In the past couple of weeks, NewsBusters has been noting that as food prices around the world have soared causing an international crisis, typically green press members have been surprisingly reporting a rather pessimistic view of ethanol.
Without question, the most comprehensive and daring commentary I've seen on this subject to date comes from a program north of the border called The National.
Though not a household name here in the States, the CBC's Rex Murphy is willing to address the heart of this issue in a fashion so honest and unconcerned with the currently in vogue climate alarmism that it is a metaphysical certitude viewers will want to see and read more of his opinions.
Frankly, I'd doubt any American broadcaster would have the nerve to say the following with cameras rolling and microphones switched on (absolutely must-see video available here, transcript follows, enthusiastic h/t to NBer Par for the Course):
The rage over global warming and the great Al Gore crusade is producing a few inconvenient truths itself. For a subject that was supposed to be debate-free, global warming is towing a whole tsunami of controversy in its wake, and nowhere more pathetically than in the global warming craze for befouls. We should have known from the word itself, "biofuel." The more fervent environmentalists are very good on choosing the right words. Put "shade-grown" in front of some ridiculously priced coffee, and suddenly a hit of caffeine is earth friendly.
The go-green business is everywhere. Jay Leno probably owns more cars than G.M., but did you know Jay Leno has a green garage? Rock and movie stars headline green concerts and then haul themselves around the world in fleets of customized buses and private jets. International conferences on global warming routinely fly 10,000 or 15,000 people from all over the world, like in Bali recently, where they meet and mutter about the nasty effects on global warming of jet flights.
The ethanol craze grew out of alarmism and the deep desire of governments, especially here in North America and Europe, to be seen as green. Now, it's clear that growing corn to make ethanol not only takes more energy to produce than it saves on the other end, but the subsidies, particularly in the States and Europe, for such production is one of the factors driving an international food crisis that, as always, is hardest on the poorest people of the world.
Did you know that the clearance of grassland for biofuel releases 93 times the amount of greenhouse gas that would be saved by the fuel made annually on that land? That's from "Science" magazine. The European Environmental Agency has warned that the commitment to biofuels will lead to, I'm quoting here, "the accelerated devastation of rain forests." The commitment to those noble Kyoto targets is leading to some strange results. World food crisis, great destruction of rain forests... who would have ever guessed that saving the planet could contribute to such unenvironmental ends?
I won't go as far as that U.N. special rapporteur who recently called the production of biofuels, quote, "a crime against humanity." Certain U.N. agencies have a tendency to haul up that phrase a little too easily for anything but genuine crimes against humanity. But, in the U.S., in Britain, and here in Canada too, governments nudged or hectored by global warming hype and the constant cries that it's going to be too late signed on to yet another feel-good solution, and it turns out, (a), not to work - the biofuels over their life add more CO2 than they save - and, (b), is driving up the cost and diminishing the stock of food for the world's poorest people.
Don't listen when people tell you there's no debate, even if it's holy St. Al himself saying so. There are a million debates about global warming, and the biggest one of all is whether some of its solutions have the potential to make much greater problems - messing with the world economy in all its interdependence being one - than they are meant to solve. There is much folly and not a little fanaticism in the global warming movement, and unless the discussion of it returns to rationality and real science, we're going to see a few more spectacles - like the biofuel movement - that will cause real pain to the very poorest of the planet because the very richest want to feel that they're doing something about global warming.
I doubt that the most zealous global warming activists will acknowledge the mischiefs and potential miseries that their alarmism contributes to, but then some truths are more inconvenient than others.
For "The National," I'm Rex Murphy.
Bravo, Rex. Bravo.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.





















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Burning food
May 2, 2008 - 18:14 ET by 10ksnookerIt's only an idea that Liberal central planners would love.
Bravo, indeed. Rex is one of
May 2, 2008 - 18:43 ET by RMRBravo, indeed. Rex is one of the few sane voices left at the CBC.
I am surprised that the ever-alert lefty censors at the Cummunist Broadcasting Network - as we call it - allow such "blasphemy" to slip by unscathed.
Perhaps, if people
May 2, 2008 - 18:47 ET by MidAmericaPerhaps, if people actually do start dying from starvation, that al and the kyoto signers can be brought before the world court at the Hague for genocide.
What happened to the tigers stripes?
May 2, 2008 - 18:55 ET by dboGreat video. The CBC is right up there with the BBC when it comes to promoting liberal mythology and anti American bigotry. It draws a cool 1.5 billion dollar subsidy every year and is the epitome of government expansion and empire building. How did this ever get through its filter?
I'm shocked, absolutely
May 2, 2008 - 19:02 ET by mandrakeI'm shocked, absolutely shocked I tell you...how dare you reference a CBC commentary? Don't you know that they are socialist of the worst sort!! CBC is government funded..they are commies I tell you. As for Rex Murphy..well off with his head.
Noel
May 3, 2008 - 14:12 ET by mandrakeOk, maybe I laid on the sarcasim a little thick there. But the point I was trying to make was that if I had ever used the CBC as reference in a post, I would have been laughed off/dismissed as a commie..etc.
But you seem to be able to get away with it..How does that voodoo magic work?
Rex Murphy is to be commended...
May 2, 2008 - 19:06 ET by ThalpyRex Murphy is to be commended for his report on biofuel. Given the Left Loons he will no doubt attract, I hope that he purchases a complete Kevlar suit-- ASAP.
The irony
May 2, 2008 - 19:07 ET by GlobalWarmingInsanitySo we were all told that global warming was going to be the hardest on the poorest people on the planet.
So the liberal cure is to pump tortillas and rice into our gas tanks in the name of compassion and caring for the planet. Nice plan.
GlobalWarmingInsanity.com
Wrong...
May 2, 2008 - 20:58 ET by SyriusLook at the facts...environmentalists have been against it...use "the google". Even Castro from a year ago...
type in "ethanol opposition castro environmentalist", hit search, if you don't believe me. Facts, facts, facts...
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
The environmentalists
May 3, 2008 - 16:38 ET by jpm100The environmentalists started to lose interest in ethanol once they realized it was relatively painless drop in replacement for gas when looking at the other technologies like hybrids and diesels which put hefty premium on the price of a car. Don't get me started on H2.
Now with new technologies that use cellulose are now leaving the drawing board and going to production, the expensive corn approach's days are numbered. That's when they completely turned on it.
I don't know which media
May 2, 2008 - 19:12 ET by cleverpigI don't know which media you guys are listening to, but everytime I turn on the news I hear another story about how ethanol is causing soaring food prices and worldwide shortages. What exactly is it you think isn't being reported?
I also think it is a little odd that this article about how the media is turning on ethanol comes right before a poll asking if the media will ever report on the failures of ethanol. Isn't the answer very obviously yes? They are reporting on all of the problems, so unless those problems are somehow solved, they've already reported on the failures of ethanol!
Where were these people 14
May 2, 2008 - 19:20 ET by NL207Where were these people 14 years ago when that dolt, Algore, was breaking a tie vote in the Senate to MANDATE the use of ethanol in motor fuel?
They were in the tank with the proponents of this policy extolling the virtues of ethanol and independence from Mideast oil. That is where they were. Just like today, when the same ignoramuses are touting all sorts of carbon footprint schemes and green initiatives to "combat" climate change. They are just as wrong today as they were 14 years ago. They were still wrong about ethanol last year. They are still wrong about Anthropogenic Global Warming today.
CP
May 2, 2008 - 19:28 ET by Noel SheppardCP,
Honestly, are you just trying to be incendiary, or are your reading comprehension skills so abysmal that you shouldn't be taken at all seriously here? Honestly?
Did you miss this opening paragraph in your zeal to be contentious:
Did you notice this? After all, it WAS the opening paragraph!!!
I have INDEED been writing FOR WEEKS about how the media have been discussing this issue. Did you miss that, too?
Honestly, CP, if this is the level of discourse you're going to add here, I'll stop reading your comments and do something more productive with my time. Fair enough? ns
Honestly, are you just
May 2, 2008 - 19:51 ET by NewsbusterbrownHonestly, are you just trying to be incendiary, or are your reading comprehension skills so abysmal that you shouldn't be taken at all seriously here?
"All of the above," Noel?
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
NBB
May 2, 2008 - 20:00 ET by Noel SheppardNBB,
Well, she's still showing as logged on. She better come back with an intelligent response, and soon, or I'm through with her. This was one of the most absurd comments at this website in months. I expect an explanation, or CP can ____ __ ___!!! (fill in the blanks). :-) ns
Well, she's still showing
May 2, 2008 - 21:38 ET by cleverpigWell, she's still showing as logged on. She better come back with an
intelligent response, and soon, or I'm through with her. This was one
of the most absurd comments at this website in months. I expect an
explanation, or CP can ____ __ ___!!! (fill in the blanks). :-) ns
Anything about this comment you want to clarify or explain? Does the smiley face mean you don't think mine was one of the most absurd comments on this website in months, or just that you don't really want me to kiss your ass?
I am wary of expressing outrage in a medium where the other person can't interrupt you and correct any misunderstandings. So if you can think of any reason why I shouldn't find your tone and attitude towards me ridiculously insulting, I encourage you to express it now.
CP
May 3, 2008 - 10:24 ET by Noel SheppardCP,
I owe you an apology. This was a tad over the top, and undeserved.
However, as your initial comment in this thread was actually critical of the poll question, maybe it would have been more appropriate to post it there. Why complain about the poll in the thread previous to it?
In reality, as I was pointing out -- and have been -- just how much media have been bashing ethanol lately, you should have been complimentary rather than accusatory. Make sense?
I've gone back and reread what precipitated my response. Maybe you should go back, reread your initial post, and ask yourself why your criticism was placed here. Then, consider how the author of this article in question -- who has been writing for weeks about media accusing ethanol of causing the food crisis -- might have taken your criticism. ns
Thank you for the
May 3, 2008 - 12:53 ET by cleverpigThank you for the apology.
If I misplaced this post then I apologize as well.
I still don't think I was being that critical, though. When I'm posting because I think someone is being an idiot, I think I make it pretty clear. I don't call them an idiot, obviously, but my tone is much different. I tend to preface my points with things like "Please!" or "Are you kidding me?"
This post was just intended to point out a disconnect between the general attitude towards the press, surprise when they do anything right, disbelief that they might report the truth, and the reality reflected in the number of posts here about the press doing a good job on ethanol. I think that disconnect is still represented in your post when you express disbelief that anyone in the American press would say the same things as this Canadian guy. But in hindsight it would have made more sense to put it in the poll, so I apologize for that.
In any case, given my profession, I should know better. Nothing changes behavior faster than positive reinforcement. If you need more pats on the back from me, Noel, you'll get 'em! ...when you do right :)
CP
May 3, 2008 - 13:07 ET by Noel SheppardCP,
:-)
Actually, I wasn't fishing for compliments, as I'm sure you know I get many here, albeit rarely from liberals. :-)
In the end, part of the problem is one of expectation, and bias on my part. Let me elaborate: if one expects criticism, one will find it. Make sense?
There are posters here representing the left who are largely critical of virtually everything written at NB. Correct? Safe to say, without offending you, that you are part of that group? As such, when writers here come across comments posted by certain members, it is safe to assume they're expecting the worst. I've got to be more careful to not fall into that trap.
At the same time, maybe the folks in this left-leaning group should be equally cognizant of their penchant towards finding the worst here. Maybe the dialogue would be more civil. ns
Agreed. I've been
May 3, 2008 - 13:26 ET by cleverpigAgreed.
I've been expressing some frustration lately that when I come to a post with a technical, non-idealogical point, I still get responded to as though I had posted a Marxist screed. I feel like we need to be able to at least politely agree on factual issues before we can have any hope of understanding one another, and I don't see that happening on NB.
But you are absolutely right, I come to these posts thinking "He can't possibly being saying something positive, can he?!" And if I look at it in that light I'll always find something to criticize. I should try for a more positive outlook!
I think you are the only editor who's ever posted something I completely agreed with, though, an article about doom and gloom in the weather media some time back. And I said so! But hey, I probably looked for something I could complain about and just didn't find it ;)
CP
May 3, 2008 - 13:37 ET by Noel SheppardI probably looked for something I could complain about and just didn't find it ;)
Either an off-day, or you just weren't trying hard enough! :-)
Well, something else you should consider is the alcohol element. Don't post one evening. Instead, lurk and watch how different the conversations are after the cocktail hour. Things get much worse, and do at every message board I've ever participated at.
Another element is our thin skins in such forums, and how quickly we are to get offended here versus face to face. When you can't see the expression on someone's face or hear intonation, it's easy to quickly read negativity. Happens to me, too.
A couple of weeks ago, I got into it with one of my favorite liberal posters here. By the end, it turned so antagonistic that we couldn't agree on up or down. I tried resuscitation without success. Too bad. ns
Oooh, I've never noticed
May 3, 2008 - 14:41 ET by cleverpigOooh, I've never noticed the alcohol thing. I'll watch for that!
Noel
May 3, 2008 - 13:34 ET by shawn228Yes many on us the left are critical of the content on NB. I hope you don't think we all express our views in a mocking or flaming sense.
There is only one contributing writer that I am not so polite to, and that person is not you.
I have to admit that there is a sense of petty vindication when I am proven right, like McCain winning the nomination.
I might get that sense of vindication again in November, when I win our bet, and you have to buy me a round of drinks and 2 appetizers ;-)
Shawn
May 3, 2008 - 13:41 ET by Noel SheppardShawn,
:-)
Okay, now, remind me: you believe that if Obama wins the nomination, he's going to beat McCain, correct? Or, was it Hillary beating McCain?
Forgive my poor memory here. I've got so many bets about this election, I can't keep track of them all! :-) ns
Noel
May 3, 2008 - 14:35 ET by shawn228Sorry I am late with my response, I thought it might be sold out so, I just bought some tickets for a matinee showing of Iron Man.
Wow 8 bucks a pop for a matinee. Anyways enough whining :-)
I said that there is strong chance because of fear of political fallout that Hillary or Obama will pick the other as the running mate and you disagreed. However that is not our bet.
You said that if they ran on the same ticket they will never win, because black voters will not vote for Hillary and white voters will not win for Obama, and McCain will probably win in a landslide
So I have to be proven right about the running mate thing first before I can win the those drinks and appetizers at Izzies. :-)
Shawn
May 3, 2008 - 15:35 ET by Noel SheppardShawn,
Gotcha. I thought ours was a little different. BTW: We needn't wait until Election Day to have a pop or two. Have you been to Tower Grille yet? Why don't you meet me there some day? You'll find it a tad friendlier, more sports oriented, and about half the price. Honestly. Much better looking help and clientele to boot. :-) ns
Sounds great Noel :-)
May 3, 2008 - 19:33 ET by shawn228Sounds great Noel :-)
What the hell is your
May 2, 2008 - 21:31 ET by cleverpigWhat the hell is your problem tonight?!
I said in my second paragraph that this post acknowledges media attention to the issue, which is why I found the poll above it strange. Did you have trouble parsing those sentences?
You seem to be saying, however, that the American media would never say such things on camera. I listen to the American media, and so I ASKED A QUESTION about what it is you think they should be reporting that they are not. Because I think they are addressing it just fine.
Was that really so out of line that I need to get a personal rebuke over it?
For you to criticize the level of discourse I bring to this site is ridiculous. You really think that compared to the totality of the NB community my posts have less substance and worth than most others? I'm a little tired of getting the back of your hand every time I comment negatively on something you've written. If you can't handle it, feel free to stop reading any time.
Ooops, clever.
May 2, 2008 - 21:40 ET by BlondeIt's not too cool to curse at the editors, here.
Particularly not at Noel, who is the most equitable. Further, you questioned his comprehension. Major whoops, piggy.
Sometimes your posts here are cogent, but for the most part...you blather on in talking points.
If I were you, I'd fall on my knees and abjectly apologize. But, I know you are an unrepentant liberal from NoCal....it's not in your vocabulary.
So I'm enjoying your dilema.
Oink. Oink. Oink.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Further, you questioned his
May 2, 2008 - 23:23 ET by cleverpigFurther, you questioned his comprehension.
I will happily accept a ban for that after Noel comes here and explains why it is okay for him to levy that insult at me, but not for me to throw it back.
I didn't start the intelligence-based insults or the cursing. He may have typed in blank spaces, but we all know what he meant. The sentiment is just as offensive whether the letters are typed out or not. If it was a joke, fine. I'll accept that when he says it.
Oink. Oink. Oink.
What exactly is it about the online medium that makes people so childish?
I think it was all a
May 3, 2008 - 12:30 ET by ApacheI think it was all a misunderstanding. Just reading down the list of topics, the poll did seem oddly placed. I suggest we all strive to protect our cleverpigs rather than run them off so their funny snouts may be around to entertain us for future generations.
Thank you. After this
May 3, 2008 - 12:40 ET by cleverpigThank you.
After this brush with extinction, I think I am going to apply for protection for cleverpigs under the Endangered Species Act. Then it will be a federal crime for you all to be mean to me. Or look at me funny.
:)
Clever
May 3, 2008 - 12:45 ET by BlondeI didn't choose your SN....you did.
So, my "Oink, Oink, Oink" comment was me saying....methinks you doth protest too much.
You're not as clever as you think you are, hmmmmm?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
My screen name is a play on
May 3, 2008 - 13:12 ET by cleverpigMy screen name is a play on words, which you won't understand unless you know my real name. It has nothing to do with my thinking I am either clever or a pig.
In any case, the point isn't that you can't make a joke about my name, it's that I am amazed that you still use it as a comeback after all this time. Do you really find it that funny? Do you giggle everytime you see my SN? Those would be traits shared with most five-year-olds, so I stand by my contention that you are being childish.
As for your admonition that I should get on my knees and apologize to Noel, I suggest you try being less of a panting crony to the editors here. It's unseemly. He owed me an apology, and he knew it. I am happy to apologize for my part in return. Pointing your finger at me and chanting "Oooooh, you're in trouble!" is even more childish than making piggy faces :P
(For the benefit of other readers, this it what it sounds like when I'm really being critical of someone)
Sheesh...tell it to someone who cares!
May 3, 2008 - 13:15 ET by BlondeApparently, the only one who is amused by your "oh so clever" SN is you....so what? I feel sorry for you, having chosen so poorly, here.
You were waaaay out of line with your comments. And don't worry about my relationship with the eds here...it's none of your business now, is it? Typical liberal....sticking your piggy little snout in where it doesn't belong.
As for your continued charges of immaturity here....honey...go look in the mirror. You haven't a clue. Seriously.
For the benefit of other readers ....this is how I respond when I think someone is a flaming fool! But they knew that.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
If your relationship with
May 3, 2008 - 14:38 ET by cleverpigIf your relationship with the editors is none of my business, then mine is also none of yours. Keep your advice to yourself and we won't have to talk about who sticks their piggy snouts where.
Sound good?
In a way, I am not
May 2, 2008 - 19:52 ET by stratmanIn a way, I am not surprised that a reporter in Canada is reporting fact and questioning AGW. It has been my experience that most every other civilized country has been reporting AGW as still a debatable issue.
America has been the seemingly absolute worst of the litter when it came to climate scientific fact and debate. It is as if the Dark Ages II descended upon America with AlGore as a modern though perverted and anti-scholarly version of Francesco Petrarca, the man who coined the term Dark Ages.
RRAM Tough!
Strat
May 2, 2008 - 19:56 ET by Noel SheppardStrat,
Agreed. As you know, I've been saying for a couple of years that foreign media are much more willing to discuss this issue from both sides of the aisle than our sycophantic, Al Gore-lovin' press. Frankly, it's not even close.
That said, when it comes to this ethanol issue lately, our press have been vicious. As vicious as Rex? Certainly not. But, it's been interesting to watch, wouldn't you agree? ns
Yes indeed, I agree with
May 2, 2008 - 20:19 ET by stratmanYes indeed, I agree with both points.
You, your associates and fellow citizen contributors to NB have been fantastic in helping to keep me informed and on my intellectual toes.
There is no other high quality information clearinghouse utilizing primary links to the data like NB on the internet I know of currently which also combines thoughtful and respectful commentary from its members as well as accessible and responsive editors.
Thank you.
RRAM Tough!
NS
May 2, 2008 - 20:31 ET by MidAmericaI live in ethanol country (used to be corn country) and to read local reports like this one it is sad to see what the final result will be for those who were led to believe that ethanol was a winner. Look at the amounts of corn(food) that will be rendered unusable at just this one relatively small plant. No energy is saved, CO2 output is greater, and food costs more. We usually accuse the liberals of clinging to wrong ideas because the ideas are 'feel good' ideas. No one is going to feel good about this 'holiday' from science and reason.
Are you to say environmentalists are pushing ethanol?
May 2, 2008 - 20:52 ET by SyriusNoel,
I've noticed a trend in blaming the ethanol controversy and the "greening" of our fuel situtation onto environmentalists. Are you in support of blaming liberals and environmentalists for the push in ethanol?
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Syrius
May 2, 2008 - 21:18 ET by Noel SheppardSyrius,
That's a complex question. From a legislative standpoint, ethanol mandates were passed "bipartisanly" with support of the President. As I've analyzed this, from a legislative standpoint, this is more regional than partisan, inasmuch as the farm states have been all for it regardless of political affiliation, and the non-farm states against.
However -- and it's a big however! -- the climate alarmists like Gore and his sycophant devotees are STRONGLY in favor of biofuel. Gore, his GIM, and his new VC are HEAVILY invested in biofuel companies. HEAVILY!!!
As such, there's two sides to this, and if media were at all honest with their recent finger-pointing regarding this issue, they would FINALLY be exposing Gore's VAST monetary connection to biofuel. VAST!!! This man is so intricately tied to biofuel, it's absurd.
Did you watch the videos of him and John Doerr speaking at TED? Let me know when you have, and please give me your view. ns
Noel, I agree to a point.
May 2, 2008 - 22:54 ET by R D HelmBut it was Al Gore who cast the tipping vote in all this, and, given his "business" activities since 2000, I cannot say that vote was exactly innocent, either.
What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
Don't believe Global Warming is a Religion? Think again
May 2, 2008 - 23:04 ET by PopularTechNoel, you brought up a great point about "TED", check out how they have Al Gore listed:
Al Gore: Climate-change prophet
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Great discussion of super
May 2, 2008 - 23:19 ET by balboaGreat discussion of super string theory on same site, BTW.
Is that anything like
May 3, 2008 - 06:35 ET by motherbeltIs that anything like "Silly String"?
You knew that was coming, didn't you?
Sorry, I couldn't resist. ;-)
Hell yes environmentalists are responsible for ethanl
May 2, 2008 - 22:42 ET by PopularTechWhy do you think we are talking about biofuels at all? If it was not for the mentally insane liberal environmentalists we would continue to use whatever works best in the free market = OIL, COAL, NATURAL GAS AND NUCLEAR energy.
Who else is responsible? Oh yes idiot "compassionate" conservatives who wouldn't know how to comprehend the energy content vs cost of a fuel source if they had a PHD - that is you Newt.
But hey do you "feel" better about not wanting to use oil? I mean everything we do should be about how you "feel" forget logic and rationality lets all throw that out and substitute in pot induced "feelings" for our energy policy. Maybe we can go back to a third world standard of living where it is all roses and lollipops.
Oh yes you "environmentalists" want to use "clean" energy like wind and solar you just don't want to pay for the ridiculous price it costs to use them. It is all so "easy" you just wave your hand and say "it is obvious we should just be using wind and solar" they are perfect energy sources "clean" and they make me "feel" so good that I am an "environmentalist" who likes the earth. The only reason we don't use them is because Exxon says no you have to use oil and stops anyone from developing more cost effective fuels because they control every country on the planet. It all makes perfect sense and I bet you didn't know that the Earth really has "feelings" too and when you use the oil that comes from the planet it crys because that is bad.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Pop Tech. You have heard of the 100 mpg carburetor..
May 2, 2008 - 23:05 ET by upcountrywaterLocked up by the evil oil companies.
Here's a new twist..
The oil companies have locked up a new battery the one with the 20 year life span and 10 times the storage capacity. Oh yea charges in 5 minutes. I KID U NOT!
The POPE says, GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
IranianUranium<sleep>New/Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
100 MPG Carburetor Myth
May 3, 2008 - 02:01 ET by PopularTechYeah I have heard about the 100 MPG Carburetor Myth, it is real big with conspiracy nuts:
Miracle Carburetor = False (Snopes)
The 100 MPG Carburetor Myth (The Fish Carburetor Book)
Any links to the battery one I would be interested.
I suspect it has something to do with the Electric Car Myth:
The Buyers Have Spoken: Forget Electric Cars (Car and Driver)
Who Ignored the Facts About the Electric Car? (GM)
Who Killed Common Sense? (Edmunds)
Who Killed the Electric Car? Nobody! (Watts Up With That?)
"The EV1 ‘died’ because it had limited range, limited room for passengers or luggage, couldn’t climb a hill or run the air conditioning without depleting the battery and no device to get you home when your battery charge ran low."
And it is all Exxon's fault!
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
It's not like all environmentalists support this stuff
May 2, 2008 - 20:58 ET by Agrarian-DecentralistThe wiser heads in the environmental sustainability movement have long questioned ethanol. Lester Brown---then of the Worldwatch Institute, now of the Earth Policy Institute---wrote a paper, published in 1980, entitled "Food or Fuel: New Competition for the World's Cropland." Others (e.g., David Pimentel of Cornell University) have warned that the usual way of producing ethanol---from industrially farmed corn---has a very unfavorable net energy yield because of the fossil fuels that go into pesticides, fertilizers, farm transport, etc.
I think just about anyone who understands the principles of environmental sustainability recognizes that making ethanol from industrially farmed corn is highly problematic. And of course they recognize that destroying rain forests for short-term fuel production is criminally short-sighted. For those authentic "greens" who do think ethanol has a viable future, all the talk is about moving into cellulosic or other forms of production that do NOT compete with cropland.
Sustainability is a Myth!
May 2, 2008 - 22:23 ET by PopularTechYou mean the environmental sustainability propaganda movement!
'Sustainable development' is just dangerous nonsense (Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus of Biogeography, University of London)
Sovietizing America: How Sustainable Development Crushes the Individual (The Objectivist Center)
Sustainable Development A Dubious Solution in Search of a Problem (PDF) (The Cato Institute)
Sustainable silliness (The Heartland Institute)
Environmentalists are mentally insane.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
"Sustainable Development"
May 2, 2008 - 22:52 ET by motherbelt"Sustainable Development" is one of those neat phrases, like "fair share" (of taxes) for which everyone has their own definition.
Like "affordable housing".....affordable to whom?
What Sustainable Development is...
May 2, 2008 - 22:52 ET by PopularTechExactly, it is essentially socialist government planning of society in the guise of environmental concern that can be freely defined at will.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
I'll tell you why...He's Rex
May 2, 2008 - 21:04 ET by Interested and concerned CDNI'll tell you why...He's Rex Murphy and he hyp NO tized them!
co2 credits
May 2, 2008 - 21:36 ET by neo0071What about all this business with CO2 credits for international flights out of the uk to the us. There's a $350 CO2 surcharge per individual. Look what they are investing it in?
Someone is getting rich...
Rex is great
May 2, 2008 - 22:48 ET by pgrossjrloved the video. his bit on Spitzer was priceless. Have to agree, given the trouble those like Mark Steyn have with the PC police up there, i can't imagine how such heresy ever made it on screen
Not a surprise!
May 3, 2008 - 02:28 ET by UnsaneAs a (usually) regular viewer of The National since I first saw it on my first foray into Canada in 2001, this doesn't surprise me at all. Rex Murphy can come up with some outstanding commentaries, some of which I cut and pasted from the cbc.ca website onto some Word files for future use.
In fact, before my laptop lost wi-fi connectivity (as I have no wi-fi capabilities here), it downloaded a commentary of his via a podcast format, which blasted the politically correct censorship being imposed by a bunch of disgruntled law students and Canada's human rights commissions. It was truly awesome.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Sam
May 3, 2008 - 02:37 ET by acadia1755Been listening to him for years on Cross country check up.
But everytime I see Rex I think of Sam the Eagle..Just can't help it.
http://www.disgalaxy...
http://www.friendsof...
I agree with Rex Murphy and PopTech
May 3, 2008 - 14:03 ET by DelsaI cannot say what the two of you have said any better.
some folks here have said some strange things. Like the battery stuff. How do you recharge the battery?
ELECTRICITY!!!!!!!