In today’s age, it is almost popular to be part of the “green team;” that is, part of the environmental movement.
A member of this movement used to be known as a hippie or a tree hugger, but today this person is called business savvy or even eco-chic. Perhaps this is because global warming has become a growing concern as nations are experiencing its despair daily.
There are many reasons this movement is catching on, and it is not because granola is particularly tasty or Birkenstocks are stylish. People are starting to notice that a more sustainable way of life is better for the individual as well as the world.
This development is not new. President Jimmy Carter placed solar panels on the roof of the White House in 1978, stressing the importance of renewable energy decades before it was popular. With all these “new” fuels to run our vehicles there has been some skepticism about if they are viable resources or not. In 1925, Henry Ford told the New York Times that ethyl alcohol was the “fuel of the future” along with apples, weeds and sawdust. So while there is a lot of talk about these new energy choices, they have been around for quite some time.
Sustainable living also offers national security. Actor Robert Redford once said, “I think the environment should be put in the category of our national security. Defense of our resources is just as important as defense abroad.
“Otherwise what is there to defend?”
This quote summarizes the sustainability movement and it was said more than 20 years ago! By relying on our nation’s renewable resources we wean addicted consumers of their dependency on foreign oil. Every time we fill our SUVs with this ghastly gasoline we fuel terrorist regimes that are attacking our way of life. There is no reason we should rely on other countries to
energize ours; we have enough resources.
By making sustainable living a priority we not only rid ourselves of terror but we create hundreds of thousands of jobs. A new job market could be what we need to stimulate our ailing economy. Legislation such as the Warner-Lieberman bill that is wandering through Congress as we speak could inspire such action. This bill caps 70 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, starting with a 15 percent reduction by 2015.
This type of improvement will give jobs to everyone from green consultants to energy auditors.
These “green collar” jobs are unique as they affect people of all socioeconomic status bringing more stability to our nation and our economy. By securing jobs we strengthen our economy and our national defense.
Some argue, however, that sustaining our country should not be a priority because global warming is a myth. The science is there, but I am not a scientist. That is not the route I take when arguing for
sustainability.
Whether our globe is warming or not, I say we take care of the one Earth God gave us. In implementing sustainable measures we create new jobs, ensuring our economic and ultimately our national security. By making our planet cleaner, via employing renewable energy, we save money while enjoying healthier lifestyles.
The fact of the matter is our world is not going to clean up on its own. Whether or not competing industrialized nations are “doing it” should not be our motive; we should take action because it is our responsibility.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I can only dig granola with an ocean of yogurt. As to your writing and ideas, I would encourage you to continue examining sustainability. This is a good start.
Great moral arguments! I believe there's a more logical argument for sustainability, which is: we have no economy without a healthy environment, because externalities of profit catch up to a society that does not safeguard their surroundings.
Please critique my own thoughts about this issue:
Former plunderers like Anderson are becoming more conscious, here's my blog about that-- http://www.progressiveu.org/190527-resiliant-human-nature
This blog was my most recent attempt at advertising sustainability--
http://www.progressiveu.org/213553-what-civilization-really-about
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.
we have no economy without a healthy environment, because externalities of profit catch up to a society that does not safeguard their surroundings.
Actually, we only get a healthy environment if we have a strong economy. Only then will people place regulating the externalities as a priority.
Places that have weak economies rape their environments. You can look for proof of this truth in EVERY poor country around the world.
I certainly though do agree with the blogger that we should be stewards of our environment. As we do this we must take great care to not beggar our people by, for example, making energy too expensive because that is when the environmental rape will commence.
"The cost of energy is going up," Montana Public Service Commissioner Ken Toole. Whether it's wind, solar, natural gas or coal, the price of energy will go up. Lets be proud of the energy we produce. Love, GU.
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.
It was largely the environmental movement that pushed bio-fuels because they were a renewable way to capture the Sun's energy.
Are you proud of food riots around the world?
Cost is a realative thing. The fact that all energy is getting more expensive does not change the fact that some energy is FAR MORE costly than other kinds of energy.
There is plenty of cheap energy still available and people can and will make the choice to use it. If you make the clean energy generated centrally too expensive people will switch to the filthy kind of cheap energy. Only wealthy people can afford to care.
If the goal is to have people live sustainably, then there had better be a healthy dose of economic reality mixed in with that wish. If sustainability starts to beggar people, you will get the exact opposite from the intended result.
Do you think I am proud of food riots? That's an idiotic assessment. We cannot rely on just one thing to lift us out of the energy crisis. Biofuels are terrible because people think they alone are the answer and they are not. The price of EVERYTHING is going up because of them. Livestock eat corn, we eat corn, powering a nation of it alone is not practical. That is why we all must wake up and examine the world we are living in and make decisions to cut our own energy consumption and keep looking for alternatives.
Power to the people,
Brittany
Well said. Energy conservation is surely part of sustainability
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.
Do you think I am proud of food riots? That's an idiotic assessment.
I was actually responding to Green Underbelly who stated "we should be proud of our energy". It has generally been the environmental movement that has pushed ethanol as a sustainable energy source. I was asking him if he was proud of it.
You apparently agree with me that it is a fiasco. Common ground.
FOOD RIOTS
Visit http://www.alcoholcanbeagas.com/book_menu/489/490 and check out myth four. From what I've read recently, it's misinformation that's killing the potential of multiple-use farming. How much corn do we actually import?
CLEANER POWER
If you look at a country like Germany you'll note that their government was pro-active--collectively they dictated exactly what energy exerted a national pride through the 2000 National Renewable Energy Act, 20 percent by 2020. They're ahead of schedule and could accomplish 30 percent by that same date.
The only thing I fear with these fixed price guarantees is that uber-tycoons will dominate the grid, but as you'll see at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/solar/program.html, everyone is getting into the act of distributive generation. That is, except apartment dwellers. "But people know with these additional costs they contribute directly to a clean future for all, therefore 80% of the people accept that."
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.
check out myth four
Do you believe everything you read?
I took this quote from the answer to Myth 1 about the ethanol energy balance:
But perhaps more important than EROEI is the energy return on fossil fuel input. Using this criterion, the energy returned from alcohol fuel per fossil energy input is much higher. In a system that supplies almost all of its energy from biomass, the ratio of return could be positive by hundreds to one.
If it is true that they can get 100 gallons or more of ethanol for every gallon of oil, then why in the heck are we subsidizing the ethanol industry ot the tune of billions? They already have a license to print money. Farmers should all be strutting around like Texas oil barons!
Actually when you read that statement it should be pretty obvious that it is a crock of excrement. If it were true, our energy problems would already be solved because we certainly inputed a lot of gallons of fossil fuels into ethanol farming last year. Where is the 100 to 1 return?
When I see a website that is feeding me bullshit and pretending like they are busting myths I have to wonder if the rest of their so-called myth busters aren't also BS. It makes me generally think that it is not worth reading. I'm always concerned that some of the untruths will stick in my head and I won't remember that they came from an unreliable source.
I wonder where the funding for that propaganda came from? All the sponsoring organizations appeared to be environmental organizations. Maybe they should be taken at face value. Environmentalists deserve to get the blame for the food riots. But it was interesting they were all based mainly in Illinois and Indiana which are big corn states. I wonder if they are not some how fronting for big agriculture?
Right you are. I found some of the mythbusting to be confusing, especially when there were no links to research. What are the main sources of information you receive that have lead you to such a belief that environmentalists are to blame for ethanol production? I don't think anything rolls in this country without the lobby of big biz.
Though this article is from Biofuels Digest, it makes some key points. http://biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2008/03/27/us-corn-exports-rose-6-percen...
Why would environmentalists front for big agriculture?
Coal is to shaving as nuclear power is to waxing. For the time being, they are both relatively cheaper options, and each is a fast fix to the energy problem. Now, factor global warming back in --"Hairy Sustainability" by A-squared, a ProU blogger
I don't think anything rolls in this country without the lobby of big biz.
Really? Was it big business that shut down the nuclear industry and has practically shut down the coal industry, and stopped drilling in ANWAR? Environmentalists have lots of accomplishments. Some of them were good and some have done more harm to the environment then they prevented. Other things, like the senseless complete ban on DDT has left environmentalists with a huge legacy of preventable malaria deaths.
In the case of biofuels it was an evil coalition of environmentalists who were convinced that ethanol was a sustainable fuel made from the sun and big agriculture that wanted fat subsidies, that gave us subsidized and mandated biofuels and as an unitended consequence, food riots. Lots of people told them that turning food into fuel was not a good idea and lots of people told them that the energy balance was negative. But emotion and greed overcame science and economics.
Why would environmentalists front for big agriculture?
Partially for the reasons I just explained above. Because they thought biofuels which harness the sun's energy were our salvation and an answer to sustainable energy.
Other than that I don't know. But when I clicked on the sponsor list for that ethanol website you linked, every one of them appeared to be an environmental group. Look for yourself. I try to follow the money although in that case I was not willing to work very hard at it.
Not too long ago every time I read about ethanol it was environmentalists singing its glory and every website that talked about it had a sponsor list like that one you linked to. Lately, a lot of environmentalists seem to have figured out that they made a mistake.
That kind of thing happens with environmentalists a lot. A couple of years ago all they could talk about was fuel cells and cars that burned hydrogen and emitted water. It was going to be the end of pollution. It took them fully two years to finally gather a clue and realize that the hydrogen had to come from somewhere and it was most likely either going to be electrolocized from water which takes lots of electricity (nukes) or be stripped off of hydrocarbons leaving CO2 (greenhouse gas) as a by-product. It was essentially the same mistake they made with ethanol. They failed to look at the BIG picture. It has been a while since I have seen to many environmentailists touting fuel cells as our salvation.
But some environmentalists are starting to realize they made a huge mistake by killing the nuclear industry. I think even the founder of Green Peace is on board with that which is incredibly ironic.
I'm pretty down on environmentalists. I think they have great intentions and I have nothing against conservation and making the environment clearner. My beef is that so often the solutions they are offering are based on emotions, wishful thinking, unrealistic assuipmptions about human nature, and pseudo-science and are often sorely lacking in practicality, economics and real science. Often it seems like in their ideal world, if environmentalists got their way they would be perfectly pleased if we all starved in the freezing dark.
You may want to start lecturing around the country. It's good to hear from a person who has it all figured out.
Coal is to shaving as nuclear power is to waxing. For the time being, they are both relatively cheaper options, and each is a fast fix to the energy problem. Now, factor global warming back in --"Hairy Sustainability" by A-squared, a ProU blogger
Hey, jack. I have been wondering since you mentioned your businesses a few blogs ago (don't remember which)...what business(es) are you in? Just curious.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I am currently in the coal bed methane business. I own mineral rights in the Powder River Basin of NE Wyoming and SE Montana.
Coal bed methane (CBM) is natural gas that is associated with coal. It is the gas that frequently kills coal miners either by suffocating them or exploding. It was why they took a canary down into the mines with them as a warning device. CBM is the same thing as what is normally called "Natural Gas" except that most conventional natural gas is a mixture of methane with other gases in it like propane, ethane, and acentalyne. What I produce is pretty much pure methane. It is also the same thing as swamp gas, sewer gas or farts.
Production of CBM is environmentally controversial. To recover the gas, we drill what amounts to a water well and pump like hell. When the pressure in the coal acquifer is lowered, the gas which is chemically bonded to the coal is released and comes bubbling out of the hole. We drill wells on either 80 or 160 acre spacing. Nobody in the West is enthusiastic about wasting water which is a precious resource in our arid climate. To some extent we try to re-inject and to some extent we put it to beneficial use. But a great deal of it is wasted. Most of the land where it is being produced is too rugged for farming and is only suitable for grazing. Cows only need so much water. If we spread the water on the rangeland it will grow more grass but it also alters the ecology. In a couple of decades when we are done pumping water, we would then have an ecology no longer suitable to our arid climate. So that is a poor idea. Lots of the water just goes down stream or is allowed to evaporate. It has been going on for almost two decades now and it turns out that there has actually been very little harm and a lot of small ranchers here have only been able to hold onto their land because of the money they are getting from CBM.
A decade ago, CBM was not or was barely economically feasible. It is a marginal way to produce natural gas and the fact that it is economical now is a sign that we are scraping the bottom of the barrel. The easy to find and produce conventional natural gas is becoming increasingly rare. We are by no means running out of natural gas. There is an unbelievable amount of it around and about. But it is going to increasingly come from unconventional sources like CBM which will make it more expensive. There is an incredible amount of it frozen on the deep ocean floor and they are starting to figure out how to mine that. It probably won't be cheap and again it will probably be controversial for one reason or another.
The disadvantages of methane is that it can only be liquified under extreme pressure and low tempuratures. This makes it difficult to import. I think there are five terminals for importing Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) in the USA. I know one is in Long Beach and another is in Boston and I think there is one in Lousiana. I don't know where the rest are. These things are extremely dangerous and nobody particularly wants onebecause if one ever blows it is literally going to be like a nuke. That's too bad because there is lots of natural gas in the world and in many places it is being flared for want of a market. For the most part methane can only be transported through pipelines and because it is very difficult to store, everything that comes out of the wellheads is sold and consumed as it is produced. Some gets pumped down into empty formations and stored for winter use but this is inefficient.
Methane is in many ways the very best of the fossil fuels. It is certainly the cleanest.
Chemically it is CH4. When CH4 burns you get:
CH4 + O2 => CO2 + 4H2O + Heat. So essentially the emissions are carbon dioxide and water. And a lot of heat.
This makes it one of the very few fuels that can be burned cleanly in people's homes for heat. In my opinion, because natural gas is one of the very few fuels that can cleanly be consumed in homes, it should largely be reserved for this purpose. I think it is practically criminally irresponsible to use it as fuel for power generation. All of the new generating capacity in California is natural gas fired and that is the trend across the country too. There are better ways to make power rather than wasting natural gas. But the increased demand from California is good for me economically. I win and everybody else loses. The environmentalists have driven this irresponsible behavior and my business might not even be economically viable without their insistence on shutting down more sensible forms of power generation. It is more than a little ironic and it is exactly the kind of outcome I have been talking about in this and similar threads.