Kermit is right--It’s not easy being green.
While I think it is wonderful that people want to be “green”, sometimes it seems to me this is a difficult task because: 1.) there is no clear definition; and 2.) what is “green” today may be “brown” tomorrow.
For example: Several years ago the “green” thing to do was get rid of paper grocery sacks because we were killing trees. Everyone changed to plastic which we now know are not biodegradable and not good for our landfills. Paper is easier to recycle than plastic and trees are a renewable resource.
As a minister, I am very much a believer that we are called to be stewards of the earth.
I even had a graduate-level course in “Environmental Theology” where my term paper defined pollution as a sin. You know how we preachers are.
I am really very concerned that what we are now doing in the name of being “green” when it comes to the energy we use to fuel our automobiles is going to turn out like substituting plastic for paper grocery bags.
Ethanol is probably the biggest fraud ever perpetuated on the American public. Not only does our government subsidize this industry with a tax credit of 51 cents per gallon, but ethanol is 34% less efficient than gasoline.
This means you have to burn one-third more ethanol than you do gasoline to go the same distance. Ethanol is not fuel efficient.
In addition, because of the subsidy, more farmers have planted corn and reduced planting of other grain crops and this has resulted in an additional cost to everyone in higher food costs at the grocery store.
Corn also has a significant impact on water, another resource which is more important to everyone on earth than how we fuel our vehicles.
Corn is a water-thirsty crop to grow and in the refining process it consumes 3 gallons of water to make one gallon of ethanol.
I am also told that corn requires more fertilizer and pesticides than most other crops to produce a good harvest which raise the potential for increased water pollution.
We also don’t know what harm the emissions of ethanol could cause because we haven’t used that much of it as yet. It would seem to me that Ethanol is far from being “green.”
What about hybrids which the Obama administration is promoting, and some say demanding in General Motor’s case.
In heavily congested traffic areas, there is no doubt hybrids improve gas mileage because when you are not moving on a jammed freeway, the gasoline engine isn’t running. However, for those who drive in more uncongested areas on interstate highways, there is very little impact.
But the real problem is the batteries. It is reported the batteries that power the electric motor portion of the vehicle have to be replaced about every five years.
The cost is reported to be between $5,000 and $6,000. Ask yourself, how many people will invest that much money in a five or six-year-old car just to replace the special battery.
And speaking of the battery, what is the impact on the environment when they are disposed of with the special metals and chemicals that are used to construct them?
Hydrogen fuel cells are also promoted as the way to go in the future, but the technology is not really there.
Recently a New Mexico based company said they plan to build a plant to produce hydrogen using electricity from wind, solar, and other renewable energy to “separate water into hydrogen and oxygen.”
Do we really want to consume water to make fuel even if the technology is developed?
Another problem is several scientific studies say substantially increased hydrogen production has the potential to damage the upper atmosphere.
Natural gas is a proven clean source of energy, but seems to be (pardon the pun) on the back burner in our nation’s capital.
Remember the environmentalists in the Carter administration moved us away from natural gas in the 1970s with “doomsday-type” predictions that we would run out of natural gas in this country by the early 1990s. Today, we have an abundance of natural gas reserves in the U.S.—so much for government predictions.
According to an off-editorial page article in the Oklahoman by Robert Hefner--a pioneer in deep gas well drilling--the use of natural gas to replace coal in electric utility plants and to power our automobiles would allow the United States to exceed more than half of the mandated goals that have been set to reduce our new catch phase “carbon footprint” and significantly reduce our dependence of foreign oil—of which the majority comes from Canada and Mexico and not the Middle East.
Those who really care about the environment should be pushing for expanding the use of natural gas engines in new cars, converting older cars, and expanding the distribution networks.
Hefner says a simple attachment in homes currently using natural gas for heat could be used to refuel our vehicles.
It would seem to me that we should be emphasizing natural gas as the best solution for fueling our vehicles until it can be determined if all the new technology is really “green” or ultimately “brown.”
Editor’s Note: This guest editorial is offered by Ray Belford, a member of The News-Star Guest Editorial Advisory Board. The views expressed by our guest editorialists and guest columnists are theirs, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the News-Star’s management.
