Kill 'em Todd. Some bullets for you: "LPG 'could be worse for health than diesel'." -- South China Morning Post, 23 August, 2000.
"Switching vehicles from diesel to liquefied petroleum gas might pose health risks, research carried out at America's Harvard University suggests." The study, by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis (HCRA) at Harvard School of Public Health, found, among other things, that natural gas (LPG) reduces emissions of fine particulates, those smaller than 2.5 microns, but may generate more ultrafine particles than diesel, of less than 0.1 micron. "Several studies indicate that ultrafine particles may have an even more dramatic impact on health than those in the fine category." It also found that LPG would increase greenhouse gas emissions, of C02, and of methane, which "is approximately 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2". "European regulators seem to be favoring diesel fuel as part of their effort to comply with the Kyoto agreements to stabilize CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions," the report said. "They are using tax incentives and emissions standards to encourage the use of new cleaner-burning diesel fuels. European vehicle manufacturers appear to be increasing their application of 'green' diesel technology that captures significant amounts of particulates." Harvard press release: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/press/releases/press1102000.html Complete copy of the report (PDF, 205 KB): http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/Organizations/hcra/diesel/diesel.pdf And a target: "... promotion of ethanol is not a really effective way of buying the American farmer into sustainability. Far more attractive is the concept of using better soil management to increase soil carbon content. Ethanol introduces a conflict between feeding the world and fueling it that is best left out of the mess of agricultural issues we face. (Especially since the buildup of nitrogen fertilizer in the oceans is such a serious problem - I feel it is worse than global warming, and far less acknowledged in the public mind. If we reduce our dependence on nitrogen fertilizer, corn production will be one of the first places the change shows up, and while we have a lot of room for slop before we have to become a nation of vegetarians, I think climate change will be putting pressure on world food production, as the early evidence is that it is doing so already." Etc etc etc -- Ned Ford, Vice Chair, National Energy Committee, Sierra Club (513) 241-8616; [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://GardenEarth.com/fuel02.html That guy earns a corporate-type salary to do what he does and know what he knows, and this half-baked crap is the best he can do? That's pathetic. Something else that's getting real old is the BS that there's a conflict between producing ethanol and feeding the world's hungry masses. Also, I keep encountering this idea that maize production levels depend on nitrogen fertiliser inputs, but it's just not true, as many studies show. Yield remains the same, costs go down. Cornelius A. Van Milligen of Kentucky Enrichment Inc, a member of this list, recently posted this message to the Sustainable Agriculture list: "... I asked this lady in Michigan [an organic grower] how her [organic soybean] production compared to her neighbors. She said if her neighbor got 40 bu/acre she could expect 35. But she spends a lot less on amendments and sprays. Organic is a little more labor intensive but a lot cheaper to raise. With production staying high she sees it as good sense to grow organic. Regarding corn. She said if her neighbor gets 120 bushels of corn so does she. Corn suffers no loss due to organic production. But it is a lot cheaper to raise." Maybe the ace environmentalists at Club Sierra haven't heard of organic growing yet. Interesting question whose ends they serve. Or maybe it's just that ethanol's a political issue and "my enemy's friend is my enemy". Keith Addison Journey to Forever Handmade Projects Tokyo http://journeytoforever.org/ >On this date, July 5, 2001, Great Lakes Radio Consortium (GLRC) had >a piece aired on National Public Radio, where once again >"environmentalists" were quoted as being against the enforcement of >California Clean Air standards through the use of ethanol over >"other" substitutes for MTBE. > >A Club Sierra spokeswoman laid claim that there were multiple other >gasoline additives that could be used that are more cost effective >than ethanol, while achieving the same end result. > >Claim was also laid that the use of ethanol was going to gouge consumers. > >Further, the qualifier by the Club Sierra representative was that >the purpose of the Clean Air Act was to benefit public health, with >the underlying implication that ethanol would not achieve this, or >not as readily as the other chemical additives, which conveniently >were not identified. > >To the best of my ability to recollect or discover, Sierra has never >openly stated what these other additives are that can achieve the >desired effect, only that "they" exist. > >Perhaps I am the only one, but this is getting a bit old, not only >from the perspective of Club Sierra representatives being assigned >the spokesperson role by the media which apparently encompasses all >environmentalists, but the continual attempt of The Club to >disenfranchise biofuels from their viable role in the transportation >energy sector. > >They discount the immediate benefits of biodiesel in favor of a >natural gas infrastructure that will take decades to create. They >discount ethanol in favor of unnamed chemical additives and the >preservation of petrochemical fuels. > >Someone should ask, based upon their defense of such untenable >positions, just who is it that they really serve? > >For those interested, the GLRC's website is http://www.glrc.org/ > >The piece mentioned here should be posted in the next day or so. > >Todd Swearingen >Appal Energy >[EMAIL PROTECTED] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
