News
Sports
ENLARGE
In editorial from The News-Review on Oct. 25, 2011, refers to the short-sightedness of policies that support the production of renewable sources of energy and points to higher cost.
New technologies do cost more to build up but will balance in time. As technologies improve, the cost have and will continue to decrease. We have all experienced reduction in cost of new technologies. When computers and cellphones first came out, their cost was beyond the reach of most of us, the first calculators cost several hundred dollars. Today you can buy one for about $2 or $3. Before the newly introduced manufacturing techniques by Henry Ford, cars were toys for the rich.
The News-Review editorial refers to states “vying to be the “national leader” in renewable energy.” This is good healthy competition, and exactly what they should be doing. “The government-driven competition distorts the marketplace, pushing forward unneeded and publicly subsidized renewable energy projects.”
The author of this editorial has failed to remind us that oil company subsidies began in 1916 to increase oil production for the first world war. Since, it has never come to an end, but instead was codified into law during the 1950s and greatly expanded during the Bush administration.
Today the oil companies make up to $390 million a day in clear profits, and still receive billions every year in subsidies from your tax dollars. In 2010 oil and coal companies from around the world received 13 times as much in direct subsidies as all of the renewable sources combined. In the United States, these subsidies come from federal and state sources.
Other hidden cost not covered by this author include disease and the cost of lives from carbon monoxide, sulfuric acid and, mercury poisoning, damage to water ways and property where coal is mined, and the need to address climate change due to the incremental increases in greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels. Health care cost alone approaches $200 billion annually.
It's true, just as fossil fuels release CO2 into the atmosphere so do biofuels. There is, however, a major difference.
Biofuels release CO2 that was sequestered during the life cycle of the plant being used to produce that fuel. This CO2 goes through a continual cycle from this year's plants to next year's plants, maintaining a constant, neither decreasing nor increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 released from fossil fuels do not go through the same cycle. This CO2 was sequestered millions of years ago and when combusted serves only to increase the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. In the last 60 years the CO2 in our atmosphere has increased by more than 30 percent due to the burning of fossil fuels.
Renewable energy is nothing new. Before gasoline, every internal combustion engine ran on ethanol. The first diesel ran on peanut oil, and trains ran on steam heated by wood instead of coal. The reason people stopped using ethanol in internal combustion engines, heating and lighting during the 19th century was due to a $2.06 per gallon tax placed on ethanol to help pay for the Civil War. The tax was not repealed until 1906.
Coal is perhaps the dirtiest of all forms of fossil fuel. As renewable sources increase, the mining of coal should be decreased and not allowed to be sold overseas. The environmental damage done by the mining of coal is just too great to allow its continuance. This would be one way to encourage the growth of renewable energy industries in other parts of the world.
One thing that I have never yet heard mentioned, is that when we use carbon dioxide for the growing of plants for fuel, we are increasing the oxygen supply.
I applaud Californians for their tenacity and the example they have given all of us standing firm in the face of powerful financial and political opposition to weaken their commitment and goals for the production of green energy. I would hope this example helps to keep us aware of the highly sophisticated tricks and scare tactics created by these corporate entities. Allowing the “free market” to make our choices for us is sheer folly.
In the very near future, we will continue to expand our production and use of renewable sources of energy and put to rest the “dinosaurs” that provide our energy now. As these new sources come online, cost will come down, jobs will be created, global warming can conceivably be reversed and the hidden cost of the current health hazards they represent will diminish.
J. Eldon Bush of Yoncalla holds a bachelor's degree in anthropology and is the secretary of Umpqua Bio Alternatives Cooperative of Douglas County. He has been a student of biologically based fuels and other alternative forms of energy for 35 years. He can be reached at jebush12003@yahoo.com.
New technologies do cost more to build up but will balance in time. As technologies improve, the cost have and will continue to decrease. We have all experienced reduction in cost of new technologies. When computers and cellphones first came out, their cost was beyond the reach of most of us, the first calculators cost several hundred dollars. Today you can buy one for about $2 or $3. Before the newly introduced manufacturing techniques by Henry Ford, cars were toys for the rich.
The News-Review editorial refers to states “vying to be the “national leader” in renewable energy.” This is good healthy competition, and exactly what they should be doing. “The government-driven competition distorts the marketplace, pushing forward unneeded and publicly subsidized renewable energy projects.”
The author of this editorial has failed to remind us that oil company subsidies began in 1916 to increase oil production for the first world war. Since, it has never come to an end, but instead was codified into law during the 1950s and greatly expanded during the Bush administration.
Today the oil companies make up to $390 million a day in clear profits, and still receive billions every year in subsidies from your tax dollars. In 2010 oil and coal companies from around the world received 13 times as much in direct subsidies as all of the renewable sources combined. In the United States, these subsidies come from federal and state sources.
Other hidden cost not covered by this author include disease and the cost of lives from carbon monoxide, sulfuric acid and, mercury poisoning, damage to water ways and property where coal is mined, and the need to address climate change due to the incremental increases in greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels. Health care cost alone approaches $200 billion annually.
It's true, just as fossil fuels release CO2 into the atmosphere so do biofuels. There is, however, a major difference.
Biofuels release CO2 that was sequestered during the life cycle of the plant being used to produce that fuel. This CO2 goes through a continual cycle from this year's plants to next year's plants, maintaining a constant, neither decreasing nor increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 released from fossil fuels do not go through the same cycle. This CO2 was sequestered millions of years ago and when combusted serves only to increase the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. In the last 60 years the CO2 in our atmosphere has increased by more than 30 percent due to the burning of fossil fuels.
Renewable energy is nothing new. Before gasoline, every internal combustion engine ran on ethanol. The first diesel ran on peanut oil, and trains ran on steam heated by wood instead of coal. The reason people stopped using ethanol in internal combustion engines, heating and lighting during the 19th century was due to a $2.06 per gallon tax placed on ethanol to help pay for the Civil War. The tax was not repealed until 1906.
Coal is perhaps the dirtiest of all forms of fossil fuel. As renewable sources increase, the mining of coal should be decreased and not allowed to be sold overseas. The environmental damage done by the mining of coal is just too great to allow its continuance. This would be one way to encourage the growth of renewable energy industries in other parts of the world.
One thing that I have never yet heard mentioned, is that when we use carbon dioxide for the growing of plants for fuel, we are increasing the oxygen supply.
I applaud Californians for their tenacity and the example they have given all of us standing firm in the face of powerful financial and political opposition to weaken their commitment and goals for the production of green energy. I would hope this example helps to keep us aware of the highly sophisticated tricks and scare tactics created by these corporate entities. Allowing the “free market” to make our choices for us is sheer folly.
In the very near future, we will continue to expand our production and use of renewable sources of energy and put to rest the “dinosaurs” that provide our energy now. As these new sources come online, cost will come down, jobs will be created, global warming can conceivably be reversed and the hidden cost of the current health hazards they represent will diminish.
J. Eldon Bush of Yoncalla holds a bachelor's degree in anthropology and is the secretary of Umpqua Bio Alternatives Cooperative of Douglas County. He has been a student of biologically based fuels and other alternative forms of energy for 35 years. He can be reached at jebush12003@yahoo.com.
