would have fully shed our addiction to foreign oil. The following year, fuel standards began diminishing and within five years, we engaged in our first major oil war in the Gulf under the auspice of “protecting Kuwait from Saddam Hussein”, our former ally, or in the words of the CIA, “our kind of guy.” A few years earlier, we had given him stockpiles of biological weapons to use at his disposal against his opposition− a crime that would later bring about his demise.
Since that time, even Bush has admitted our “addiction to oil” is a problem, although it’s obvious he doesn’t fully comprehend the extent of the quandary we’ve allowed ourselves to get into. The fact that America is one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world and still relies on fossil fuel to power its energy supply boarders on criminal, not only because we continue to use fuels that are slowly killing the very environment that we depend on, but that we still oppose measures designed to increase our energy sustainability.
For a while, the talk of using hydrogen cells to power our vehicles was something the Bush administration blabbed about. The problem, of course, is converting fuel stations that can actually provide the necessary equipment needed to refuel. It was a safe option as it would not effect the petroleum industry for many years. If that was not the intent the let’s be honest: to leave this out of the equation is something that would require a level of stupidity beyond even our leadership. Yet, most people failed to question it and applauded Bush’s lip service to the semi-concerned but uninformed populace.
Next came the obvious: using our already abundant renewable energy sources to power our industries. Scientists basically struck out on their own and developed wind power− not exactly a new strategy rather, a reevaluation of past wisdom, as can been seen throughout the old, abandoned farms which dot the northwest. In an effort to put the American farmer back in business, the use of corn in the form of ethanol has increased by triple digits in just a couple of years. The Europeans are using methane from waste plants− perhaps not quite profitable enough for American industries at this point, despite the fact that we produce more of it than any other country. Biodiesel, is a similar proposition and is gaining a larger following all the time. I read that Seattle actually has biodiesel co-ops.
Many of the same idiots in Congress continuing their call for oil companies to begin drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), the wildlife refuge in northeast Alaska. The proponents of this action claim that it would help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. What they fail to unveil is the fact that the oil currently being pumped out of the ground in Alaska is primarily sold not to the lower 48 but to Asia. Not only that, the oil is not ours as they’d like us to believe, no more than the lumber sold by Weyerhaeuser is ours, despite the fact that these operations are take place on public lands. They, the oil companies, sell it to us− the same oil companies who sell us oil from Nigeria and Saudi Arabia. The oil belongs to them. If they’re allowed to drill in ANWR, they will continue selling it on the Asian market while shipping us oil imported from the middle east. To do otherwise would reduce profits, something the likes of Exxon and British Petroleum are not interested in.
When I was watching some of the debate on this, Sen. Ted Stevens held up a blank-white presentation board and said “this is what ANWR looks like nine months out of the year.” If that were the case, the tribes that live in the area who depend on the caribou for their sustenance would have settled elsewhere as they have indeed disputed, though rarely reported on. The 1600 mile trek made by the carabou is actually the longest of its kind and ends in the very spot where the Stevens Gang wants to drill. The fact is, not only is there an abundance of wildlife, unseen in the continental United States since the dawn of industrialization, it’s also on the coastline making obvious the threat it would impose on the fish habitat and the people who depend on it. What’s interesting is that Bush, Sr. pushed for overturning it protected status from drilling into ANWR in 1988. Case in point: just prior to the Exxon Valdese spill occurred, something fisherman were promised would never happen. It has had irreversible effects on Prince William Sound; 19 years later, oil residue can still be found a few inches below the surface of the beaches and the herring have failed to be revived along with the animals higher up on the food chain that relied on them. Furthermore, 90 percent of the area boarding ANWR has already been exposed to drilling; to consider a small operation going up next door is absurd.
So, while government and oil companies continue to place profit over people, pushing to open up ANWR to drilling, the debate has still failed to seriously address increasing fuel efficiency issue. Clinton and Bush both refused the Kyoto Protocol. Former House Speaker, Trent Lott stood up in front of the chamber and said he opposed the government limiting choice, forcing people to drive the “Purple-People-Eater.” Holding up a picture of a purple Smart Car, he even said he saw people pick them up and move them into parking spots. Well, first off, they’re not something a person could pick up, so that was an outright lie. Secondly, government regulations on fuel efficiency would not equate to being forced into driving Smart Cars. In fact, Honda, Toyota, Volkswagen, and even Ford, have introduced cars that would make the efficiency cut. People say they’re worried about jobs. Fine. Start offering tax incentives to alternative, sustainable fuel industries and train people to be employed in them.
Both the Japanese and Europeans, who pay twice as much for petrol than Americans, are driving BMWs and minivans that require half the fuel as those in the States. In fact, I first saw a Smart Car when I came to Japan, three years ago. What I also found is an incredible public transportation system. There’s no reason to drive from Kobe to Osaka when taking the train is cheaper and twice as fast. There’s also a prevailing misconception that in Japan, cars have to be scrapped at 30k miles. The truth of the matter is that not many Japanese want to be seen driving cars more than a few years old− it’s about status. It’s also about economics. Acquiring a driver’s license costs an average of 300,000¥ ($3000) and annual vehicle inspections can cost more than the value of the car after a while. Further, the cost of storing an automobile, be it in a garage or private lot (street parking is extremely rare) may run hundreds of dollars per month; if a person has a driveway or garage, chances are, they’re loaded to begin with. So cars being limited to 30k is a myth. There are plenty of other disincentives to drive, however.
There has also been growing murmurs about the amount of energy necessary to produce ethanol and about it’s effect on the price of corn. One of the less than optimistic developments is the players entering the alternative fuel industry, such as British Petroleum and the big agro companies that have established records of apathy toward the environment and the independent farmer. There are also ethanol operations run by these same players which are contributing to the devastation of the ever disappearing rainforests.
Will we find a means by which governments will support a sustainable solution to our current energy/environmental crisis? It’s a serious question in light of the number idiots still denying the fact that global warming is being accelerated by our presence, a claim that has not held water in a single peer reviewed scientific journal to date. Now that private interests have finally managed to slither into the alternative fuel market, companies and their pawns in Congress are talking about our addiction to oil. Missing from the conversation, however, remains an abjection to fuel efficiency. Why? It goes back to the bottom line: profit.
Again and again, government and industry have demonstrated their primary concern revolves around money. Destroying the creation of Allah, the very entity humankind has been made not an owner but vicegerent of, responsible for its preservation, is not a concern. Public health is not a concern. Even the fact that environmentally sound options exist does not concern them. They are completely apathetic, unless they can turn a profit. If alternative fuel is deemed a competitor, they will not relent until either they eliminate the competition or control it and until our representatives acknowledge this fact, the incentive for sustainability will continue to lay at the mercy of short term gains.
To answer the question: “Is ethanol enough?” I, for one have to respond in the negative. Unless we combine alternative fuels with improved efficiency standards, we will not be in the much needed position to reverse the effects of our own negligence. If we’re using rainforest derived ethanol and increasing our pesticide usage for greater yields of corn without considering the natural impact of these practices, we will continue toward a short term solution, not a sustainable one.
All of that began to change in 1978 under the Carter administration. While American manufactures continued rolling out gas guzzlers the Japanese introduced the Honda Civic, at that time, quite a small automobile. They weren’t even taken seriously at first. Some of the Europeans began exporting diesel engines a less than great solution at the time. Originally an environmentally sound concept, diesel had changed from its original purpose of being a safer alternative to carbon fuels.
By 1985, Americans had decreased their imports of foreign oil by 87 percent. Some argue that had we remained in that direction, we would have fully shed our addiction to foreign oil. The following year, fuel standards began diminishing and within five years, we engaged in our first major oil war in the Gulf under the auspice of “protecting Kuwait from Saddam Hussein”, our former ally, or in the words of the CIA, “our kind of guy.” A few years earlier, we had given him stockpiles of biological weapons to use at his disposal against his opposition− a crime that would later bring about his demise.
Since that time, even Bush has admitted our “addiction to oil” is a problem, although it’s obvious he doesn’t fully comprehend the extent of the quandary we’ve allowed ourselves to get into. The fact that America is one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world and still relies on fossil fuel to power its energy supply boarders on criminal, not only because we continue to use fuels that are slowly killing the very environment that we depend on, but that we still oppose measures designed to increase our energy sustainability.
For a while, the talk of using hydrogen cells to power our vehicles was something the Bush administration blabbed about. The problem, of course, is converting fuel stations that can actually provide the necessary equipment needed to refuel. It was a safe option as it would not effect the petroleum industry for many years. If that was not the intent the let’s be honest: to leave this out of the equation is something that would require a level of stupidity beyond even our leadership. Yet, most people failed to question it and applauded Bush’s lip service to the semi-concerned but uninformed populace.
Next came the obvious: using our already abundant renewable energy sources to power our industries. Scientists basically struck out on their own and developed wind power− not exactly a new strategy rather, a reevaluation of past wisdom, as can been seen throughout the old, abandoned farms which dot the northwest. In an effort to put the American farmer back in business, the use of corn in the form of ethanol has increased by triple digits in just a couple of years. The Europeans are using methane from waste plants− perhaps not quite profitable enough for American industries at this point, despite the fact that we produce more of it than any other country. Biodiesel, is a similar proposition and is gaining a larger following all the time. I read that Seattle actually has biodiesel co-ops.
Many of the same idiots in Congress continuing their call for oil companies to begin drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), the wildlife refuge in northeast Alaska. The proponents of this action claim that it would help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. What they fail to unveil is the fact that the oil currently being pumped out of the ground in Alaska is primarily sold not to the lower 48 but to Asia. Not only that, the oil is not ours as they’d like us to believe, no more than the lumber sold by Weyerhaeuser is ours, despite the fact that these operations are take place on public lands. They, the oil companies, sell it to us− the same oil companies who sell us oil from Nigeria and Saudi Arabia. The oil belongs to them. If they’re allowed to drill in ANWR, they will continue selling it on the Asian market while shipping us oil imported from the middle east. To do otherwise would reduce profits, something the likes of Exxon and British Petroleum are not interested in.
When I was watching some of the debate on this, Sen. Ted Stevens held up a blank-white presentation board and said “this is what ANWR looks like nine months out of the year.” If that were the case, the tribes that live in the area who depend on the caribou for their sustenance would have settled elsewhere as they have indeed disputed, though rarely reported on. The 1600 mile trek made by the carabou is actually the longest of its kind and ends in the very spot where the Stevens Gang wants to drill. The fact is, not only is there an abundance of wildlife, unseen in the continental United States since the dawn of industrialization, it’s also on the coastline making obvious the threat it would impose on the fish habitat and the people who depend on it. What’s interesting is that Bush, Sr. pushed for overturning it protected status from drilling into ANWR in 1988. Case in point: just prior to the Exxon Valdese spill occurred, something fisherman were promised would never happen. It has had irreversible effects on Prince William Sound; 19 years later, oil residue can still be found a few inches below the surface of the beaches and the herring have failed to be revived along with the animals higher up on the food chain that relied on them. Furthermore, 90 percent of the area boarding ANWR has already been exposed to drilling; to consider a small operation going up next door is absurd.
So, while government and oil companies continue to place profit over people, pushing to open up ANWR to drilling, the debate has still failed to seriously address increasing fuel efficiency issue. Clinton and Bush both refused the Kyoto Protocol. Former House Speaker, Trent Lott stood up in front of the chamber and said he opposed the government limiting choice, forcing people to drive the “Purple-People-Eater.” Holding up a picture of a purple Smart Car, he even said he saw people pick them up and move them into parking spots. Well, first off, they’re not something a person could pick up, so that was an outright lie. Secondly, government regulations on fuel efficiency would not equate to being forced into driving Smart Cars. In fact, Honda, Toyota, Volkswagen, and even Ford, have introduced cars that would make the efficiency cut. People say they’re worried about jobs. Fine. Start offering tax incentives to alternative, sustainable fuel industries and train people to be employed in them.
Both the Japanese and Europeans, who pay twice as much for petrol than Americans, are driving BMWs and minivans that require half the fuel as those in the States. In fact, I first saw a Smart Car when I came to Japan, three years ago. What I also found is an incredible public transportation system. There’s no reason to drive from Kobe to Osaka when taking the train is cheaper and twice as fast. There’s also a prevailing misconception that in Japan, cars have to be scrapped at 30k miles. The truth of the matter is that not many Japanese want to be seen driving cars more than a few years old− it’s about status. It’s also about economics. Acquiring a driver’s license costs an average of 300,000¥ ($3000) and annual vehicle inspections can cost more than the value of the car after a while. Further, the cost of storing an automobile, be it in a garage or private lot (street parking is extremely rare) may run hundreds of dollars per month; if a person has a driveway or garage, chances are, they’re loaded to begin with. So cars being limited to 30k is a myth. There are plenty of other disincentives to drive, however.
There has also been growing murmurs about the amount of energy necessary to produce ethanol and about it’s effect on the price of corn. One of the less than optimistic developments is the players entering the alternative fuel industry, such as British Petroleum and the big agro companies that have established records of apathy toward the environment and the independent farmer. There are also ethanol operations run by these same players which are contributing to the devastation of the ever disappearing rainforests.
Will we find a means by which governments will support a sustainable solution to our current energy/environmental crisis? It’s a serious question in light of the number idiots still denying the fact that global warming is being accelerated by our presence, a claim that has not held water in a single peer reviewed scientific journal to date. Now that private interests have finally managed to slither into the alternative fuel market, companies and their pawns in Congress are talking about our addiction to oil. Missing from the conversation, however, remains an abjection to fuel efficiency. Why? It goes back to the bottom line: profit.
Again and again, government and industry have demonstrated their primary concern revolves around money. Destroying the creation of Allah, the very entity humankind has been made not an owner but vicegerent of, responsible for its preservation, is not a concern. Public health is not a concern. Even the fact that environmentally sound options exist does not concern them. They are completely apathetic, unless they can turn a profit. If alternative fuel is deemed a competitor, they will not relent until either they eliminate the competition or control it and until our representatives acknowledge this fact, the incentive for sustainability will continue to lay at the mercy of short term gains.
To answer the question: “Is ethanol enough?” I, for one have to respond in the negative. Unless we combine alternative fuels with improved efficiency standards, we will not be in the much needed position to reverse the effects of our own negligence. If we’re using rainforest derived ethanol and increasing our pesticide usage for greater yields of corn without considering the natural impact of these practices, we will continue toward a short term solution, not a sustainable one.
No comments:
Post a Comment