Green: The New Black
by Ted Slater on 04/29/2008 at 11:12 AM
I'm a conservationist. I care about the environment, care about minimizing waste, care about clean water and air, and care about my neighbor's clean water and air.
I'm also thoughtful about how I conserve.
Which is why I haven't bought into the so-called "green" movement. Some in the green movement are good-willed, though uninformed. Others are manipulating these naive lemmings in order to pad their wallets. I'm in neither category, for a variety of reasons.
Let's take the recent ethanol craze, for example. In an effort to save the environment and reduce fossil fuel use, the U.S. government is subsidizing its production between $1.05 and $1.38 a gallon. As a result, corn production for ethanol has increased, while corn production for food use has decreased. Corn prices have consequently increased, to the dismay of those who actually eat the stuff.
Here's another thing: It takes more energy to create ethanol than it provides us. Yeah, you read that right. What some see as a "green solution to fossil fuels" is actually anti-green.
Consider the facts: The creation of one gallon of ethanol requires 1.29 gallons of fossil fuel (for plowing, planting, harvesting, transporting, processing), 1,700 gallons of water and plenty of chemical fertilizers and insecticides. It takes 450 pounds of corn -- enough to feed a person for a year -- to produce enough ethanol to fill up your SUV or minivan. And on top of that, ethanol fuel is 20 to 30 percent less efficient than gasoline, which compounds the wasted energy used in creating it.
So I question how ethanol can be considered a green alternative to fossil fuels. It is less efficient, requires more energy than it provides, is eco-unfriendly to produce, and has caused food crises in third world countries.
Maybe the solution is for our government to get out of the anti-free enterprise, market-manipulating, pro-subsidy business. And for more of us to take a closer look at what is being pushed on us as "green." It may, in fact, be merely a grungy shade of black.
1. PLH said the following at 11:56 AM on Apr 29:
I definitely agree that the government subsidies for ethanol production are a terrible idea. I don't think the green movement, however, proposed them as a long term solution to America's energy needs. I admit I could be wrong but I remember the farmer's lobby being the driving force behind this policy....
2. farmer Tom said the following at 11:59 AM on Apr 29:
Ted, Sorry, but your numbers are incomplete.
After that corn has be fermented and the alcohol has been processed off, there are Dried Distillers Grains remaining. For each bushel of corn processed into ethanol, 18 lbs of DDGs is left.
http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/co_products/definition_production.htm
We feed those DDGs to our cattle. So we sell the corn to make ethanol, buy back the cheaper DDGs, and produce Premium grade USDA certified Angus beef at lower cost.
It's win, win. Less cost of production for the farmer to raise quality beef, and he already made money selling the corn for ethanol.
I don't have time now, but I would argue your production cost per bushel of corn also.
Needless to say, I agree with you about the green movement, just pick an example where you numbers match reality.
Besides would you rather eat beef or corn?
3. Ted Slater said the following at 12:03 PM on Apr 29:
Beef. Hm, or maybe chicken wings.... ;-)
4. Josh M said the following at 12:06 PM on Apr 29:
Thankfully there are scientists who recognize this discrepancy and are working to provide alternative sources of bio-fuel.
5. obewan said the following at 12:28 PM on Apr 29:
Ted:
I have to agree on this one. One thing you forgot to mention is that not only does the government subsidize the production of the ethanol; they also subsidize the production of the corn. I saw a huge special on PBS, and they made the case that corn is still farmed at a loss were it not for the government subsidy paid to corn farmers. I take issue with that (and with Framer Tom’s comments) because I would rather eat LEAN grass fed beef than the high fat deadly artery clogging corn fed beef. Also, I resent having my tax dollars subsidize other peoples $0.99 McDonalds double cheeseburgers. It is akin to the so-called welfare state or public health insurance, except we are having the government subsidize the killing via obesity of the American Public. It does not matter if we feed the corn residue from ethanol to beef cattle; the ratio of input to output is something like 17:1. (Maybe I have it wrong, but it is still a pretty inefficient number) I vote with the Mexicans for beans and chicken. (Sorry Farmer Tom).
6. Carrie (the original) said the following at 12:32 PM on Apr 29:
You know, as compelling as all of this Ted, I can't help but think of where I chose to buy gas. Whenever I buy gas, and with these soaring prices especially, I look for the lowest price possible. I have tried shrinking back from buying ethanol, but when it comes to paying $3.40 or $3.50/gallon, I'm going to choose $3.40.
I can't afford to have principals right now.
7. Michele said the following at 12:38 PM on Apr 29:
Maybe the solution is for our government to get out of the anti-free enterprise, market-manipulating, pro-subsidy business.
Oh, Ted! You just made my year with that statement.
Yes yes and yes.
8. composer girl said the following at 12:53 PM on Apr 29:
Does anyone remember "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids" and the inventor with the crazy-looking solar panels on his van? Wouldn't it be cool if we could figure out a more effective way to collect, store, and use solar power? I don't know exactly how solar panels work, but sunlight would definitely be an unlimited, environmentally-friendly resource in most areas of the U.S. (Except perhaps Alaska in winter).
9. Dani said the following at 1:53 PM on Apr 29:
Living in Indiana, we're all for more use of corn. But, as much as I'd like to support ethanol and my state's economy, there's another problem with government subsidies, etc.
As it becomes more profitable to grow corn, more and more farmers are switching from their main crop to corn. So, not only is it getting more expensive to buy corn, prices of other crops are rising as there are fewer farmers growing them.
I would love to be pro-ethanol (yay for helping the environment!), but the evidence is just against it.
10. Kristen said the following at 2:09 PM on Apr 29:
I agree, Ted. The scariest thing to me is how much water ethanol production uses and how it's driving up corn prices. Definitely not green. You'd think, with all our technology, we'd have figured out a better alternative by now.
11. veritasmedia said the following at 2:31 PM on Apr 29:
The short term solution is to start drilling in ANWAR. Then we need to come up with a cost-effective alternative to fossil-fuels. I'd take an electric car for in town if they didn't cost more than a gas car. But they don't. All those self-righteous Prius owners spent way more money than I have on a car that's half the size of mine. Any alternative needs to be practical.
12. Katie B said the following at 2:44 PM on Apr 29:
One of the things that has bothered me most about the green movement is that it is just the new and trendy way to be materialistic, everything ahs to be natural, recycled, recyclable, ect, but we dont actually want to conserve ourselves. We dont want to recycle, to reuse, to buy secondhand, or use less fuel or anything else, we just want to feel better about our consumerism. Its kind of like moral masturbation: it makes us feel better but doesnt actually accomplish anything productive. Heaven forbid that we should actually drive and consume less!
13. A thoughtful interloper said the following at 3:07 PM on Apr 29:
Ethanol has driven up the price of corn so much that farmers are planting less of other things (wheat, soybeans, hay) to plant more corn and thus prices for every other crop has gone way up. Even ethanol by-products have gone through the roof in price as a feed! It is sad that we must choose between feeding the world and fueling our cars. Ethanol is not a logical or sustainable replacement for petroleum fuels. I don't have an easy solution but, using cropland to produce fuel (whether corn or prairie grass or any other ethanol precursor) doesn't make sense when people are starving in other countries!
14. mark said the following at 3:14 PM on Apr 29:
To carrie #6,by saving ten cents a gallon by purchasing fuel that is 20 to 30 percent less effecient, you arent doing your wallet as big a favor as you think. My tahoe uses e85, i thought the price break was great till i actually did the math and realized that any savings at the pump was negated by the decreased fuel mileage
15. Andrew said the following at 3:16 PM on Apr 29:
The reason that ethanol (or just about any commodity or industry) is subsidized is that it is economically inefficient and cannot survive on its own in the free market. I think the government should stop trying to micromanage the economy.
16. kaj said the following at 3:50 PM on Apr 29:
I love sweet corn in the summer (part of the original diet God gave to man) and so I'm disappointed to see the price of corn go up for these reasons.
It seems there is two sides to every "green" alternative. Paper or plastic bags at the supermarket: destroy forests for the paper, or use up fossil fuels to make the plastic? Cloth diapers vs. disposable: Pollute water by washing cloth, or use up landfill space with the disposables?
Even some "natural" methods of pest control can backfire: ask any Australian in Queensland about cane toads. They were touted as a "green" way to curb sugarcane-eating insects, but instead the toads became a toxic pest which threatens native wildlife.
As for lobbyists and media hype...those are for different soapboxes for another time.
I am all for stewardship of the planet God made for us. But I see that even humans get crazy ideas of how to fix such problems that won't go away easily or quickly.
17. Jethro said the following at 4:30 PM on Apr 29:
Ted,
If it's time to get out of the "anti-free enterprise, market-manipulating, pro-subsidy business" does this apply to all government-business subsidies?
Leaving corn/ethanol aside for the moment, the government subsidizes farmers in general in a way that can really only be considered a form of agrarian socialism. Of course, these same farmers are generally republican voters, so we tend to hear more about unemployed welfare cheats than we do about paying billions each year to wealthy land owners....
18. JB said the following at 4:44 PM on Apr 29:
Ted,
You're probably right about ethanol, but you're blaming the wrong people. Ethanol is being pushed by farm-industry lobbyists. For example, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which mandated increased amounts of ethanol in gasoline, was opposed by 26 senators, none of whom came from big corn states and 20 of whom were Democrats. You'll note that in the second article you link, the blame is squarely placed on the farm industry and politicians from agricultural states. There's not an environmentalist to be found.
Where did you get the idea this was a "green" initiative?
19. farmer Tom said the following at 6:39 PM on Apr 29:
I've been very,very busy, haven't had time to comment much lately.
First, I'm not defending ethanol as the answer to all of our energy questions. I do believe it has become a scape goat, for the oil industry to help point the finger at someone else, taking some of the burden off of themselves.
Let's start with the basics. I believe in a-biotic oil, or that oil is not a fossil fuel. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization
Now, if oil is a naturally occurring substance created within the earth as a result of chemical processes within the earth, any claims that using that oil as a source of energy is harmful to the enviroment should be treated with contempt. Since the Creator of the Universe created this process, it can not be evil, harmful or wicked, anymore than digging coal out of the ground, drinking water from a stream or wearing a gold plated watch is "evil". God created everything on the earth for our good. To equate using oil with evil is to assume that you know more than the Creator God. If He had not intended for us to discover and use oil He would not have created it.
Now remember that I don't believe oil is a fossil fuel, but using the numbers in this article,
http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/transportation/gasoline.html
the rate of return on making a gallon of oil into a gallon of gas is only .67 percent. Which means that thermal depolymerization is
actually more efficient than pumping oil out of the ground and making gasoline. Even ethanol production uses less energy to produce a gallon of fuel than the amout of oil wasted to produce a gallon of gasoline. Futhermore we are fighting a war at a cost of trillions of dollars in borrowed money to protect our sources of oil.
Ted complains about the subsidy for ethanol while ignoring the, huge, huge unbelievably huge amounts of money we are spending plus the lives lost to subsidize the oil industry.
Add to this the fact that the subsidy ethanol gets is in the form of a tax break, in other words the government simply collects less money from the ethanol distributors than from oil distrubutors, simply an incentive to use something other than subsidized oil, and it seems that ethanol is not nearly as subsidized as the oil industry.
Yet we in the stupid US, refuse to expand the supply of domestic oil, and oil refineries in our own country, because we think we know more than God, about how oil use will affect the enviroment.
We should be building new refineries, (that's what ethanol plants are), drilling for oil off our south and west coasts, drilling in ANWAR, drilling in North Dakota, digging up and processing oil shale in the west, and using any other source of available oil in our hemisphere.
As to the huge water usage figures for ethanol, some of you need to visit Iowa. The reason we grow so much corn here is because we are a state at a correct distance from the ocean and the mountain ranges which means that we receive huge amounts of rainfall. The area of Iowa I live in receives in excess of 41 inches of rainfall per year.
Using numbers from the following sources,
http://wa.water.usgs.gov/outreach/rain.htm
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa
Iowa covers 56,272 square miles times 640 acres in a square mile or 36,014,080 total acres then multiply by 41 inches of rainfall per year, or 1,113,833.3 acre feet of rainfall
Iowa receives 1,113,833.3 acre feet of water times 36,014,080 acres of land, or approximately 40 trillion gallons of water in rainfall per year.
Since today our fields are all soaking wet, so we can't get in them to plant the corn crop, cry me a river of tears over the amount of water ethanol production uses. See some of us are smart enough not to live in a stinking dessert where you have to pump your water in from an outside source. Really people get a life, if the worst thing you can find to say about ethanol is that it uses a lot of water, you really need to find something new to talk about.
Ted, since the real problem causing the high oil and food prices is the federal governments theft of the value of the dollar, and God has clear and very real rules for the value of money, maybe you should spend some time considering the theft of the value of our money and its effect on the price of commodities. See this chart,
http://bp1.blogger.com/_ECzi8VvW_Ac/SAgWWUPixDI/AAAAAAAAAIY/t1PKNCa_8v0/s400/feb252008_1.gif
the cost of everything is very high because our government is stealing the value of our money.
Enough for now.
20. farmer Tom said the following at 6:58 PM on Apr 29:
Obewan,
I take issue with that (and with Framer Tom’s comments) because I would rather eat LEAN grass fed beef than the high fat deadly artery clogging corn fed beef.
I don't have time tonight to refute what you said, needless to say, I think it is a hoax on the same level as global warming (or is it cooling today), and big foot.
Just for the record though, when someone in the Bible was preparing a feast of the very best, what did they kill? The fatted calf, and futhermore, muzzle not the ox that treadeth the grain is a Biblical principle as well. Grain fed beef is one of the finest sources of pure protein on the planet, fat is not evil, my brain and your brain ie the human brain, need fat to function.
Someday when I have time I'll tear down the very notion that "lean" grass fed beef it superior to corn fed Iowa raised Certified Angus Beef.
Until then understand you have been fed a line of bovine effluvia, and it tastes like lean beef.
See previous comments on my lovely wife and I's trip to Ruth's Chris Steak House for our anniversary. They don't serve grass fed beef there, cause it tastes like **** and it is almost impossible to cook correctly. since it has no fat to flavor it nor to maintain it's tender juicy texture. Put enough steak sauce on cardboard and it would be possible to swallow it, and it would be high in fiber.
21. DannieA said the following at 8:09 PM on Apr 29:
ah well Kaj #16
soon we won't have plastic or paper at the supermarkets and will have to rely on our own bags so there goes your theory.
22. Bob said the following at 8:54 PM on Apr 29:
Ted, I think that you and many of the commenters here have hit on the real issue - we can't expect improvements without putting forth effort ourselves.
Regarding vehicles, one way we can do this is by purchasing vehicles that suit our needs without being wasteful.
Look at Europe - most people there drive vehicles that are smaller and far more fuel efficient than the cars most of us drive here. Sure, it's nice to drive that big truck or SUV, but many people who own these vehicles don't actually need them. For many tasks, a small car capable of 40+ mpg can do the job just as well as a 20 mpg SUV.
I will mention that few of these 40/50+ mpg cars are available in the US right now. This clearly is a result of people being unwilling to buy one. Hopefully these cars will be sold here as the fuel prices continue to rise.
Finally, I would like to clarify that I'm not anti-SUV or anything like that. I'm just in favor of purchasing the vehicle that suits your needs without being wasteful.
23. Edith said the following at 9:54 PM on Apr 29:
Amen to Katie B (#12)!
24. Andrew R said the following at 10:16 PM on Apr 29:
I do agree with you, Ted. Ethanol is extremely counter-productive to helping the environment. What we need are vehicles that get better mileage on regular fuel, and can run on electricity. Trying to end our reliance on one rapidly-decreasing resource by moving to another rapidly-decreasing resource is not going to work.
I do enjoy the irony about this whole situation, though.
25. a concerned friend of cows said the following at 11:07 PM on Apr 29:
Re: #2. This is slightly off-topic and I really don't know much about cows other than that I like the black and white ones but I recently read "The Omnivore's Dilemma" where the author suggests cows are not designed to eat corn and so one doesn't actually get "quality" beef from a corn fed cow. Does anyone, possibly farmer tom, know if this is actually true? Or is it that "DDGs" are more digestible for cows? He also suggests cows are more prone to diseases when fed corn. This is between pages 75-82 if you have a copy of the book.
26. Amelia said the following at 11:39 PM on Apr 29:
Cane toads are evil, nasty, ugly little animals that won't die even when kicked into a brick wall.
27. Bethany said the following at 12:58 AM on Apr 30:
Thanks for yet again being politically incorrect, Ted. :) It's refreshing to hear!
28. Chris said the following at 3:48 AM on Apr 30:
farmer Tom - Cheaper to produce beef but what do the greenies tell us is wrong with beef...
The nitrogen emitted from eating all that corn...
Corn is cheaper to produce than cattle for many third world / developing nations and they're the ones that also bear considering in all this save the planet rhetoric.
29. Leah said the following at 4:35 AM on Apr 30:
A few additions to the ethanol debate:
Ethanol is a common by-product of sugar production, which i daresay minimises the amount of energy that goes into creating ethanol fuel.
However, it is not good for most cars' engines. Some new cars are being made with ethanol-friendly engines, but many, and most existing ones, have engines which will slowly be destroyed by ethanol.
kaj- cloth VS disposable nappies? Cloth! You're not exactly washing unnatural substances down the drain :P Paper VS plastic bags? CLOTH BAGS! Don't tell me US shops haven't picked up the green-friendly bag craze.
And as for cane toads being a "green" answer to cane beetles? Haha. The whole "green" concept didn't exist when the toads were introduced.
30. niki said the following at 6:32 AM on Apr 30:
Quote: "Which is why I haven't bought into the so-called "green" movement. Some in the green movement are good-willed, though uninformed. Others are manipulating these naive lemmings in order to pad their wallets. I'm in neither category, for a variety of reasons."
I'm curious about the other reasons you have!
31. Martha said the following at 7:48 AM on Apr 30:
Not to mention that our crazed drive for ethanol has caused a drastic increase on the price of corn in countries such as Mexico, so that people are paying as much (or more) for their tortillas as they are for their rent. America needs to become more creative and more compassionate.
32. obewan said the following at 8:11 AM on Apr 30:
17. Farmer Tom had the following to say on Apr 29 at 6:39 PM:
“I believe in a-biotic oil, or that oil is not a fossil fuel….
Even ethanol production uses less energy to produce a gallon of fuel than the amount of oil wasted to produce a gallon of gasoline….
Really people get a life, if the worst thing you can find to say about ethanol is that it uses a lot of water, you really need to find something new to talk about.”
If you believe abiotic oil is a self-replenishing resource then I have some swampland in FL to sell you. From what I have read, there have only been a couple of so-called “abiotic” oil “deposits” in the entire world, and they were subject to huge debate as to the real nature of their origin. Several experts in geophysics claim that the so-called “abiotic” oil deposits are actually just the result of oil that has “migrated” under high pressure through cracks in the earth from a deeper deposit. Most of the earths major oil deposits that have been depleted have NOT been replenished. When they are gone, they are gone forever, unless they are connected to another deposit that will allow partial refilling by oil that has migrated under pressure.
www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011205_no_free_pt2.shtml
www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/11/4/15537/8056
www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1195910
I would really like to see your figures that claim that ethanol takes less energy. It takes a lot of diesel to grow the corn, and it also takes a lot of coal or natural gas to process the corn into Ethanol at the refinery. I will defer to the expert chemical engineers who claim that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than it yields. Don’t forget, it also takes 1.5 gallons of ethanol to equal a gallon of gas. According to some, it takes 70% more energy to produce ethanol than it gives back.
unisci.com/stories/20013/0813012.htm
As for water waste, people are usually talking about water used to process the ethanol not grow it. There is a very high output of toxic “sludge” at the refinery and my understanding is the water gets ruined.
www.energyjustice.net/ethanol/water/
I continue to be ashamed that America is now contributing to the starvation of millions by producing wasteful ethanol to backfill shortages caused in large part by our obsession with SUV ownership. I am partly to blame because 10 years ago, I worked as an engineer in the auto industry who participated in the launch of several new SUV’s that went on to sell hundreds of thousands of units. It made me very sick at the time and I even had anxiety problems and sleep loss at night. I have seen this coming for a very long time now, but fortunately, the Lord allowed me to change jobs and work for a very “green” company that is concerned about providing solutions to the global warming, energy, pollution, and water shortage crisis.
33. Chris said the following at 10:01 AM on Apr 30:
farmer Tom writes:
Now remember that I don't believe oil is a fossil fuel, but using the numbers in this article,
http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/transportation/gasoline.html
the rate of return on making a gallon of oil into a gallon of gas is only .67 percent.
Where are you getting this .67 percent from? On a volumetric basis, you get back 67% in gasoline for every unit volume of oil.
Keep in mind, gasoline is only part of what you get from cracking and distillation. You also get fuel oil, natural gas, naptha, lubricants, etc.
Yet we in the stupid US, refuse to expand the supply of domestic oil, and oil refineries in our own country, because we think we know more than God, about how oil use will affect the enviroment.
Please point out in the Bible where God reveals his knowledge about the effects of oil use.
You're begging the question (in the true sense of the logic behind the phrase). You assume that because God made oil, we can do whatever we want because it must be good in God's eyes. I do not agree to this assumption. We must look at the total impact of what we do.
While people can certainly make the arguments that we should expand domestic oil production (and we can argue over the pros/cons including the economic and environmental impacts), putting forth a "well it's good because God made it" is rather simplistic. I can use the same argument to say that we should be cutting down every tree in the world and use that for fuel because, well, God made trees, and they burn, so God obviously had it in mind for us to burn all the trees.
34. Laura Grace said the following at 10:24 AM on Apr 30:
The one comment I have to challenge is cloth vs. disposable diapers.
Most disposables, including all the major brands, contain chemicals like dioxins, which cause diaper rash and can cause allergic reactions and other issues. The absorbent material is fatal if ingested, even in small amounts -- it's also linked to Toxic Shock Syndrome. The average child wears 5000-7000 diapers in total, costing up to $2000. 200,000 trees are felled each year to provide paper products for American babies' disposables. 2 billion tons of diapers go into landfills every year.
Cloth diapers contain no chemicals. They cost between $200-$400 for the entire diapered life of the child. They take up only 1-2 extra loads of laundry per week. Newer washing machines are often two to three times more energy efficient than older models, and use far less water. Many parents also skip the dryer and hang cloth diapers in the sun, which kills germs and whitens.
Now... you decide which one is more environmentally friendly.
35. farmer Tom said the following at 11:41 AM on Apr 30:
17. Jethro said,
rarely do I agree with Jethro on anything, but let me say with as much enthusiasm as I can muster,
AMEN, and AMEN
part of the reason the corn price seems so high now, is that for the last thirty years the government has had an intention policy of keeping food cost very low by subsidizing
farmers to produce their crops at a price below the actual cost of production,
now when demand is built into the market for cheap grain (ethanol) people are whining about the high cost of food and failing to understand that these prices are the result of policies of a government, ie destroying the value of the dollar, so government caused the original problem and now they are causing the current problem
Get the government out of our lives, period.
36. obewan said the following at 1:17 PM on Apr 30:
Farmer Tom at 20 writes:
“…fat is not evil, my brain and your brain ie the human brain, need fat to function.”
Concerned friend of Cows at 25 writes”
“….he also suggests cows are more prone to diseases when fed corn.”
Farmer Tom: I was not talking about steak; I was talking about hamburger which has a high fat content even when “lean” mixes are purchased. I have never eaten a tough hamburger, but I for sure notice all the grease that comes out when I buy the other than 98% lean variety. One report I read claimed that 15 teaspoons of grease were contained in every Whopper.
I suppose if I want to complain about government-subsidized obesity, I should ping on all the soda pop drinkers. I agree, steak is real food, and healthy when eaten in moderation. Pop is not food, and the excessive use of corn syrup is killing our obese nation.
As for cows and corn, the big special on PBS claimed they were designed to eat grass rather than corn. When they are fed a steady diet of corn in “feed lots” they eventually will develop some kind of stomach disease where a hole gets eaten in the stomach. Supposedly, the ones in the Colorado feed lots are slaughtered just months before they would die anyway from the corn feeding disease.
Maybe if the whole nation stops drinking soda pop (or cuts back), we would have enough corn to feed the cows, feed the nations, and still fuel our cars. I know I prefer water to pop now.
37. Louise said the following at 1:23 PM on Apr 30:
Re comment 34, I used to live in a housing development that forbids hanging one's wash outside.
And personally...I really wouldn't want to have to look at the neighbor's shorts and his kid's diapers!
38. Christina (in green) said the following at 3:01 PM on Apr 30:
I vote we get rid of the car and go back to horses.
Then Oats, Barlay, and Corn can be used in the natural elements as fuel for transportation =p
39. ptschett said the following at 5:53 PM on Apr 30:
Re energy efficiency of ethanol: it looks like it depends http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html>who you ask. And the process is http://campaign-archive.com/archive.phtml?cid=UzgdHyV864>getting better.
As it is, the subsidies and high commodity prices apparently http://blog.mlive.com/statewidebusinessstories/2008/03/usda_michigan_corn_growers_to.html>aren't enough to encourage higher corn planting this year. Corn is expensive to produce; it takes a lot of nitrogen out of the soil, and fertilizer prices are http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2008/04/16/news/01farm.txt>through the roof. (I was reminded of this today, when my Dad called me to verify what fields I'd applied fertilizer on during one weekend last fall; at the time he had wanted to use up what was left of his 2007 contract rather than take a refund and then need to apply $100+/ton more-expensive fertilizer from this year's contract.)
40. Jethro said the following at 7:38 PM on Apr 30:
I think I'm going to faint. Farmer Tom and I agreeing on something. What is the world coming too! Not that I'm complaining mind you.
41. kaj said the following at 8:41 PM on Apr 30:
Re: comment 37, commenting on comment 34:
I have had that happen. I hung my laundry out (some articles of clothing, for good reasons, stayed IN the house to dry) and my next-door neighbor complained and said there was some ordinance against it. I asked a police officer friend and she said that no officer would ticket me or my landlord.
My neighbor did not believe me, and she complained to my landlord, and the landlord and I compromised by finding a more suitable location out of sight from the street.
But I do agree I like line-drying better than machine drying (weather permitting, of course!)
I don't have any babies yet (and i'm not married yet either...another discussion for another time, enough said...).
Switching to the topic of bags: I'm glad someone brought up cloth bags, and that is a good idea: but I'm going to bring up another point, if nothing else for humor:
If the reusable cloth bags were mass-produced in some Asian country by some factory that pollutes the air and water (they often have lower environmental standards), and the bags are shipped to the United States on some huge barge that does its share of polluting the ocean, wouldn't that defeat the purpose of using cloth bags?
It's good to hear everyone's point of view. But the truth of the matter is all "environmentally friendly" options have their pros and cons.
42. Leah said the following at 9:02 PM on Apr 30:
Louise (37)- Well don't look. Honestly, people have been drying their washing that way for centuries and everyone managed. If my neighbour complained about having to look at my washing on the washing line, I'd lose all respect for them and tell them to stop looking in my yard if it bothered them so much.
43. DannieA said the following at 11:44 PM on Apr 30:
Yeah cloth diapers???? NOT happening...sorry....guess I'm not that green
44. Louise said the following at 11:36 AM on May 1:
Re comment 42, if you read my comment you'll carefully you'll clearly see that hanging the wash outside was against community rules.
So you would lose respect for your neighbor?
Well, you'd be told by community management to stop hanging your wash outside and if you did not comply you would be fined, so you would also lose money as well as respect for your neighbor.
45. obewan said the following at 11:53 AM on May 1:
Farmer Tom Likes the “fat” in corn fed beef. Here are some interesting facts:
“…grain fed beef can have over 50% of the total fat as the far less healthy saturated fat.
Grass fed beef usually has less than 10% of its fat as saturated.
Animals that graze on pasture have from 300 to 400% more CLA than animals fattened on grain in a feedlot.
As we all know, diet and exercise are required to lose weight. However, University of Wisconsin research, completed this year but not yet published, showed that CLA intake will assist individuals who lose weight in preventing putting pounds back on.
The flavor, look, smell, and texture of grass fed beef differs slightly from grain-fed beef. So you may have to learn to like grass fed beef. But many enjoy it immediately because it actually tastes like beef is supposed to taste. Others will gladly learn to like it simply because it does their body good.”
http://www.mercola.com/beef/main.htm
46. Louise said the following at 11:54 AM on May 1:
Re the "don't look" portion of comment
42.
Once it finally gets warm around here in Chicagoland I'll start sitting on my front porch for long stretchs of time sans clothing.
I'm sure "don't look" will really go over well with the police after the neighbors call them.
47. Richard said the following at 11:56 AM on May 1:
Its interesting that ethanol fuel was mentioned in this article. While I have spent time in Geography class I heard the same things mentioned in this article about ethanol fuel. I think the main issue that is not being mentioned as we are switching to "green" is dependency on oil overseas. As far as producing this ethanol based gasoline goes though it is apparent that it is costing the nation at this point. Rather than entirely scrap the idea at this point it is important to note that this ethanol fuel is only slightly inefficient at this point. If alot more farmers produce corn, food prices may lower in the long run and technology advances may eventually help this nation produce an ethanol-based gasoline that is actually energy efficient, cheap, and that reduces dependency on oil. Until then I am inclined to support other "green" ideas that are evidently helping to reduce polution.
48. kaj said the following at 12:44 PM on May 1:
More on Line Drying:
Apparently, in some communities, line drying, while it produces zero emissions and has been practiced for thoussands of years, is still considered an eyesore, whether it's sheets, jeans, shirts, or diapers.
An ex-neighbor (not the one who complained in comment #41) explained that for some reason, hanging wash outside in the front yard supposedly could lower property values on our street.
Line drying may carry negative "ghetto" (no particular race/nationality implied) connotations, perhaps. The neighborhood I live in, which is made of predominately vintage/historical buildings, is not upscale yet, but is heading that way.
Maybe the outcry against clotheslines is a conspiracy by the local energy company, in an effort to encourage using electric/gas consumption in doing laundry.
But if I ever have to move to another apartment, one of my requirements is that is has to be "clothesline friendly" in one way or another.
49. Laura Grace said the following at 12:46 PM on May 1:
Louise, really? Haha... I find it interesting and a bit odd that you wouldn't want to look at clean clothing hanging on a clothesline. Why not? Cloth diapers look like hand towels, and clothes are... clothes!
DannieA, I'd encourage you to do some research on cloth diapering! A lot of people assume it's really complicated and messy but the styles have come a LONG way in the last 20 years. No pins, no pail, no crinkly vinyl covers, no bulgy, sodden liners. Really. Besides, for a lot of folks, it's only partly about being "green" and partly about keeping all those chemicals off their baby's skin AND saving hundreds or even thousands of dollars.
50. Rachael said the following at 7:45 AM on May 2:
When my grandma was alive she had a clothesline...a nice long one in her back yard.
Well, this is not a clothesline story, but it is a laundry story that happened yesterday. Someone was so kind as to put my clothes in the dryer before I got there, but I am a little embarrassed because it was a "he" who did that. Indeed, "clothes are...clothes" (49), but some sorts are not completly of the public variety.
51. John said the following at 11:19 AM on May 6:
Which is better for the environment, a big car with lots of people in it making one trip? or several small cars with one person in it making several trips?
Which is better, SUV's making effecient trips over smooth, fast highways? (hopefully carrying several people) or 15-20 year old beat up cars riding up and down and all around third world roads with bumps, wash outs, etc spewing black smoke? (Not to mention the buses).
Has anyone here that is so quick to condemn the US for its terrible environmental practices actually been to China, India or a Third World Country to see how "green" they are?