Environmental Concerns

Writing this column would be impossible without the support and feedback from my readers. A recent email brought this response from a reader.

"I've always wondered, do Republicans think that they don't have to drink the same water and breath the same air? I'm serious. Because this anti-environment movement implies that you don't believe that the destruction of the environment will actually affect you.
I guess I should just limit this to anti-environment Republicans because I know that Jane for example is a Republican that supports cleaning up the environment. You see, Jane has a M.S. in Biology. So she is acutely aware that we all drink the same water and breath the same air and if we keep destroying the earth, we will ultimately destroy ourselves."
"There is a reason why SE Texas has some of the highest rates of cancer."

First, I want to address the issue that the reader assumes that I am a Republican. Although I support a lot of Republican ideas, I am not a Republican. To be a member of any political party for a particular issue undermines the freedom of thought from an individual.

For instance, the issue of abortion cuts both ways. There are several issues but for the purpose of this piece, I will restrict it to abortion.

A loyal party member must adopt the party positions. A loyal Republican must be anti-abortion whether he/she believes in it or not. Some may feel that there are circumstances that justify abortion, while others do not. But to be a loyal party member you have to accept the official party position or the party can't stand united.

Being a loyal Democrat means that you have to accept abortion on demand or you are not a good loyal Democrat. Those who believe differently and espouse a different viewpoint would alienate a large segment of other party faithful.

The point is, that in order to be a loyal party member, anything you feel that is at odds with the party leadership cannot be tolerated. That is freedom lost. I choose to maintain my freedom and not abandon principles that I hold dear. My choice of a candidate is always the one whose ideas are closest to my own. I think most people can relate to that, but I also want the freedom to speak out when I am at odds with the prevailing thought. So thanks, but no thanks to joining a political party.

The Environment:

The next statements in her response were particularly interesting. The reader's impression is that because I understand that CO2 is not the bad guy it is made out to be, that I want poisoned water and to breathe dirty air. I make no apologies for daring to oppose what is surely one of the most outlandish of all Liberal ideas - that the planet is warming because of CO2.

The "Green" movement has honorable objectives. The Greens also deserve credit for making us all aware of the things that we do to mess things up. Their efforts have made the public acutely aware of how important maintaining our planet is to all of us. But their efforts have been hi-jacked by politicians for reasons of gaining political power. To make the 'big show' for the voters, politicians have pushed for projects that are neither well planned nor thought through. What usually ensues is a bigger mess than what we started with. Projects espoused but not adapted, without careful planning, will yield more catastrophes in the future. For instance, here are a few examples.

The Lithium Battery Powered Car:

Expert after expert tells us that the technology is not ready for full-scale adoption of this power source. Those same experts do not detail those obstacles. But to a wide-eyed "Green", that is only a trifling matter.

To begin with, Lithium does not lie on the ground just waiting to be picked up. Lithium is found bound to other elements and it is a complex chemical process to purify it. There are some economical by-products to the process, but also a lot of mess discard to deal with. Lithium is found in mostly remote and pristine areas such as old salt lakebeds. The yield is very low, even for the high-grade deposits.


To get a more detailed picture of the production outlook and processes in purifying Lithium go to this web address.

http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Projects/Lithium_Microscope.pdf

This report confirms that mass production of Lithium Carbonate is not environmentally sound, it will cause irreparable ecological damage to ecosystems that should be protected, and that LiIon propulsion is incompatible with the notion of the "Green Car".

Mass adoption of the Lithium power source for a "Green" car will put pressures on Lithium production and will drastically run up the cost of manufacture. Large areas of wilderness will have to be sacrificed to create settling ponds for the Lithium Carbonate mixture to vaporize. This is all before the purifying process can begin.

Do not look to this technology in the present tense to save the planet!

Hydrogen Power:

Hydrogen power is one of the most promising technologies around, but there are still problems to consider. The hydrogen powered car discharges water vapor. Water vapor itself is far and away more of a greenhouse gas than CO2. If we swap to all hydrogen, which also is not just lying around for us to use, we will have to manage the constantly wet streets, and in cities with a lot of traffic, the average temperature could rise with so much water vapor in the air.

Ethanol:

This was supposed to be another of those great ideas. So with plenty of Government subsidies, ethanol became a reality only to find that there were plenty of problems related to both its source and getting it to the refineries for blending. Without taxpayer subsidies, the cost would be prohibitive to the American consumer. And that was only the beginning of the problem. So many farmers worldwide started producing corn for ethanol, (they could make more money) that prices skyrocketed for food. People in the poorer countries could no longer afford corn and corn products that they eat. Tortillas come to mind as well as other flat breads used in those poorer nations.

Some countries are destroying large tracts of rainforest to raise palm nut trees for their use in making ethanol. It is a growing problem for all who want to save those dwindling forests.

Ethanol is another rushed into project without thoroughly understanding the consequences of its adoption. This is an idea that has brought more problems than solutions.

Wind Farms:

Wind farms are a real possibility for a small percentage of our electrical needs. But again, the environment suffers. In those places where there is enough wind constant to harvest, roads have to be built to accommodate the truck traffic to maintain them. And we will still need conventional or nuclear power plants to provide the rest of our needs.

Petroleum:

Gasoline is still the preferred fuel for powering the automobile. Gasoline has been getting cleaner and issue far fewer pollutants than it used to. There was a time when you could not see the skyline of Los Angeles for the smog. But science has corrected most exhaust emissions that were causing the 'smog' problem.

Catalytic converters also help with the cleanup of emissions and the prospects for even cleaner burning gasoline are bright. Here again, the environmentalists do not want to correct the problems remaining with gasoline, they want to get rid of it. No don't fix it, and maintain good cheap reliable energy, they want to throw it all away for the pie in the sky proposals. Sometimes I think that the left just resents the oil industry. Few of the rabid anti petroleum advocates have any idea of the progress made in the drilling, refining, and distribution of petroleum products. It is a very narrow view for a person to take if all he/she can see is the Exxon Valdez accident.

Conclusion:

I am not against doing real environmental cleanup. I just want the proponents of these ideas to fully understand their proposals and the problems that they create. Less emotion and more thought into these proposals would help with those unintended consequences. I am tired of every special interest trying to push their whiz-bang idea on the country in the name of saving the planet with results that do more harm than good because of a lack of forethought.

Following the money, and who stands to gain from these ideas is a good place to start. Thoroughly and publically educating the public on all aspects of a proposal, not just the high points, would be helpful. Turning any of these hair-brained schemes into reality without a close inspection is dangerous.

Cheers,

-Robert-