Living the American Green

Credit to Greenpeace for this AWESOME image

After all that tom-foolery the other day ’bout Ethanol, Mark made a good point on the entire discussion: Show me the numbers!

Well, interestingly enough, Tuesday’s New York Times showed off some numbers — only I don’t think they were the the numbers Mark was looking for.  No, these numbers where far more sinister.   These are numbers about Ethanol and that fantastic enviro-buggaboo: Big Oil.

A charitable reading of that article: These two former arch enemies are starting to see eye to eye on how they can work together to solve the energy problems confronting this country.  A less charitable reading: Oil Companies are co-opting the movement because they 1) realize they need to green up some, 2) see a potential for profit, and 3) see that bio-fuels don’t require them to dramatically shift anything: cars can still run, gas can still be pumped, and no one has to really re-invest or rethink how they live.

Meanwhile, they are bringing there massive and terrifying lobby power to bear on an issue where the statistics can make them seem like they are turning over a new leaf.

Number Times

Ok, enough.  Mark, here are some of them numbers.

• 36 billion — the number of gallons of Biofuels that Congress mandated to be produced by 2022.  That’s three times the current amount, and essentially guarantees that Ethanol in some format will be a cash crop — even if it’s never as energy efficient as it needs to be.
• $1.5 billion — the amount that BP has invested in Biofuel research over the last 2 years.
• 3 billion — the approximate number of bushels of corn that went into Ethanol production in 2007 .
• 330,000 — estimated number of barrels of Petroleum, per day, replaced by Ethanol in 2008.

My concern is that companies like BP, who are not investing anything in stuff like Solar power, or wind power, are giving us the ‘ol misdirect on this process.  It comes down to the same reason that I don’t always like Nuclear: I feel as though these companies are SAYING that they want a full court energy press, but are in fact DOING just the parts that keep us addicted to their product.  I think that Ethanol should be a part of the solution, but I have seen nothing at all from any numbers to suggest that it’s going to be anything other then a transition part, helping us move slowly from gas to non-gas.  I really don’t want to be writing about how the Exxon-Mobile lobby is still pushing Bio-fuels after we’ve developed cold fusion in ten years, and these companies have shown less then zero percent willingness to be flexible.

The truth of the matter is that burning Ethanol blended fuels does reduce tailpipe emissions some.  But the amounts just don’t seem very impressive to me.

• Reduces tailpipe carbon monoxide emissions by as much as 30 percent
• Reduces exhaust volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions by 12 percent
• Reduces toxic emissions by 30 percent
• Reduces particulate matter (PM) emissions by more than 25 percent

This is all good, but it is NOT an endgame — and it is being confused with being an endgame.  I don’t see many numbers comparing that reduction against the emissions from growing the corn.  If Ethanol from other sources can be used to increase the margins of efficiency, then this can still make some sense — but if the goal is to capture the output from the sun, and use it to make things go, isn’t the most direct route to that always the best?  Algae > Sugar Cane > Corn, right?

Listen, I — like I imagine many of you — have grown up in the computer age.  Anyone remember the 2.86 computer?  Compare that to the Macbook Pro I am currently writing on, and you will understand why my expectations for technology might be a little high.  I expect the energy world to be moving at a similar exponential rate, which I admit is a little unreasonable.  But at the end of the day, we need technology that can at least keep up with the growth of humanity, and we need companies that continue to be flexible and strive for across the board changes in how we think about and view consumption.

Can a Leopard Change it’s Spots?

Monsanto is now branding itself as “sustainably growing yield”.  I had a discussion the other day in which 2 of the 3 participants (myself included) learned that Altrea is the happy friendly name that Phillip Morris is now calling it’s self – one of us thought Altrea was a health company.  Exxon-Mobile, BP, these companies have been playing the game of going green, but Ethanol feels like a re-investment in marketing after the strategy it’s self has run it’s course.  The fact that they are trying to come to the table now fills me with a lot more concern then it does hope.

I have hope that I am not falling into the trap of hating on business just because it is business: huge and scary and responsible to no one but the almighty dollar.   But, really, I don’t think I am.  I think capitalism ruins everything, and that the mere fact that Ethanol is being embraced by these companies (to take advantage of the same gov’t mandates that have protected oil production for so long) means that the joint power of their slightly greener lobby is SO SCARY.  And so capable of blocking legislation.  Ugh.

Who wrote this one?  TheAmericanGreen - The founding member of the American Green institute, and a New York based producer and writer hoping to make the jump from "freelancer" to "documentary producer". Read more from this author