John Hesselberth on mon 21 feb 11
The problem with most discussions of this type is that they are carried =3D
out by partially-informed or, sometimes, ill-informed people--and I =3D
include myself in those categories. The questions are extremely complex =3D
and too many people, including some so-called environmental scientists, =3D
try to distill them to a sound bite that will make the evening news. =3D
There are also a good number of people slanting or distorting data to =3D
help them belly up to the latest government slop bucket.
Ethanol from corn is one of the best examples. Life cycle studies have =3D
now shown there is little or no oil or gas to be saved via this process. =
=3D
Yet the slop bucket remains firmly in place because it buys votes.
I am not suggesting we should stay with the status quo until the oil =3D
fields run dry. I am suggesting that anyone who claims to know the =3D
answer at this point is full of you-know-what. I think we should all =3D
urge forward progress but "be from Missouri" -- the "show me" state, =3D
when anyone claims they have the answer.
There are, I suppose, some things that would surely be in the right =3D
direction and which we can all contribute to.
Things like
=3D95 Use less. For example most of us eat way more food than we need and =
=3D
build bigger homes than we need.
=3D95 Repurpose and reuse. Notice I did not say recycle--that sometimes =3D
takes more resources than are saved.
But for anyone to declare that wind or solar or hydrogen are "the" =3D
answer I say hogwash. I think it just as likely that nuclear is the =3D
answer or one of the answers. France and Japan certainly think so--China =
=3D
too.
I would recommend we all keep an open and very skeptical mind and, in =3D
the meantime, do what we can personally do to reduce our burden on the =3D
planet.
Regards,
John=3D
C Sullivan on mon 21 feb 11
Mornin' John
You've overlooked "cold fusion" ! Personally, i think that's the way to go=
=3D
,
along with solar and wind !
Hugs
Chae
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:03 AM, John Hesselberth
wrote:
> The problem with most discussions of this type is that they are carried o=
=3D
ut
> by partially-informed or, sometimes, ill-informed people--and I include
> myself in those categories. The questions are extremely complex and too m=
=3D
any
> people, including some so-called environmental scientists, try to distill
> them to a sound bite that will make the evening news. There are also a go=
=3D
od
> number of people slanting or distorting data to help them belly up to the
> latest government slop bucket.
>
> Ethanol from corn is one of the best examples. Life cycle studies have no=
=3D
w
> shown there is little or no oil or gas to be saved via this process. Yet =
=3D
the
> slop bucket remains firmly in place because it buys votes.
>
> I am not suggesting we should stay with the status quo until the oil fiel=
=3D
ds
> run dry. I am suggesting that anyone who claims to know the answer at thi=
=3D
s
> point is full of you-know-what. I think we should all urge forward progre=
=3D
ss
> but "be from Missouri" -- the "show me" state, when anyone claims they ha=
=3D
ve
> the answer.
>
> There are, I suppose, some things that would surely be in the right
> direction and which we can all contribute to.
>
> Things like
>
> =3D95 Use less. For example most of us eat way more food than we need and=
b=3D
uild
> bigger homes than we need.
>
> =3D95 Repurpose and reuse. Notice I did not say recycle--that sometimes t=
ak=3D
es
> more resources than are saved.
>
> But for anyone to declare that wind or solar or hydrogen are "the" answer=
=3D
I
> say hogwash. I think it just as likely that nuclear is the answer or one =
=3D
of
> the answers. France and Japan certainly think so--China too.
>
> I would recommend we all keep an open and very skeptical mind and, in the
> meantime, do what we can personally do to reduce our burden on the planet=
=3D
.
>
> Regards,
>
> John
Arnold Howard on mon 21 feb 11
On 2/21/2011 9:03 AM, John Hesselberth wrote:
> There are, I suppose, some things that would surely be in the right direc=
tion and which we can all contribute to.
A simple yet significant way to save energy is to run factories on the
40-hour, four-day week. This saves gasoline and travel time and cuts
back on smog. Employees love Paragon's four-day week.
Sincerely,
Arnold Howard
Paragon Industries, L.P., Mesquite, Texas USA
ahoward@paragonweb.com / www.paragonweb.com
gwynneth rixon on mon 21 feb 11
Another way to save is to insulate (but not hermetically seal!) homes. I
have quite a few blogging friends in different parts of the world, and it
amazes me how little my friends in New York and Minnesota have. Some are
starting to get working on it now, better late than never.
A friend in Minnesota has "window warmers" (ie quilts). A friend in Denmark
has triple glazing and enjoys the view! Both live in 1800s houses that they
don't wish to spoil with plastic!!
Gwynneth
Wales
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Arnold Howard wrot=
e:
> On 2/21/2011 9:03 AM, John Hesselberth wrote:
>
>> There are, I suppose, some things that would surely be in the right
>> direction and which we can all contribute to.
>>
>
> A simple yet significant way to save energy is to run factories on the
> 40-hour, four-day week. This saves gasoline and travel time and cuts
> back on smog. Employees love Paragon's four-day week.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Arnold Howard
> Paragon Industries, L.P., Mesquite, Texas USA
> ahoward@paragonweb.com / www.paragonweb.com
>
May Luk on mon 21 feb 11
Hello John;
Great reminder.
Can anybody gives some pointers to audit energy usage for clay studio?
I really like splashing a lot of water in the summer. (It gets really
hot in the studio and I already wear tank tops and shorts). I don't
drive and I walk to the studio or take a subway, I reckon I earn
enough green footprints to use some water once a while.
May
Brooklyn NY
>
> There are, I suppose, some things that would surely be in the right direc=
=3D
tion and which we can all contribute to.
>
> Things like
>
> =3D95 Use less. For example most of us eat way more food than we need and=
b=3D
uild bigger homes than we need.
>
> =3D95 Repurpose and reuse. Notice I did not say recycle--that sometimes t=
ak=3D
es more resources than are saved.
>
> But for anyone to declare that wind or solar or hydrogen are "the" answer=
=3D
I say hogwash. I think it just as likely that nuclear is the answer or one=
=3D
of the answers. France and Japan certainly think so--China too.
>
> I would recommend we all keep an open and very skeptical mind and, in the=
=3D
meantime, do what we can personally do to reduce our burden on the planet.
>
> Regards,
>
> John
--=3D20
http://twitter.com/MayLuk
http://www.takemehomeware.com/
Lee on mon 21 feb 11
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 9:03 AM, John Hesselberth
wrote:
> The problem with most discussions of this type is that they are carried o=
=3D
ut by et.
> Ethanol from
This criticism is misplaced. Corn Ethanol is not pushed by Green
folk. It is primarily pushed by Agribusiness and monoculture farmers.
Greens know that all types of monoculture farming are detrimental to
the environment. A good rule is to not make fuel out of anything
people can eat. It only drives up the price of food, while using up
water, petroleum and top soil.
C Sullivan wrote:
> Mornin' John
> You've overlooked "cold fusion" !
Greens are not involved with "cold fusion." A green will tell you
the place to begin and see immediate results is with, as Jimmy Carter
pointed out, conservation.
gwynneth rixon wrote:
> A friend in Minnesota has "window warmers" (ie quilts).
We have insulated shades. When they are let down, a baffle causes
an air pocket to be made between the window and the room, without
blocking all the light.
--
=3DA0Lee Love in Minneapolis
http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
=3DA0"Ta tIr na n-=3DF3g ar chul an tI=3D97tIr dlainn trina ch=3DE9ile"=3D9=
7that is, =3D
"The
land of eternal youth is behind the house, a beautiful land fluent
within itself." -- John O'Donohue
Philip Poburka on tue 22 feb 11
Hi Lee, all,
Far as I recall...overall, no human being, and, very few if any other
Animals, would ever
voluntarily eat the kinds of Corn which are used for making
'ethanol'...unless maybe under conditions of extreme privation.
And, whyever does 'corn' of this sort have such precedence over say, the
Sugar Beet or Sugar Cane wastes or other things, for these uses anyway?
And, while called 'Ethanol', is it actually Ethyl Alcohol at all? Or, based
on some
nasty combination of Methyl, Ethyl and whatever incidental sloppy else?
I dunno...
Lol...
Love,
Phil
L v
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee"
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 9:03 AM, John Hesselberth
wrote:
> The problem with most discussions of this type is that they are carried
> out by et.
> Ethanol from
This criticism is misplaced. Corn Ethanol is not pushed by Green
folk. It is primarily pushed by Agribusiness and monoculture farmers.
Greens know that all types of monoculture farming are detrimental to
the environment. A good rule is to not make fuel out of anything
people can eat. It only drives up the price of food, while using up
water, petroleum and top soil.
Lis Allison on tue 22 feb 11
On February 22, 2011, Philip Poburka wrote:
>
> Far as I recall...overall, no human being, and, very few if any other
> Animals, would ever
> voluntarily eat the kinds of Corn which are used for making
> 'ethanol'...unless maybe under conditions of extreme privation.
>
True, but those acres that are growing fuel corn are not growing food
corn.
Lis
--
Elisabeth Allison
Pine Ridge Studio
website: www.pine-ridge.ca
Pottery blog: www.studio-on-the-ridge.blogspot.com
Garden blog: www.garden-on-the-ridge.blogspot.com
Lee on tue 22 feb 11
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Lis Allison wrote:
>> Far as I recall...overall, no human being, and, very few if any other
>> Animals, would ever
>> voluntarily eat the kinds of Corn which are used for making
>> 'ethanol'...unless maybe under conditions of extreme privation.
>>
> True, but those acres that are growing fuel corn are not growing food
> corn.
Unless there has been a recent change, it is just "field corn,"
Raised for feed for cattle. Anybody growing up around a farm and
cattle has probably eaten it. I had it all the time at my
girlfriend's family farm dinner table.
" The smallest corn inventories in 37 years are a sign farmers around
the globe are failing to produce enough grain to meet rising
consumption, even as planting expands and food prices surge.Rising
incomes in developing countries are boosting food prices as people eat
more meat and dairy products from crop-fed livestock. U.S. subsidies
are fueling demand for ethanol made from grain, while droughts and
floods in 2010 damaged global harvests.
Crop Prices Surge
Grain futures rallied this month to the highest since 2008 on the
Chicago Board of Trade. Corn surged 95 percent in the past year to
$7.2025 a bushel as of Feb. 18, wheat jumped 71 percent to $8.5575 a
bushel, and soybeans advanced 44 percent to $13.81 a bushel. Rice
gained 11 percent to $15.075 per 100 pounds."
--
=3DA0Lee Love in Minneapolis
http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
=3DA0"Ta tIr na n-=3DF3g ar chul an tI=3D97tIr dlainn trina ch=3DE9ile"=3D9=
7that is, =3D
"The
land of eternal youth is behind the house, a beautiful land fluent
within itself." -- John O'Donohue
Dannon Rhudy on tue 22 feb 11
Phil said: Far as I recall...overall, no human being, and, very few if any
other
Animals, would ever
voluntarily eat the kinds of Corn which are used for making
'ethanol'...unless maybe under conditions of extreme privation........
Well - that "field corn" becomes corn meal,
which is the form that most humans consume.
Sweet corn, corn on the cob - a spring treat
most places.
The devil of it is, there are huge subsidies
for making "ethanol". A lot of farmers are
going to be in trouble over this. Not because
they grow the corn, nor yet the price of it.
It's the cost of the small-production ethanol
"plants" that a lot have literally bet the farm
on. Turning out to be a not-so-wise decision.
We'll see.
Meanwhile, time to hoe my own garden - so to
speak.
regards
Dannon Rhudy
Steve Slatin on tue 22 feb 11
Phil -- AFAIK, it's all Zea Mays -- the same 'family'
of corns that include your basic sweet corn and 'hog
corn' and popcorn.
And, based on the efforts that the growers make to keep
winged and walking wild animals out of their fields, I'm
fairly sure it's edible to most species.
Sugar cane is much more labor intensive than corn.
In Brazil they use cane sugar to make their ethanol;
have done so at least since the 80's, and have no fundamental
issues with it -- but they also have a sugar industry that
produces an excess of cane sugar, and a hungry population.
Many of whom will work in the sugar cane fields to earn a
days' wage.
Whereas in the US, we have a corn industry that produces an
excess of corn, and a population eating too many Doritos (c)
already ... and not showing any willingness to get off their
couches and work in the fields.
Best wishes --
Steve Slatin
--- On Tue, 2/22/11, Philip Poburka wrote:
> Hi Lee, all,
>
>
>
> Far as I recall...overall, no human being, and, very few if
> any other
> Animals, would ever
> voluntarily eat the kinds of Corn which are used for
> making
> 'ethanol'...unless maybe under conditions of extreme
> privation.
>
>
> And, whyever does 'corn' of this sort have such precedence
> over say, the
> Sugar Beet or Sugar Cane wastes or other things, for these
> uses anyway?
| |
|
