To fight global warming, it is easy to insist the government implement new laws and policies. It is also relatively easy (albeit expensive) to change to a more fuel-efficient car. None of these affect one’s personal life in any significant way, however.

If one takes the threat of global warming seriously, the most powerful personal step you can take may well be choosing a vegetarian diet. As pointed out in the Baltimore Sun (July 19, 2007):

We’re getting “greener”: Recycling, energy-saving light bulbs and fuel-efficient hybrid cars are now a part of our culture and economy. But most people are neglecting one of the most important steps toward stopping global warming: adopting a vegetarian diet.

It is not just animal advocates making the connection between what we choose to eat and the future of the Earth. In November of 2006, the United Nations issued a press release that stated:

Which causes more greenhouse gas emissions, rearing cattle or driving cars?

Surprise!

According to a new report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport. It is also a major source of land and water degradation.

Says Henning Steinfeld, Chief of FAO’s Livestock Information and Policy Branch and senior author of the report: “Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”

This conclusion is backed up by research at the University of Chicago….

Above is an excerpt from:
http://www.veganoutreach.org/globalwarming.html
and the online article contains links not included above.

An article by the United Nations on the point:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772

And one from EarthSave:
http://earthsave.org/globalwarming.htm

BTW, love the blog! Looking forward to it as a permanent fixture.

http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2007/10/04/news/doc47039c28b359f637223253.txt

I don’t claim expertise in any field except one: Research. And I have many, many interests. I know easily as much about automobiles as I do about computers. I was born with a wrench in my hand. I rebuilt my first car engine at age 16. I have owned over 60 automobiles in my lifetime. I am every bit as avid about automobiles as I am about computers. I am very, very comfortable reading about, thinking about, and writing about automobiles and the engines that drive them.

Other interests include: Photography, music (I play guitar), literature, baseball, woodworking, landscaping, etc. Whenever there’s something especially interesting and technical about any of the fields of interest I follow, I’m likely to write about it. Take it as fair warning.

That said, none of these other topics are likely to take over what I write about here. You control the Scot Finnie channel. Don’t like it or don’t like me? Don’t read my stuff. You and I will both survive.

Sure, electricity is already there, but where do you get it? There are many forms to generate electricity; Nuclear, Hydro-electric, Solar, wind turbines, and yes, coal and other fossil fuels. The question is whether you get more power generation out of it than you put into it?

As for research, there are new ideas all the time making electricity generation and distribution more efficient. Look at the rolling blackouts in California every summer. Something is needed there, though conservation would be the best idea, along with appliances and electronics that waste less electricity. Also, there are federal grants or tax breaks for using solar panels or wind turbines on your house or business. In some cases, you can feed excess power generated back up to the power companies for credit for times that you don’t generate enough power.

As mentioned, the best bet is to do the research and come to your own conclusion. Personally, I would love to become completely self sufficient, and have my own personal solar and wind power, but I’ve got a long way to go before I can afford it, even with the government incentives.

The hyperbole from the pundits and politicians ignore the complete impact of the touted approach, be it hydrogen, liquid natural gas , liquid propane, bio-diesel, ethanol or even gas-electric hybrids. Each of those approaches has a significant impact on our green house gas emissions. I won’t go into each of them, but suggest that the reader do some research on his own. Let me just say that none of them eliminates the oil industry$$$ (and you can guess why).

To my mind, the most viable approach with the least polluting footprint is the plug-in electric vehicle. Again, I suggest that the reader do some research, as I have, and he will see the merits of going down this path. No new distribution networks to create (it’s here today), no new technology to research for years to come, a net gain to green house gas reduction, no big hit to our pocketbooks directly, or through our taxes in the form of federal grants to industry and increased cost of food, to name a few positive points.

I’m not frothing at the mouth over my suggestion; I’ve done my homework and have come to this conclusion. If you will spend the time to research each of the other approaches, and make the comparison with the plug-in electric vehicle, I know you will see the wisdom of this approach.

I have to admit that I am intrigued by new technologies, and I thought the burning Saltwater idea was interesting. My biggest question about bio-fuels and things like these is energy exchange, also know as the EROI (Energy Return on Investment). I took a recent environmental science class (required elective) and in my research, I learned about the processing of bio-fuels. For example, ethanol as most know, comes mainly from corn. In some cases, ethanol refineries use fossil fuels (coal or oil gas). If you also take into account the fuel used by farm equipment, fuel used to process fertilizer… What is the exchange? Another thing to consider with corn, did anyone notice the problems with corn prices in Mexico when the US announced that their might be a shortage of corn as more went to ethanol production (more lucrative for the farmer) than to food production.

Another bio-fuel, Palm Oil, is used in biodiesel in Europe. This sound great until you hear that much of the palm oil is imported from countries such as Malaysia or other countries. These countries razed large tracts of land to plant palm trees. One of the ways they did this was to burn the foliage. This caused lots of smoke pollution and also, the earth lost lots of oxygen producing trees, similar to the complaints of the amazon rain forests being cut down for farm land. Again, is the EROI worth it?

I hope I don’t come across as a tree hugger, far from it in fact. But I think that people should know what is going into some of the new initiatives that are there just to make environmentalists happy, and to make it look like we are doing something. As Scott said at the end of his article, these fuels are a step in the right direction, but probably more of a transitional solution. I agree that we still have a long way to go.

Sorry if I offend anyone with my “pontification”.

They appear to feel that because they have a platform, it makes them all-knowing and thus are mandated to pontificate on any subject that catches their fancy.

C’est pour rire! (It is to laugh)

Perhaps you could have a section entitled:
‘In My Opinion’