Mother Jones not too keen on Coskata/GM cellulosic ethanol development
Calling it "business as usual," Casey Miner is not too impressed with the news of $1-a-gallon cellulosic ethanol that might come from the partnership between GM and Coskata. Miner's point is that ethanol or not, we (in developed countries) still use far too many resources. Swapping gasoline for ethanol doesn't require a shift of habits, just a way to turn some waste into fuel. Instead, it's a greener way to do what we do now. Coskata's CMO and vice president Wes Bolsen was quick to respond to Miner's argument, but his defense of Coskata's achievements - while notable - was only a feeble response to the overall discussion.Longtime ABG readers will remember that I love the "drive less" mentality, which is really what Miner is espousing. Trading a car ride in for a bike ride reduces a lot more CO2 than using ethanol instead of gasoline. There's no way that GM or Bolsen or anyone will ever make that untrue.
Gallery: Coskata and GM presentation slides
Related:
[Source: Mother Jones]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Mike Z 8:10PM (1/30/2008)
It really is this kind of stupid logic that I hate about the environmentalist movement.
To argue that our current system is incorrect, and therefore efforts to improve it are for naught is creating the essence of self fulfilling prophecy.
I wish the author would just come out and say it, that making our current way of life sustainable (via technologies like Coskata, PHEVs, $1/watt solar/etc) is unacceptable because to them as thier personal moral belief is that our current way of life is wrong. That however is moral belief and should not be imposed on anyone else any more than anyone else's.
Reply
Jimmy 8:31PM (1/30/2008)
People like Casey Miner make me ashamed to call myself and environmentalist. Technology *will* find abundant clean energy sources if given the support -- which thanks to the DOE and venture capitalists is currently happening. I fear that many who call themselves environmentalists are not interested in solving pollution problems, but in promoting a minority political world view. Miner and the like are only interested in pessimism and criticism. Their world view despises automobiles for their status and capitalist symbolism rather than their emissions or fuel source.
Reply
Wise Golden 3:32PM (1/31/2008)
Bad logig on the part of Casey Miner. It's like saying that we should do nothing if we can't do it perfectly. This type of logic is at the root of our entire problem -- it's what prevents any form of progress, in any degree. GM/Coskata have found a solution to a tiny fraction of the problem -- it's one of the thousand steps that will need to be taken. I say, good for GM/Coskata.
Reply
texmln 10:41PM (1/30/2008)
Yeah, right. Everyone will switch to bicycles as soon as they see the light. What an idiotic commentary.
Don't you get that people can't take their kids to school, go shopping, or travel in bad weather with a bike? Don't you get that many people simply can't physically ride a bike and don't live near public transportation? Most importantly, don't you get that people are entitled to make their own decisions, live the way they like, and drive the vehicle of their choice without interference by some vegan, doofus, environutjob?
Sometimes I actually wish all the great developments of the 20th century, like the mass-produced automobile, would disappear. You know why? So people like you would be forced to raise and kill your own food, travel by horse (and clean up after them) and actually be required to learn a trade, work a farm or slave away in mine. Because only then will you appreciate everything you piss all over today and finally come to the realization that YOU can't possible survive without all the modern conveniences. On the other hand, those of us living in reality are always ready to rough it because we have an appreciation for what it took to get where we are today. We're not so arrogant that we take for granted everything will always be this good. It can, and does, go backwards quickly. Just ask nearly everyone living in Africa old enough to have experienced the colonial period.
Reply
GreatGreenHammer 10:41PM (1/30/2008)
Sebastian, instead of posting further on this subject, do you think it would be more effective if you just directed us to a site that sold Che Guevara T-shirts?
thanks..
Reply
Sebastian 11:07PM (1/30/2008)
@ GreatGreenHammer
Whoops. Sorry.
http://www.google.com/products?q=che+guevara+t-shirt&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1
:)
Reply
Baldguy 11:22PM (1/30/2008)
@Mike Z
Spot on. These so-called "environmentalists" are sadly more often than not people who really just want to make other people do what they want them to do. We can't have improvements because "they aren't perfect". Nothing is. For these types, "Reduce, Recycle, Reuse" pretty much only applies to humans: reduce us, recycle us, and reuse us.
Reply
GreyFlcn 1:34AM (1/31/2008)
Well, the slang for this type of environmentalist is a "Hair Shirt" Environmentalist.
(Not quite sure what that relates to though)
But anyways, here's a free EBook.
"No Hair Shirt Solutions to Global Warming: Now available free online!"
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/28/132418/450
Reply
Peter L 8:12AM (1/31/2008)
Bicycles - I ride one still - 60 years of riding 57 yrs of driving, used to ride to work.
Think of the pollution that comes from their manufacture. If you ride one over great distances or time they need spare parts just like other vehicles.
I have a motor cycle, up to 80 mpg, a 18 yr old Miata, and an 8 yr old Intrigue. All are driven only when needed, I usually walk for fruit and vege shopping, make my own bread.
I believe GM are doing the right thing in pursuing cellulosic ethanol development.
Reply
Owain Ozymandias Buck 8:19AM (1/31/2008)
I've always called this type of thinking the "all we need is solar and cannabis" movement. ;)
But seriously--maybe somewhat off topic, I swear we need a freshman level mandatory course or courses on critical thinking, sound rhetoric, and science as a process.
Reply
Taser 9:18AM (1/31/2008)
It's amazing the knee-jerk comments that many of the environmentalists have.
Mention microorganisms and it sparks the genetically- modified paranoia thread.
Mention using waste products and it brings out the What happens when we run out of waste? and This is going to harm our soil comments.
Mention creating cheap ethanol and it brings out Well I got less MPG on ethanol comment.
Honestly, I agree with some of the posters here, that there is a portion of the environmental movement that refuses to accept any intermediate steps toward eliminating the use of oil.
It's a shame, because many people point to this portion of the movement and then dismiss the entire movement for being totally unreasonable.
Reply
Bob Moffitt (Bob from ALAMN) 12:02PM (1/31/2008)
Truth is, many of our fellow citizens are going to drive big trucks and cars, even if we environmentalists disagree with that choice. Some -- like contractors and ranchers -- need them. Isn't it a good idea to offer these people a Clean Air Choice at the pump? http://CleanAirChoice.org
That said, we agree with Sebastian. The first words of advice on our website are "drive less."
Reply
1985 Gripen 2:39PM (1/31/2008)
Bicycles work when you live in congested cities where your apartment is relatively close to your place of employment.
To assume that everyone is in the same situation as you is ignorant and counter-productive.
We keep waiting around for the PERFECT solution while we're still using petroleum fuel. Why not start using something that's slightly better than gasoline (ethanol) while working toward the ideal? We sit on our hands and watch the climate change because we're waiting for the ideal.
I just don't understand most people...
Reply
Tony Belding 3:58PM (1/31/2008)
A sensible environmentalist wants the world to live within the resources that are available. More resources becoming available is a good thing; it makes the restrictions less severe, makes living within them easier.
A fanatical environmentalist wants the world to live within an arbitrarily tiny resource set because that's their philosophy, it's like a religion. To them more resources becoming available is a bad thing; it leads more people to reject their righteous vision of austerity.
So. . . How many cars can our world support over the long run? I don't know the answer, but I suspect we're going to find out.
Reply
oni 8:42AM (2/02/2008)
I think what he says is that one of the biggest problems with the american lifestyle is that we are just so greedy. Greedy as in we think we can use and have whatever we want without negative side effects. We consume, consume, consume, and consume. Not caring or thinking about that over consumption is creating alot of the problems we have at present. Fat people, easiest example. (Do you really need we those 2 Big Macs, extra large fries, 2 apple pies, and a extra large diet Coke)
We musn't forget that the world is changing and there are going to be more of us on it. So some of things we've been doing no longer will cut it.
Having gas at a dollar again will simply put us back to where were with using more than what we truly can afford as a being living on Earth. And using it more carelessy than we should. Having those large SUVs when a large portion of us could use someting smaller and more efficiently. Those individuals that need them, need them, simple as that. The rancher,the tow truck operater, the guy who tows religously has a legitimate use for that vehicle. It's just that a lot of people don't and by doing so use up a resource inefficiently.
Now myself love big American V8s and fast cars. I have an 89' Bronco with a V8 that I love. But I also have a small Saturn that I use most of the time. It's just that we all assume we can all have our cake and eat it to.
By any chance do you think that we can keep consuming resources at the rate we are at present. Turning empty farmland into stripmalls and suburbs. Farmland we need for food and fresh water supplies(as in those people who main source of water are aquifirs). Pumping gallons of water out of the ground to fill plastic bottles. Water we both need for agriculture, industrial, and to maintain our world in a state that we are accustomed to. Constantly expanding and building new roads. (That eats into land local, state and ferderal gov't resources) Mining for resources where ever we can because we can when we know that generations will come after us. (Which can destroy water supplies, virgin land, create eyesores and health problems for local populations) When if we just used those resources alittle more efficiently we can save those for those generations that will come after us.
The angle at which that guy comes from most definitely reaks of arrogant enviromentalist that thinks that they are right. But they do have a pretty good history of thinking of how thinks will affect us all in the future. Some things that maybe not all of us have thougt of or don't want to agree to. Even you don't like enviromentalist, they do force us to use resources more intelligently, efficiently and to think about potential consequences to our decisions.
Reply