Lead on California, even if it makes no sense

[dynosor]

The true cost of global warming

Last year, in the name of saving the planet from global warming, California adopted the most
radically restrictive legislation anywhere in the nation, including AB 32, which requires a 25
percent reduction in man-made carbon dioxide emissions within 13 years.

To put this in perspective, we could junk every car in the state of California RIGHT NOW – and
not meet this mandate.

Californians just approved $40 billion of bonds that California’s political leaders promised would
be used for highways, dams, aqueducts and other capital improvements. They are desperately
needed.

But at the same time, those same political leaders have imposed a 25 percent reduction in
carbon dioxide emissions.

Now here’s the problem. Building highways, dams and aqueducts requires tremendous amounts
of concrete, the principle ingredient of which is cement.

How is cement produced? It is produced by taking limestone and super-heating it into a molten
state – it comes out the other side as a compound called clinker. Clinker is about 2/3 the weight
of the original limestone. The missing 1/3 of that weight is carbon dioxide. And when you include
the emissions required to superheat the limestone, it turns out that for every ton of cement, a
TON of carbon dioxide is released. It’s the third biggest source of carbon dioxide in all human
enterprise.

But now we have a law that specifically forbids us from doing so. That was the essence of the
Jerry Brown lawsuits against new highway projects that were part of the summer budget
impasse.

Citing AB 32, Brown argued that unless the counties could show how they would build highways
without using earthmoving equipment or concrete – and that once built, that people would not
drive automobiles on them – the only legal use of the funds would be to promote mass transit,
transit villages – and I’m not making this up – pedestrian trails and bicycle paths.

So much for construction.

Agriculture is in big trouble, too.

You can start with nitrogen fertilizer, which is a critical component of all agricultural activity.
Unfortunately, it produces large amounts of nitrous oxide, another so-called greenhouse gas that
must be radically curtailed in California.

The wine industry is also in for a shock. Fermentation of wine occurs when a molecule of
glucose in the grapes is converted into EQUAL PARTS of alcohol and Carbon Dioxide.

But the biggest agricultural impact is the administration’s mandate for heavily subsidized use of
ethanol fuel. Ethanol is produced in exactly the same way as the alcohol in wine: the glucose in
corn is converted into equal parts of ethyl alcohol and CARBON DIXOIDE.

Following AB 32, the governor’s appointees on the California Air Resources Board imposed a
requirement that ALL gasoline sold in California within THREE YEARS, must be comprised of at
least TEN PERCENT ethanol, doubling the current mandate.

Now think about this: an acre of corn produces about 350 gallons of ethanol. There are 15 billion
gallons of gasoline used in California each year. In order to meet the ten percent requirement in
three years, it means converting 4.3 million acres of farmland to ethanol production. Now that’s a
lot of farmland, considering that we have a total of 11 million acres producing any kind of crops.

Current ethanol mandates are already producing serious shortages in other parts of the world, as
farmland that had been producing food shifts to ethanol to chase hundreds of millions of dollars
of government subsidies coming out of your pocket. There were riots in Mexico earlier this year
in response to spiraling tortilla prices.

And we’re seeing this across the board – including commodities like milk and beef that are
responding to increased prices for corn feed. And as you see your grocery prices rise as a result
of this policy, just be glad you’re not in the Third World. Food is a relatively small portion of the
family incomes in affluent nations, but they consume more than half of family earnings in third
world countries.

So when the global warming alarmists predict worldwide starvation, they’re right. They’re
creating it.

From Tom McClintock's online commentary


Much more to cogitate at:
http://www.carepublic.com/blog.html?...tom_mcclintock

[Geof]

dynosor; I sure wish I could find a fallacy in your arguments; unfortunately I can't.

Did you read my post #14 in this thread?Kyoto versus basic human rights

A different way of saying the same thing, more or less.

[dang]

Can't this carbon be reclaimed? Couldn't we just pump it all into the ground? In fact isn't that the chief method being used to reduce our carbon footprint?
And isn't ethanol also made out of sugar? Also, isn't methanol only one of over a dozen alternative fuel options?

[Kevin Taylor]

California has a mind set of NIMBY {not in my back yard} or the use of nuc powerplant's would be a lot more useful using coal or natgas to make ethonal is not BTU efficent not to mention that a lot of water is needed to produce ethonal nor is the use of feed for fuel waste of a bio mass type like garbage to make ethonal would make more sence how about rendering polition's and lawers into heating oil? seem's to be a unlimited supply If we run out then we could move on to the "new's Meida Good luck cal. all we need is another natral disaster to cause the price of building materials to go up even more China is using a lot of cement wood and steal in there expansion do you spose there contrubting to the proublem do they have a EPA looking over there sholder Kevin

[Geof]

Originally Posted by dang Can't this carbon be reclaimed? Couldn't we just pump it all into the ground? In fact isn't that the chief method being used to reduce our carbon footprint? And isn't ethanol also made out of sugar? Also, isn't methanol only one of over a dozen alternative fuel options?

To answer your questions in sequence:

No.

No, not without expending a lot of energy.

CO2 is being pumped into the ground but the purpose is to enhance recovery from existing oil wells not reduction of carbon footrpint.

Yes, and I suppose if more sugar was used for ethanol and less was eaten it would lead to a healthier population.

Most methanol is made from natural gas so it hardly qualifies as an alternative energy option.

[dynosor]

Originally Posted by Geof dynosor; I sure wish I could find a fallacy in your arguments; unfortunately I can't.

I notice that even Handlewanker and Totally Screwed don’t want to have a go at arguing this one.

While the piece expresses my exact sentiments, you do realize it was written by Tom McClintock?

[Geof]

Originally Posted by dynosor I notice that even Handlewanker and Totally Screwed don’t want to have a go at arguing this one. While the piece expresses my exact sentiments, you do realize it was written by Tom McClintock?

I had skipped over that.

[Wade]

I really like that kind of analysis. It shows how stupid environmentalist really are. All emotional math. No wonder all the Californians are moving here.

One point that might be argued about the first post, wouldn't the equal splitting of glucose into equal parts of ethyl alcohol and CO2, be zero sum CO2 emission. Since the plant got the CO2 from the air in the first place? Would that be legal in CA?

The part about people starving, isn't important to greenies. Now, had you said, wild animals were going to lose their homes, so that more corn could be planted. You'd have been able to hear the howls from here.

[the4thseal]

i live in California... unfortunately we cannot harvest the arrogant stupidity that is manufactured in California in the name of self righteous environmentalism.......as south park so perfectly showed......SMUG is he real problem.