Air up your tires

Last week Senator Obama suggested that properly inflating your tires will save huge amounts of oil. I'm sure he is right, though the savings is probably overstated. Obviously, keeping your automobile properly tuned and your tires properly inflated will increase fuel efficiency. The Republicans responded by making fun of the suggestion. The Senator said; "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant."

The first thing that occurred to me when I read of his suggestion was President Carter telling us that we should turn our thermostats to 68 and wear a sweater in the winter. The problem with that is not that conservation is wrong, but, that it is not a solution, it is not big thinking, it is NOT what we expect the President to talk about. We expect the President to have a solution that solves the problem not merely mitigates its effects. And this is, I think, why the Republicans jumped so gleefully on the comment, because I am not the only one who was reminded of the feckless Carter administration.

Hillary... again

How much can you pander without looking totally ridiculous? If the World Trade Organization (WTO) is the mechanism to break up OPEC, why hasn't it been done in the past 12 years? This is just ridiculous.

Hungry? drink ethanol

The result of stupid energy policy is starvation for poor third-worlders.

The U.S. is paying large subsidies for ethanol, which means that the price of corn has more than doubled as demand has increased. Crop land that can be planted in corn is being switched from other crops. Corn used for food and feed is being used to make ethanol. Grains that could be used for food and feed are not being grown in deference to ethanol. It is almost criminal what Congress has done in support of a dubious fuel.

One gallon of ethanol requires 1.35 gallons of fossil fuel to produce; that is the fuel used to plant, cultivate, harvest and manufacture. Not a lot of gain there. On top of that the carbon footprint of ethanol production may be greater than that of gasoline; the science is far from conclusive either way. What is environmentally sound about this practice? It is merely a case of farmers gaining money, and environmentalists getting warm fuzzies, at the expense of everyone else in this country, and now it appears, the rest of the world.

It is time to revisit a stupid energy plan. Ethanol subsidies should be eliminated. Let the market determine if this is a viable fuel option.

End of rant.

The food crisis

This article, by George Monbiot in the Guardian (a British rag), raises some interesting issues about the impending food crisis in the undeveloped parts of the world. He points out the obvious:

The World Bank points out that "the grain required to fill the tank of a sports utility vehicle with ethanol ... could feed one person for a year."

It is obvious, at least it is to me, that diverting food products to fuel is highly inefficient (it takes 1.3 gallons of fossil based fuel to create a gallon of biofuel) and, on top of driving up food costs, creates grain shortages in the parts of the world most dependent on grain for food.

Mr. Monbiot also suggests that the feeding of grain to animals is inefficient and adds to the shortage. This is no doubt correct, though I would question his conversion rate for beef animals. He cites a rate of some 8:1 and from what I remember from my animal science education, it was close to 3:1 thirty years ago, surely it is somewhat improved now. But it is not just meat production that requires grain. Dairy is perhaps the area where an 8:1 conversion rate applies, and even vegetarians (though not vegans) like milk and cheese.

He is not condoning a vegan lifestyle as it is clearly not a healthy route. Humans have not developed as vegans. Meat has been a part of the species diet for 500,000 years, so it is unlikely that the human omnivore can successfully convert to a vegan in even a few generations.

Of course we can eat range fed beef. This takes no grain production from the human food chain. Mr. Monbiot takes issue with this, as bovine flatulence and belching add, by his citation, 18% of the carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and he is apparently a global warming enthusiast. Range fed beef would be a good trade off as it not only does not use grain stocks, but it is less fatty and therefore should not contribute as heavily to coronary artery disease.

I don't have a solution for a potential food shortage, but I cannot fathom why we would convert food to fuel when there is still a highly adequate supply of fossil fuels. Seeking alternative energy sources is good and should be done, but not at the expense of people who need grain just to survive. Biofuel is not an energy plan, it is just feel good activity for people who don't think through the whole system.