What is OmniNerd?

Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by you, the reader. Through voting and moderation we strive to highlight the nerdiest of what's around and provide content that's a little more thought provoking than other sites.

Submit New Content

Voting Booth

Is it possible that in the distant future, President George W. Bush, the 43rd president, might be viewed as one of the greatest American Presidents?

View Results, All Polls
52 votes, 15 comments
0
Nerd-Its
+ -

RE: Apples and oranges

Comment comment by ldsudduth on 30 March 2007

Nick, I couldn't agree with you more. As wealthy as Al Gore is, he should be setting up his home as *the* model for sustainable, renewable resources. Leaders should not ascribe to the 'Do as I say, not as I do' model.

I live in an apartment; so I'm at the mercy of what the building owner will or won't do. However..that being said, I do my best in other ways. Lights get turned out when not in use, the computers spin down when not in use (no, I don't turn them off, because I access them remotely from time to time). I don't drive a Honda Civic; because I have two children, but I have a very fuel-efficient 4-door sedan. I separate garbage as much as I can.

As an extremely avid angler, I would like to direct everyone who thinks ethanol is a viable solution to our energy and greenhouse gas emission problems to this article. It addresses the myriad of problems from corn-based ethanol production primarily, but does mention cellulose ethanol in conjunction with the Conservation Reserve Program, which 'banks' acres of land for future need/use in agriculture. There are even negatives to celluolosic ethanol.

With all of the problems we will be facing soon in getting clean, fresh water--is this a viable solution either short or long term? I like what the article concludes with:

So, until we figure out how to make ethanol cheaply and efficiently from native prairie perennials like switchgrass, where are we going to find the fuel to run our cars? Berkeley's Dr. Tad Patzek makes the point that corn is merely one way of converting solar energy to fuel. Solar cells, far more efficient, could make hydrogen fuel. That's where the subsidies need to go, he contends. But technology for practical, affordable hydrogen fuel, like technology for practical, affordable ethanol fuel, doesn't exist yet.

We do, however, possess the technology to build fuel-efficient automobiles. In the current charade designed by and for agribusiness we're allocating 18 percent of the corn we grow to ethanol, thereby cutting our petroleum consumption by one percent. But Patzek has calculated that if we doubled automobile fuel efficiency, we'd cut petroleum consumption by 33 percent or, put another way, we'd increase our petroleum supply by a third. It's a revolutionary concept that America has never tried. Fish-and-wildlife advocates are calling it conservation.

Novel concept--double the fuel efficiency of our automobiles (and along with that boats, planes, trains, etc.) and cut petroleum consumption by 33%. Along with that, I'm sure it means cutting Greenhouse Gas Emissions as well. I'm not certain, however, that Agribusiness, Oil, and Vehicle Manufacturers would like that idea.

You are a viewing a subset of a larger discussion.
View Full Discussion
Star This to Save in Your Profile Favorite
Thread parent sort order:
Highest Voted : Lowest Voted : Oldest : Newest
Thread verbosity:
Expand All : Minimize Replies to Comments
0 Nerd-Its - +
RE: Apples and oranges by scottb :: NR7

As I said to LordDilly - I think your logic is flawed. You say Gore shouldn't ascribe to the "do as I say not as I do model" and that he "should be setting up his home as *the* model for sustainable, renewable, resources".

I say, he's doing exactly that.

It's you (and apparently LordDilly) who seem to think that what he should be doing is reducing his own carbon production, but that's not what he's saying we should be doing.

His position isn't focused on gross carbon production, but net. He's saying, "look, we don't have to live like cavemen, or even tree-huggers on a hippie commune somewhere - we can enjoy the benefits of the modern world, but we have to properly compensate for the effects of that". To that end, he proposes to better incentivize people and businesses to become carbon neutral with a trade in offsets.

The proposal is essentially to decide what our "budget" is for carbon emission. We can make it bigger by planting trees or other "net negative" activities. We use it up with our emissions. We harness this whole thing to the engine of capitalism - by dividing our carbon budget into "shares" (a.k.a. "offsets") and auctioning them off. In order to have a net positive emission, you have to buy the rights to do so. Anyone with at net negative emission effectively gets some free shares they can sell.

This gives businesses the incentive to reduce their emissions (because they'll have to buy fewer offsets), or even create net-negative operations. As a society, we get to control our net contribution to the problem.

Now, I happen to think the basic plan is sound. I don't know enough of the details of his specific proposal to know if there's some real obstacle to implementing it, but the basic idea sounds great.

You may disagree - and that's certainly your prerogative. But it's wrong to cast Gore as a hypocrite when he's doing exactly what he says. His home's emissions may be high - but he offsets that by effectively paying for the cost of undoing the damage.

He is doing what he says. And he has made his house into precisely the model he proposes for sustainable, renewable resources - zero net emissions.

Posted 03 April 2007, Hide, Parent, Reply