Time for honesty!
April 19, 2007
This was one of the drivers:
“Biofuels Security Act of 2007 - Amends the Clean Air Act to replace provisions prescribing the volume of renewable fuel that gasoline sold in the United States must contain with provisions that require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine the applicable volume for 2010 and beyond. Requires such [renewable fuel] volume to be at least 10 billion gallons in 2010, 30 billion gallons in 2020, and 60 billion gallons in 2030.
Requires the Secretary of Energy to promulgate regulations to ensure that each major oil company that sells gasoline in the United States through wholly-owned or branded stations provides pumps that dispense E-85 fuel (a blend approximately 85% of the content of which is derived from ethanol produced in the United States) at not less than: (1) a specified percentage of all of its stations (increasing from 5% in 2008 to 50% in 2017); and (2) a minimum percentage of its stations in each state. Allows a company to earn and sell production credits when it exceeds the percentage required. Prohibits companies from using credits purchased to fulfill geographic distribution requirements.”
This was the result:
The other two drivers of the above were:
The evidence suggests that the IPCC scientists, whilst well meaning, were probably nudged by the politicians to arrive at a false conclusion that CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere “caused” global warming. When armed with the appropriate information, Blind Freddy can see that CO2 concentrations were not the ultimate cause of global warming. For example, it takes 3,512X (that’s three thousand five hundred and twelve times) as much energy to heat a cubic meter of seawater by one degree as it takes to heat that same volume of air by that same one degree. Our atmosphere covers 100% of the globe’s surface to a height of 10 kilometres. Our oceans cover 70% of the planet’s surface to an average debt of 3 kilometres. Question: How many degrees Celsius would our atmosphere have to rise to result in a one degree Celsius rise in our ocean’s temperatures?
Request: Would some mathematician out there please do the math and report back so that we can get on with our lives?
The time has come for some honesty and dignity amongst our political leaders. Private enterprise is all very well, but it cannot be allowed to ride roughshod over those who have neither the wherewithal to feed themselves nor the ability to defend themselves.
The argument that the world has too many mouths to feed is just plain garbage. The entire world’s population occupies roughly 30% of the planet’s dry land. We have the technology to render the remaining 70% fertile. The issue is “profits”. At face value, it’s hard to make a buck out of that activity, so let’s just let the other 90% of the world’s population expire, shall we? Well, here’s a twist: If there are some really smart entrepreneurs out there, then hear this: The technology exists today to enable you to reclaim desert land, turn it into a fertile garden of Eden, and make a profit in the process. It needs two things:
Step 1 in our journey towards honesty, integrity and dignity will be to get our heads straight, and to stop bickering amongst ourselves about imaginary ego denting slights.
Step 2 will be to restructure the world’s financial system such that it is not under the control of those who benefit most from manipulating it in the supposed interests of the economy as a whole.
If we are unable to self regulate with appropriate checks and balances, then an external discipline needs to be superimposed; and that external discipline needs to be a “Gold Standard”. But let us recognise this: A gold standard will be second prize. First prize will be a shift in attitude towards taking social responsibility for one’s personal actions. If you think these words are mealy mouthed, left wing, tear jerking socialism – then take (oh, I don’t know, say ten seconds) to look at the chart above and suck it up. That’s where socially irresponsible private enterprise lands up. There have got to be checks and balances to protect us against rogue profiteering. It’s all very well for the strong right arm of the body to argue that the body doesn’t need the weak left arm. Try and live without one of your limbs. Think of it this way: Every individual human is a cell of the human race. Every cell needs to be healthy for the body to be healthy.
Step 3 will be to start seriously rolling out some sensible alternative energy technologies in a co-ordinated manner:
The most sensible, as far as this analyst can determine, are as follows: (Thanks to a concerned scientist friend who prefers to remain nameless)
Nuclear fission, the politician’s panacea, fails the integrity test. If scientists are hot under the collar about CO2 (which the plants need for their survival, by the way), how can they possibly defend a technology which has radioactive material as its by-product? Nuclear fusion may or may not be sensible. So far, Robert Bussard appears to have gotten the closest, but our politicians would rather fund a ten billion euro multinational R&D program than continue funding him. Go figure.Brian Bloom
April 19, 2007
|Home :: Archives :: Contact||
January 19th, 2018
© 2018 321energy.com