Discuss: The Big Green Lie

Dr. Singmaster, can we have a discussion with no put-downs?  I acknowledge that my contribution was more a comment on another’s comment than it was a comment on the article, which is mostly about the difficulties of reducing GHG emissions, but I am concerned that you state “Blaming the companies and talking about green lies go nowhere.  Start writing or e-mailing your Congresspersons about what I have outlined as a process to reduce the actual amount of carbon dioxide circulating on the globe.” First, I’ve seen that contacting Congresspersons can go nowhere, and I suspect I’m not alone in that.  Even replacing Congresspersons often fails to produce desired results!  Not only that, that body has no authority beyond the borders of the USA.  Second, I’m concerned about the picture that includes global warming, so my yearning and striving is for comprehensiveness.  I’m not inclined to have the demanded enthusiasm for your specific proposal, despite the fact that I know the process would have desirable effects.  Third, I can’t believe many people are hoping for a future that can be characterized as an endless series of technical fixes and sacrifices.  Cultural transformation via grassroots paradigm shift is much more attractive, energizing(!) and feasible.  That success or failure plus peak everything will probably be the story we live.

Mr. Eggleton: With the TIME issue, April 7, a big part of the Big Green Lie has now been exposed.  So now you and other readers, I hope, will start e-mailing your Congresspersons and writing more letters to various environmental groups and the media screaming about the myth of clean energy from ethanol and biodiesel.  We can get clean energy from windmills that actually recycle some of the energy our fossil fuelishness created, but most environmental groups keep harping that all we need to do cut emissions.  That is another big green lie as that concept does nothing to reduce the 35% and growing overload of carbon dioxide on the globe already. 
In order to beat global warming, we have to develop a process for cutting into the carbon cycling process to reduce that overload slowly.  That is what the pyrolysis process for organic wastes can do as those wastes, especially if composted, just decompose to reemit carbon dioxide that nature had so kindly trapped for us.  In order to get moving on the pyrolysis process across the nation, anyone sending letters to media or officials will, I hope, mention the pyrolysis process for organic wastes with its many benefits, that I have outlined, of destroying germs, most toxics, and drugs.
This pyrolysis process is a permanent fix as organic wastes will never stop.
Dr. J. Singmaster, Fremont, CA

I wonder if the dramatic changes to our Mother the Blue Planet has tipped her into a new set of parametrs which is unsuitable to the continued dominance of Man 1. This would mean trying to speed up the arrival of the man-machine “singularity” and/or a chosen few heading out for new worlds.
I have no doubt that the irreversible “entropy” of the Planet is increasing but at what rate, linear or exponential. The box is getting awfully tight.

Mr. Eggleton, Mr. Lawrence and others:  You may want to check dotearth, A. Revkin’s blog on the NT Times Science section as he has had several write-ups on the non-realistic action in IPCC report as claimed by Pielke et al. and on Gore’s ad campaign April 1, I have a comment 35 in the Gore write-up, and several in the following write-ups again pointing out as I have in Orion that we will not get control of global warming until we have some means of cutting back that 35% and growing overload of carbon dioxide on the globe.  Concerning entropy, all is not lost as windmills tap into the excess of energy caused by fossil fuel burning and plants trap carbon dioxide that can be converted back to charcoal as I have outlined.  But the bioethanol concept got torpedoed by Time"s April 7 issue; however, growing tree crops to be pyrolyzed can get some fuel while getting some carbon removed from recycling. The pyrolysis process applied to organic wastes can greatly reduce cost of maintaining new dumps in developed countries while in underdeveloped countries can greatly reduce costly water pollution and its associated health problems.  Money to get work on this started by the federal government could come from stopping the wasteful subsidies for oil and bioethanol.
I urge Orion readers to call for stopping those subsidies to help cool global warming for the survival of their descendants.  Dr. J. Singmaster

Good motivation for the article and most comments, but this conversation misses the ‘elephant in the room’, which is the enormously wasteful heat and power system.  Electricity production accounts for 42% of U.S. CO2 emissions, but wastes two-thirds of the input fuel, and has not improved since Eisenhower was president.  $350 billion invested in local power generation that recycles wasted energy would save $50 to $70 billion per year and cut GHG emissions by 20%.

But present rules do not give clean energy much of a chance.  State laws contain many barriers and provide guaranteed returns for old and new central generation that cannot recycle wasted energy.  Clean energy plants that achieve 60% to 95% overall efficiency seldom capture more than half of the value they create, so are seldom built.

The Clean Air Act, passed before global warming was a political issue, grandfathers the operating permit for most existing heat or power generation plants - which collectively emit 69% of U.S. CO2 - but then voids that permit if the owner improves the energy productivity of the plant.  This Alice in Wonderland approach has had the unintended consequence of freezing efficiency at 1960 levels.

By focusing only on the end-game, which eliminates all fossil fuel, we miss the profitable ways to double fossil efficiency.  This is ffaulty logic.  A ton of CO2 avoided by doubling fossil efficiency is just as important as a ton avoided by new solar or wind generation.  But a dollar invested in generation efficiency may save five times as much carbon emissions as the same dollar invested in new solar. 

We must embrace all clean energy and remove the barriers to deployment.

If the Aspen Skiing Company is worried about the environment, it could do more good by going out of business.

I live in Colorado.  I hit the slopes this winter for the first time in over 15 years for a quasi-mandatory company R&R;trip.  My strong impression was that skiing has become (always has been?) a pastime for upper middle class and rich white people who have much bigger “footprints” than ordinary Americans.

They drive to the slopes in their gigantic cars, wear expensive space age clothing made from petroleum, and use ski equipment also made from petroleum.  After a hard day on the slopes, many retire to their second home.

The Aspen Skiing Company caters to the most voracious consumers among us.  The problem is the lifestyle that this company exists to serve.