This reminds of Paul Ehrlich's "Population Bomb", another perfect example of Malthusian thinking. Everyone was going to starve to death in the 70s/80s, and pregnant women were harrassed as "breeders".
Fortunately, the last quarter of the 20th century has seen famine reduced greatly, due to technological innovation and international intervention.
California can't make the federal government or the UN to do broader mandates. But we can push technology innovation here to do more with less.
I don't see how this is antagonistic to your stated goal. Nor how to do your strategy with a California proposition.
Berkeley chancellor Birgeneau says his priorities include biomass energy conversion systems. I'd like to see California fund part of his efforts to reduce gasoline dependance.
Wes Hermann
· 3 years ago
While Tad is likely correct that (low emissions) biofuels can only account for a small fraction of our transportation energy demand, Prop. 87 will encourage a range of substitutes.
There are several companies taking advantage of recent advances in battery technology to make the electric car viable. In addition, Prop. 87 would promote vehicle efficiency, which is by far the largest low emissions "resource" available.
I didn't find this commentary particularly convincing.
Tad Patzek
· 3 years ago
Bill,
I understand your impatience and frustration, so please let me clarify my arguments:
The politicians and functionaries of science cannot dangle biofuels in front of the scared and disoriented public that desperately wants a sense of normalcy and security. They are morally equivalent to con artists dangling a prospect a summer home or a one-million dollar award in front of a lonely retired person. It is not OK to lie about biofuels to achieve what one believes are progressive social goals.
Thomas Malthus died in 1834, in a world with 1 billion humans running on wood and some coal, and using horses for transportation. That world was already too energy-intensive to rely on biofuels alone and in another 25 years it started on the current crude oil drinking binge.
Somehow we have forgotten the practical utility of telling the truth to the public. Before we start developing the new miraculous energy technologies, we must remove the root causes for our insane energy use.
The quest for new energy resources cannot be posed in separation from the living earth systems that are becoming tired of protecting us. We spend the majority of fossil energy in our homes, on food, and while driving to work and shops. The development of energy-efficient, compact cities, intertwined with the local water, crop, animal and biofuel resources, and complete waste recycling, is the necessary condition to start shrinking our runaway energy consumption. Once we develop the thriving, local, low-energy community centers, time will come to reform medical care, and schooling, which will be tied to the communities they serve. Of all countries on the earth, the US is perhaps most removed from the walking-distance low-impact lifestyles, while consuming more energy than anyone else.
It is time to begin discussing the real causes of our excessive energy use, and not distract the public with the irrelevant expensive noise in the form of biofuels. This noise is heard in Brazil, Indonesia, Madagascar, etc., and the Earth is being exterminated in the name of our good intentions.
So, if Proposition 87 presented meaningful ways of saving substantial amounts of energy in California, instead of multiple new ways of driving the same old Chevy Tahoes on E85, I would vote for it with all my heart.
Tad Patzek
peter Starr
· 3 years ago
Tad, thanks for a breath of fresh air not tinged with auto exhaust of any kind. I was prepared to vote yes on 87 as I had no idea it would support the big corn and the ethanol boondoggle.
I've referenced and debated your important paper in Natural Resources on biofuel energy returns and am looking for more on sugar. Anything that calculates a true eroei?
Charlie Peters
· 3 years ago
Dr. Tad Patzek,
Good job.
The corn ethanol push in California saeems to result in more oil use.
More oil profit seems to me to match the corn ethanol progress.
Thank you for your efforts.
Charlie Peters (510)537-1796
David
· 3 years ago
The ethanol boondoggle is a pipedream for those who already enjoy immense wealth and can drive whatever they choose, live any way they want.
Another pipedream is to think drastic changes take place overnight. Somehow the sovereign will of the people, not the whims of the electorate or the wealthy, will determine the energy course for the prolonged future.
Oil, consumed in small and large cars alike, will continue to be the preferred fuel.
Thanks for your efforts
Joe Smith
· 2 years ago
REDUCE CONSUMPTION FIRST BEFORE ADDING NEW FUELS. Start by passing a law in congress that mandates sane fuel efficiency standards (35 mpg) and include SUV's and light truck in the passenger vehicle category. Tax engine displacements on a sliding scale. Singapore has/had a tax scheme along these lines. Encourage investments in local shops that people can walk to instead of Starbucks that people drive to. Put i a maglev train system in California and Nevada. Reduce the 50+ mass transit organizations in the Bay Area to one organization so it does not take 2 hours to travel from the Menlo Park Cal Train station to Cisco in San Jose via Cal Train and light rail. Go to a train station in Holland. They give you a printed customized itinerary for trains and buses to get you anywhere in Holland with transfer points and times. They know how to move people around. I have been in Europe for the past year. For every large SUV in California there is a Smart Car or mini. I get in a car once every 3 weeks. I do not take taxis or public transportation. I walk 2-3 hours a day. I can buy everything I need on foot. And guess what I lost 20 pounds with out trying. Just wait until we have a gas shortage worse than the 70's. Then the SUV drivers may see the light when the country is brought to its knees. By then the Euro will be $2.80 and no one will be able to afford to see how fuel efficient Europe is.
Charlie Peters
· 1 year ago
What was the cause of death of Alexander Farrell, 46, expert on alternative fuels?
All Comments
Fortunately, the last quarter of the 20th century has seen famine reduced greatly, due to technological innovation and international intervention.
California can't make the federal government or the UN to do broader mandates. But we can push technology innovation here to do more with less.
I don't see how this is antagonistic to your stated goal. Nor how to do your strategy with a California proposition.
Berkeley chancellor Birgeneau says his priorities include biomass energy conversion systems. I'd like to see California fund part of his efforts to reduce gasoline dependance.
There are several companies taking advantage of recent advances in battery technology to make the electric car viable. In addition, Prop. 87 would promote vehicle efficiency, which is by far the largest low emissions "resource" available.
I didn't find this commentary particularly convincing.
I understand your impatience and frustration, so please let me clarify my arguments:
The politicians and functionaries of science cannot dangle biofuels in front of the scared and disoriented public that desperately wants a sense of normalcy and security. They are morally equivalent to con artists dangling a prospect a summer home or a one-million dollar award in front of a lonely retired person. It is not OK to lie about biofuels to achieve what one believes are progressive social goals.
Thomas Malthus died in 1834, in a world with 1 billion humans running on wood and some coal, and using horses for transportation. That world was already too energy-intensive to rely on biofuels alone and in another 25 years it started on the current crude oil drinking binge.
Somehow we have forgotten the practical utility of telling the truth to the public. Before we start developing the new miraculous energy technologies, we must remove the root causes for our insane energy use.
The quest for new energy resources cannot be posed in separation from the living earth systems that are becoming tired of protecting us. We spend the majority of fossil energy in our homes, on food, and while driving to work and shops. The development of energy-efficient, compact cities, intertwined with the local water, crop, animal and biofuel resources, and complete waste recycling, is the necessary condition to start shrinking our runaway energy consumption. Once we develop the thriving, local, low-energy community centers, time will come to reform medical care, and schooling, which will be tied to the communities they serve. Of all countries on the earth, the US is perhaps most removed from the walking-distance low-impact lifestyles, while consuming more energy than anyone else.
It is time to begin discussing the real causes of our excessive energy use, and not distract the public with the irrelevant expensive noise in the form of biofuels. This noise is heard in Brazil, Indonesia, Madagascar, etc., and the Earth is being exterminated in the name of our good intentions.
So, if Proposition 87 presented meaningful ways of saving substantial amounts of energy in California, instead of multiple new ways of driving the same old Chevy Tahoes on E85, I would vote for it with all my heart.
Tad Patzek
I've referenced and debated your important paper in Natural Resources on biofuel energy returns and am looking for more on sugar. Anything that calculates a true eroei?
Good job.
The corn ethanol push in California saeems to result in more oil use.
More oil profit seems to me to match the corn ethanol progress.
Thank you for your efforts.
Charlie Peters (510)537-1796
Another pipedream is to think drastic changes take place overnight. Somehow the sovereign will of the people, not the whims of the electorate or the wealthy, will determine the energy course for the prolonged future.
Oil, consumed in small and large cars alike, will continue to be the preferred fuel.
Thanks for your efforts
Start by passing a law in congress that mandates sane fuel efficiency standards (35 mpg) and include SUV's and light truck in the passenger vehicle category. Tax engine displacements on a sliding scale. Singapore has/had a tax scheme along these lines. Encourage investments in local shops that people can walk to instead of Starbucks that people drive to. Put i a maglev train system in California and Nevada. Reduce the 50+ mass transit organizations in the Bay Area to one organization so it does not take 2 hours to travel from the Menlo Park Cal Train station to Cisco in San
Jose via Cal Train and light rail. Go to a train station in Holland. They give you a printed customized itinerary for trains and buses to get you anywhere in Holland with transfer points and times. They know how to move people around.
I have been in Europe for the past year. For every large SUV in California there is a Smart Car or mini. I get in a car once every 3 weeks. I do not take taxis or public transportation. I walk 2-3 hours a day. I can buy everything I need on foot. And guess what I lost 20 pounds with out trying. Just wait until we have a gas shortage worse than the 70's. Then the SUV drivers may see the light when the country is brought to its knees. By then the Euro will be $2.80 and no one will be able to afford to see how fuel efficient Europe is.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/...