damage from ethanol?

[Bob]

I'm sure your neighbors don't have any problem with that. And that you don't care.

Bob

[Bob]

If it's so safe, why do they need protection from liability?

Bob

[Bob]

I see lots of buses using it just fine. Maybe we just need to work on mass transit.

Bob

[mm]

Pesonally, I hate making electricty with natural gas. I think gas should be saved for gas stoves. (it's a lot easier to send gas through those pipes than it is to send coal or plutonium.)

Cool. Close to 20 (and maybe for a period when oil-fuled generation was down because of Katrina.)

If we use too much geothermal, won't the inside of the earth cool off and the shell crack? Or something bad? How much is too much?

No.

[Sev]

I read a lot of belittling- and pretty damned inaccurate- comments re environmental concerns. I think these are very important, and I tend to find the consensus of scientific opinion on global warming and biodiversity, for example, more convincing than say, Michael Crichton and Rush Limbaugh. As some have noted, all that oil was produced via photosynthesis- the coal, too. Ought to give you some pause about being too cavalier with the conditions that make this planet biologically rich. We are living in an era of accelerating mass extinction of species- this means nothing to you? No, it isn't happening for some mysterious, indefineable reason- we're doing it. Good point about Brazilian ethanol's actual and potential impact on the Amazon. Renewable resources are renewable if used sustainably- wood is not very renewable if we clearcut every forest on earth to produce it- which is rather close to the current situation. Consider that the clean air most of us breath, clean water we drink, would be a lot dirtier if not for some of those who I hear being called crazies, wackos and obstructionists- they were called that then, too. This request- if you want to talk about crazy environmentalists- at least cite some actual people/ organizations- I certainly don't agree with all of them, all of the time- instead of simply being a "theysayer."

[mm]

No, not really. In fact I got so far into the environment thing, I forgot to read the answers to my original question, until now.

[WConner]

"and I tend to find the consensus of scientific opinion on global warming"

While irresponsible conduct by man may contribute slightly to global warming, a few million years ago, long before man started doing all these supposedly irresponsible things or was even here, there was a glacier 50 miles from where I live in East/Central Illinois. What happened to it? Global Warming. There is also constantly being found evidence of animal and plant species that vanished long before man started burning gasoline, coal, cutting trees, etc.

There have been commercials on TV lately by a Minister no less, saying we can stop global warming. Phooey, it will take a force far greater than mere man to do that, not to say we shouldn't do what we reasonably can to keep from accelerating it.

Walt Conner

[trader4]

People claim that the environmental kooks are a problem becauce they are totally unreasonable and opposed to almost everything. No offshore drilling, no nukes, no drilling in ANWAR, no storage sites for nuke waste, no builiding of dams. A classic case of the hypocracy is Robert Kennedy Jr. Big environmentalist telling us all how we should be changing our lives to help the environment, conserve resources and how we should be adopting all these great clean renewable energy sources.

But, he sees nothing wrong in personally owning several large SUVs, more than one home and riding in private jets. Currently three is a proposal to build a wind farm off Cape Cod. Who are two of the chief opponents? Kennedy and fellow liberal Walter Cronkite. They know what's good for all of us, they just won't have any part of it for themselves.

You can say what you want about right wing Republicans being in the back pockets of special interest groups, but in general, they are not opposed to everything and do want to move ahead on finding more energy, which we ultimately need. All the whacko environmentalists want to do is obstruct everything, including windmills, while many of them like Kennedy, consume resources with abandon.

[Michael Daly]

Well, did it ever occur to you that there's a difference between an environmental kook and an environmentalist? I didn't think so...

He's in politics. Enough said. I was talking about environmentalists.

Then why did it take so many years for Bush to even mention alternative energy?

Get your head out of your republican butt and look at the real world.

Mike

[Goedjn]

Actually, for a mere couple of trillion dollars, we COULD stop global warming. You just have to launch a giant mylar sunshade into high-earth-orbit. SOmething like 2,000 miles square. Ok, maybe closer to a few dozen trillion. Call it 50. That's only around $7,000 per human.

[Goedjn]

Because all of the alternative energy sources except arguably nuclear are a bad economic bargin until petrol hits $4.50 a gallon.

We use dead dinosaurs (ok, algea) to run our cars because they're REALLY, REALLY cheap, compared to all the alternatives.

It's true that it's not as cheap as it used to be. This shouldn't be a surprise to you. You will never move a 3,000# chunk of metal with you inside it around the country for less than $0.10 a mile again. Get used to it.

[trader4]

That's why I used the term environmental kook. Sure there are some environmentalists that have some balance, but they are rarely heard from. Instead the ones we hear from and that have control of the movement are largely the kooks that show up opposed to everything except conservation.

In politics? He holds no elected office that I am aware of, but he sure is deep into environmental organizations and causes. But it's ok for him to own multiple vehicles, SUV's, fly in corporate jets and oppose windmills when they turn out to be in his families area of interest.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Biography The way Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has assumed command of the Water Keeper Alliance, you'd almost think he started the environmental movement on his own. But he actually stumbled into it as a result of a 1984 criminal conviction for heroin possession. A judge sentenced him to 800 hours of community service, which he satisfied with volunteer work for the Hudson River Foundation. After his 800 hours were used up, the organization (now operating as the Hudson Riverkeepers) hired Kennedy as its "chief prosecuting attorney." In the years since his drug conviction, Kennedy has also gone to work for the Natural Resources Defense Council and assumed a professorship in the law school at Pace University. Kennedy also started Pace's environmental law clinic specifically to sue governments and businesses on behalf of Riverkeeper.

Robert Kennedy approaches environmental law with a brash, take-no-prisoners approach that tends to alienate many who might otherwise be his allies. After working with him on a $10 million New York City watershed agreement, Putnam County (NY) legal counsel George Rodenhausen told reporters that "he separates himself from good science at times in order to aggressively pursue an issue and win."

In July 2003, a major U.S. pork producer obtained an indictment against Kennedy in Poland for committing slander during an inflammatory rant against the company's Polish subsidiary. The indictment charges that Kennedy spouted "untrue information" and "consciously manipulated the facts" with the intent to "discredit the company."

Kennedy's harshest public thrashing to date, however, came from one of his closest colleagues, Riverkeeper founder Robert Boyle. Along with seven other Riverkeeper board members, Boyle resigned in 2000 after Kennedy insisted upon hiring a convicted environmental felon as the group's chief scientist. At the time, Boyle told the New York Post that Kennedy "is very reckless," and added that "[h]e's assumed an arrogance above his intellectual stature."

Reflecting on the episode later, Boyle gave the New York Times an apt summary of Kennedy's attitude regarding his environmental crusades: "I thought he was thinking of himself and not the cause of the river," Boyle said. "It all became his own greater glory."

Maybe because he thinks the free market is better at figuring out solutions than another government boondoggle. I'm still waiting for the first gallon of oil from the billions that Jimmy Carter took from the oil companies to produce oil from shale. Actually it was taken from consumers, because taxes just get passed on like any other cost.

[Michael Daly]

And those alternatives have been dropping in price for decades as the technology is improved, developed and volume of sales increases. The only reason that cars are so cheap is that they've spent over a century getting the price down and the volume up.

Putting subsidies in place that support big oil in preference to alternatives (the prior Bush plan) works against the free market that allows alternatives to flourish. Most Americans probably never heard of biodiesel until Bush talked about it.

Ethanol - I read this morning in the latest edition of The Economist that the US has a $0.54/liter surcharge on imported Brazilian ethanol and a $0.51/liter tax break on domestic ethanol. Them republicans shore luv th' free markit - and getting the taxpayer to pay for it.

High-powered car at high speed? - yes.

Sailboat? No.

Don't give up so easily :-)

Mike

[WConner]

"Get your head out of your republican butt and look at the real world."

While there are things that Pres. Bush has been deeply disappointing in, the alternatives are worse. I mean a "5" as Pres. is better than a "0".

Walt Conner

[mrsgator88]

Walt, that's a terrible thing to say about John McCain!

S

[HarryS]

Do you realize where much of that waste coal ash winds up? It's in most of the concrete that you buy today. A high percentage of concrete mix plants (ready mix plants) substitute coal ash (fly ash) for the cement in the mix. The amount of substitution varies anywhere from 15% to 25%, depending on where you are located in the U.S. This replacement of cement in concrete was pushed by the EPA and, for many industries, this substitution was required years ago. So, your highways, basement walls, sidewalks, driveways, etc. contain fly ash. The fly ash doesn't always provide any benefit to the concrete, but if the industries that were mandated to use it couldn't show that it specifically harmed the concrete in some way, they are required to use it.

It's also allowed for use as a soil amendment used to change the compaction characteristics of soil used for fill.

Harry

[HarryS]

There are a couple of valid reasons for both the surcharge and the tax break/subsidy for fuel ethanol. The primary reasons for the subsidy are to encourage ethanol production in the U.S. The production of fuel ethanol in the U.S. is an emerging technology and the subsidy offers an incentive to folks to invest in fuel ethanol plants and to continue to explore the various methods of producing fuel ethanol. Left to its own devices, this industry would likely be very slow to develop. For this reason alone, the subsidy makes some sense. If the cost of crude stays where it is today, I suspect that the ethanol subsidy will be eliminated or scaled back or perhaps even indexed to the price of crude.

There's a huge local benefit when something like a fuel ethanol plant is built. Besides the jobs the plant creates, there are numerous economic benefits to add to the salary base that can have a large impact on the local economy. A fuel ethanol plant is no different in this respect than any large business that locates in an area.

Our government is also using the fuel ethanol subsidy to see if they can't fashion a replacement for the grain price supports they've been using for years to encourage farmers to stay in the business. As the use of corn for manufacturing fuel ethanol pushes the price of corn up, less price support is necessary. In that sense, it's not a new subsidy but a replacement subsidy that, in effect, derives more return in the form of an incentive for an emerging industry than a simple price support.

The surcharge on imported ethanol also makes sense if we're trying to encourage expansion of the domestic fuel ethanol industry. For one thing, it makes little sense to import fuel ethanol from Brazil, or any other country, just to switch our hostage position in the energy industry from one fuel type to another.

Harry

[hallerb]

You CANT increase production of oil indefinely, it has a finite amount in the earth, and will only cost more in the future.

Its best to move top something produced entirely in the US even if its not a ideal fuel. At least this way we are in charge of our own destiny.

Make ethanol gasoline tax free for 10 years to encourage conversion, let the arabs drown in their own oil.

[Bob]

You've got to be kidding. Even long term republicans that I know think he is the worst president the US has ever had.

Bob

[Jim Yanik]

"Bob" wrote in news:H8udnTrgz7UnB [e-mail]:

No wonder,the way the Mainstream Media reports.(biased reporting) Most poeple only hear one distorted side.