Last Wednesday I went to see Tom Curwen (formerly the LA Times Outdoor section editor, now an "editor at large") interview Bill McKibben (author, activist, teacher, etc.) about the latter's new book Deep Economy. I was reminded of that bumpersticker saw once that I've always wanted: "Use it up, Wear it out, Make it do or Do without," and I was deeply moved by McKibben's story of how he started so small with StepItUp, the anti-global warming campaign that has now spawned all the protest marches, events and stunts happening this Saturday. And I got to thinking about climate change.
It's fast become true that climate change is the only environmental story worth reporting. It takes over every debate; it crops up in every political platform. The naysayers have quieted down, the entrepreneurs and corporate bigshots are taking over to solve the problem. And I worry -- especially after hearing Schwarzenegger defend his Hummers in his Georgetown University speech yesterday ("Make it sexy," he says. Yeah, yeah, I said that months ago), that the conversation has shifted away from examining the way we live to figuring out how to live exactly as we do, only with less carbon.
Richard Branson offers $25 million to the inventor who can eat carbon out of the atmosphere (don't burn less, just eat it up!). California's governor claims he'll run his Hummers on hydrogen (fat chance). Bush says he'll save the world with ethanol (hardly makes a dent in the carbon load, but okay . . . ) We're looking at ways to maintain the status quo and still stop the planet from warming.
But I submit it can't be done, and not just because the nanorobots to chew up our atmospheric CO2 Branson imagines are too far off to solve the problem, and not just because we have many miles to travel before we find the entrance ramp to that "Hydrogen Highway." We can't save the planet without changing our way of living because climate change is not the problem. Climate change is a symptom of the problem. Climate change is air pollution, and our pollution troubles don't begin and end with carbon.
That said, by all means go out and join some event on Saturday. There's so much cool stuff I can't begin to list it all, but my favorites include the sea of blue people that will ring New York City (to demonstrate sea-level rise), the hundred-pound block of ice that's supposed to melt on Hollywood Boulevard and a monster hike in Griffith Park called the "LA Global Warming Smack Down." (More stuff is listed on the StepItUp07 Web site.)
But I still hope the discussion moves from climate to, you know, the whole Koyaanisquatsi ball of wax (forgive the mispelling -- if I get hung up on it, I will never blog again).
In the meantime, if anyone knows where I can get that bumpersticker, let me know.
Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBacks (0)
Trackbacks
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://mt.laweekly.com/mt-tb.cgi/35666
Comments
There are 10 comments posted for this article.
Such a good point to make — and I only wish more media folk could look past this latest buzz phrase to comprehend the bigger width and depth of our problems.
And just for the record (not to make you crazy), you had it right but for the extra “u”: Koyaanisqatsi.
Posted on April 15, 2007 11:04 AM by mernitman
I got it right but that for one "u" after "q"? That's a miracle. Maybe there's hope.
Posted on April 15, 2007 11:04 AM by Judith Lewis
Chief, Sherry Mehl, DCA/BAR, has never found out if what is broken on a Smog Check failed car gets fixed, never
Many folks believe ethanol in California gas increases oil use and profit
Clean Air Performance Professionals (CAPP) supports a Smog Check inspection & repair audit, gasoline oxygen cap and elimination of dual fuel CAFÉ credit to cut car impact over 50% in 1 year.
* A Smog Check audit would cut toxic car impact in ½ in 1 year
* An oxygenate waiver would stop a $10 billion oil refinery welfare program coming from the fed @ $0.51 per gal of ethanol used
* About 1/3 of the gasoline used by new cars nationwide is allowed by the "renewable fuel" CAFE credit
Posted on April 17, 2007 6:04 PM by Charlie Peters
Ethanol Eco nomics…
Tom McClintock’s Citizens for the California Republic, 06-18-2007
The public policy farce that the “Green Governor” unleashed with AB 32 (the so-called “greenhouse gas” law) continues. Using their newly granted power to slash carbon dioxide emissions, the California Air Resources Board (all Schwarzenegger appointees) has mandated that every gallon of gasoline sold in California must contain at least 10 percent ethanol by 2010.
First, a few basic facts. Californians use about 15 billion gallons of gasoline a year, meaning that the new ten percent CARB edict will require about 1.5 billion gallons of ethanol. Corn is the most common ethanol-producing crop in the country, yielding about 350 gallons of ethanol fuel per acre. That means converting about 4.3 million acres of farmland to ethanol production, just to meet the California requirement. But according to the USDA, California currently has only 11 million acres devoted to growing crops of all kinds. Get the picture?
The entire purpose of this exercise is to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions from California automobiles (although Californians already have the 8th lowest per capita gasoline consumption in the country). And that’s where the public policy discussion becomes farce.
As more acres are brought into agricultural production, the demand for nitrogen fertilizer will grow accordingly, which is itself produced through the use of fossil fuels. And the most likely source of new agricultural land will be converting rain forests to agriculture, although deforestation is already the second biggest man-made contributor of carbon dioxide emissions, ranking just behind internal combustion. And here’s the clincher: ethanol is produced through fermentation, by which glucose is broken down into equal parts of ethanol and – you guessed it – carbon dioxide.
Obviously, this edict will hit gasoline consumers hard: ethanol is less efficient than gasoline and it’s more expensive – meaning you’ll have to buy more gallons at the pump and pay more per gallon.
The bigger impact, though, will be at the grocery store. By radically and artificially increasing the demand for ethanol, the cost pressure on all agricultural products (including meat and dairy products that rely on grain feed) will be devastating. Earlier this year, spiraling corn prices forced up by artificially increased demand for ethanol produced riots throughout Mexico.
The CARB regulations will undoubtedly hit Californians hard – but they will hit starving third world populations even harder. Basic foodstuffs are a small portion of the family incomes in affluent nations, but they consume more than half of family earnings in third world countries.
So when the global warming alarmists predict worldwide starvation, they’re right. They’re creating it.
http://www.carepublic.com/blog.html?domain=tom_mcclintock&blog_id=136&category_id=&start=0&arcyear=&arcmonth=&curyear=&curmonth=&curday=
Posted on June 23, 2007 5:06 AM by Charlie Peters
NO on AB118
Corn ethanol policy is good for gasoline refiners
Corn ethanol policy increases oil use and increases oil profit
The proposed car tax of AB 118 Nunez is an oil company welfare program
Italy used public/private partnerships as a business model in the early '40s
In my opinion the corn ethanol waiver allowed in the 2005 fed energy bill would lower gas prices, improve miles per gal, lower oil use and improve the air.
Your phone book lists your elected officials, sharing your opinion with the folks that make our rules might help
Clean Air Performance Professionals
Posted on July 10, 2007 11:07 PM by Charlie Peters
How about improving the system we have?
Ask for a fuel ethanol waiver allowed in the 2005 energy bill
Fuel ethanol uses lots of water
Audit "Smog Check" to fix the fault in more of the failed cars
Chief Sherry Mehl, DCA/BAR, has never found out if what is broken on a Smog Check failed car gets fixed, never
Improving Smog Check and fuel policy can cut car impact in half in 1 year and save money
About $20 billion in savings in first year
I'm confused about promoting products from offshore rather than improving our system
Clean Air Performance Professionals
Posted on July 23, 2007 1:40 PM by Charlie Peters
The Farce About Ethanol...
By State Senator Tom McClintock, Free Republic, 06/28/2007
In response to my blog, "Ethanol Economics," Former Secretary of State Bill Jones (now Chairman of Pacific Ethanol), made five key points in his piece, "The Facts About Ethanol." Just for fun, let's run "The Facts About Ethanol" through the old fact-checker:
"Today, ethanol is about 65 cents per gallon cheaper than gasoline in the California market." That's only after taxpayers and consumers have kicked in a subsidy of $1.50 per gallon - or $7 billion a year paid into the pockets of ethanol producers to hide the staggering price of ethanol production. And even with the subsidy, the California Energy Commission estimates that the new CARB edict will INCREASE the price per gallon by between 4.2 and 6.5 cents - on top of the tax subsidies. Ouch.
"Allowing a 10 percent blend of ethanol into gasoline provides a 4 percent supply increase to the marketplace at a price far below current gasoline prices." Not only is the price far ABOVE current gasoline prices (see above) but Bill ignores the fact that ethanol produces less energy than gasoline - meaning you'll have to buy more gallons for the same mileage.
"CARB's recent vote reduces our reliance on oil from overseas..." Let's walk through the numbers again. One acre of corn produces 350 gallons of ethanol; the CARB edict will require 1.5 billion gallons of ethanol, in turn requiring 4.3 million acres of corn for ethanol production. Yet California only has 11 million acres devoted to growing crops of any kind. And that, in turn, means an increasing reliance on foreign agricultural produce, shifting our energy dependence from King Abdullah to Hu Jintao.
"Further, it sends a signal to companies like ours to continue to invest in California production to help make this state energy independent." Yes, you can sell a lot more ethanol with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word alone. You got me there. But it also sends a signal to the market to raise prices on every product that relies upon corn for both food and grain feed - meaning skyrocketing prices for everything from corn meal to milk. Remember the tortilla riots in Mexico in January?
"Pacific Ethanol uses state-of-the-art production practices that reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 40 percent compared to conventional gasoline." Unless Pacific Ethanol has re-written the laws of chemistry, ethanol is produced by converting glucose into two parts ethanol and two parts carbon dioxide. The chemical equation is C6H12O6 = 2C2H5OH + 2CO2. (Memo to Bill: If you're not using this formula, you're not producing ethanol. And if you are, you're also producing lots of carbon dioxide. Better check.)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1858095/posts
* NO on “car tax” AB118 (Nunez)
* Clean Air Performance Professionals (CAPP) supports a Smog Check inspection & repair audit, gasoline oxygen cap and elimination of dual fuel CAFÉ credit to cut car impact over 50% in 1 year.
* Some folks believe corn ethanol in gasoline increases oil use and oil profit
* Ethanol uses lots of water
* A Smog Check audit would cut toxic car impact in ½ in 1 year. Chief Sherry Mehl, DCA/BAR, has never found out if what is broken on a Smog Check failed car gets fixed, never
* A corn ethanol waiver would stop a $1 billion California oil refinery welfare program coming from the federal government @ $0.51 per gallon of ethanol used
* About 60,000 barrels per day of the oil used by cars is allowed by the "renewable fuel" CAFE credit
Posted on August 8, 2007 7:59 PM by Charlie Peters
A Background Research Paper on Corn Ethanol
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/14/18440750.php
Posted on August 15, 2007 11:49 PM by Charlie Peters
Should Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger consider a $17/gallon "fee" on corn fuel ethanol use?
* Lower price for food, gas, water, beer and cleaner air… and… funds for the budget from oil profit
* Clean Air Performance Professionals
Posted on April 17, 2008 11:43 AM by Charlie Peters
What was the cause of death of Alexander Farrell, 46, expert on alternative fuels?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/18/BAOK1087DP.DTL
Posted on May 3, 2008 8:35 PM by Charlie Peters