Did you hear about that report released last week from a Stanford University atmospheric chemist demonstrating that the tailpipe emissions from cars using E85 ethanol are actually more dangerous than those using normal gasoline? You didn’t?
Hmmm. What a shock.
Anyway, Environmental Science & Technology reported Wednesday (emphasis added throughout, h/t NB member Dahlia Travers):
When Mark Jacobson heard a venture capitalist tout ethanol fuel as a solution to air pollution last year, he was surprised—and intrigued. Jacobson, an atmospheric chemist at Stanford University, knew that air quality got worse during Brazil's big ethanol push in the 1970s and that the reason was still unclear.
You don’t hear a lot about Brazil’s pollution woes, do you? Well, Jacobson’s instincts were quite strong:
Jacobson decided to use his sophisticated air-pollution model to put ethanol to the test. Would switching the U.S. fleet to white lightning make the country breathe easier?
His results, published today on ES&T's Research ASAP website (DOI: 10.1021/es062085v), show that ethanol is no silver bullet for health. Switching to E85 blends (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) could result in slightly higher ozone-related mortality, hospitalization, and asthma (9% higher in Los Angeles and 4% higher in the U.S. as a whole), the study finds. Cancer rates would be similar for gasoline and E85.
Starting to make sense why you didn’t hear much about this? The article continued:
“It's true that ethanol does decrease some pollutants, but it also increases some others," Jacobson says. Compared with gasoline, ethanol tends to produce less benzene and butadiene, but more acetaldehyde and formaldehyde, when burned.
The result: more ozone and about 185 more deaths per year across the U.S., with 125 of those in Los Angeles. Jacobson studied that city in depth because of its ongoing smog problem and found that it has the right atmospheric chemistry to make the ethanol switch particularly problematic.
Shocking. But there was more:
Previous studies have estimated the pollution and health effects of burning ethanol, but Jacobson says those researchers simply scaled up tailpipe emissions and plugged those numbers into outdated formulas to calculate ozone changes and cancer rates. His atmospheric model, called GATOR-GCMOM, accounted for the transport of tailpipe emissions across the U.S. along with chemical transformations in the atmosphere—key components that had been neglected in previous studies.
Think about that last paragraph the next time you hear a global warming alarmist talk about a scientific consensus:
The findings suggest that ethanol cannot be promoted simply as a boon to public health, Jacobson adds. Other factors need to be studied and weighed before ethanol use is made widespread, he says, such as greenhouse-gas emissions, U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and the environmental impacts of growing plants for ethanol.
And, consider the article’s conclusion as well:
But rushing ahead to fix one problem can create another, cautions Hadi Dowlatabadi of the University of British Columbia (Canada). In a previous ES&T study, he found that a U.K. policy designed to reduce carbon emissions created air-quality problems by encouraging particulate-spewing diesel vehicles. He praised the new paper for "trying to point out an issue ahead of time".
Maybe all the global warming alarmists should pay heed, dontcha think?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
:)
April 23, 2007 - 00:05 ET by wiwfNoel,
I <3 U for finding this sort of stuff!
WIWF
April 23, 2007 - 00:08 ET by Noel SheppardW,
Thanks. But, this one goes to Dahlia. Give her the <3. :-) ns
http://www.physorg.com/news
April 23, 2007 - 00:36 ET by NiftySwellhttp://www.physorg.c...
If you like that then you probably will love this. I was surprised when it broke that no one reported on it.
Why a hydrogen economy doesn't make sense. So one by one so-called 'clean' alternative energies are being exposed and people realize why we are sticking with the current fuel sources that we use. I think eventually technology and innovation will clear the hurdles, but everytime I hear a political 'expert' spout about the next green fuel I wonder are they repeating what someone told them or do they know something the rest of us don't?
Like switchgrass?
April 23, 2007 - 02:16 ET by Kevin from the North ShoreLike switchgrass?
Well, I'll be . . . . :-)
April 23, 2007 - 00:39 ET by GalvanicWell, I'll be . . . . :-)
"Libralism generates the exac
April 23, 2007 - 04:34 ET by old cro"Libralism generates the exact opposite of what you are trying to achieve" - or something to that effect is one of Quinn’s laws. Brazil is oil importation free and that is really what the US must achieve, but further drilling and exploration on our turf is what's required, not starvation or asphyxiation of people worldwide.
"First the doctor told me the good news: I was going to have a disease named after me."
Steve Martin
Why would we ever hear abou
April 23, 2007 - 04:49 ET by Jack BauerWhy would we ever hear about this in the MSM?
After all, we are taking about a bought and paid for subsidiary for the Logic Deniers who think mankind can affect the 'temperature' of the planet.
How can you expect anything from people who describe Carbon Dioxide
(a naturally occuring gas that is essential for all life on earth)
as a pollutant? Next it'll be "oxygen".
Or water. Remember that th
April 23, 2007 - 21:53 ET by dahliatraversOr water. Remember that the biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor. So Sheryl Crow's next embargo will be against hot showers. (Cuts down on steam and, thereby, global warming.)
This is what often happens wh
April 23, 2007 - 06:46 ET by Dave RThis is what often happens when government tries to "fix" things. Reminds me of the MTBE fiasco.
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.
So, who will be checking on
April 23, 2007 - 08:09 ET by Senior ChiefSo, who will be checking on Brazil's pollution woes. I would imagine Gore, Laurie David and Cheryl Crow to complete their tour...yeah right.
BTW, Rush just reported that the price of corn- the staple food of Latin America- doubled the last few months. Riots had been reported (and believed they're on their way to cross the border - my opinion). Environmental wackos creating havoc in the lives of corn-loving people and promoting illegal immigration. Again just my opinion...
I saw this the other day also
April 23, 2007 - 09:26 ET by danboI saw this the other day also. If my memory is correct, Germany relied heavily on eth. in the latter days of WWII. Result. Many people starved. What went into fuel didn't go into people stomachs.
If you take energy out of the fields rather than the wells, seems one of 2 things has to happen. As that food isn't available to keep people alive, people starve. (To use the media's favorite scare. The world's poorest will be impacted most. Ms David and Crowe may have the money to pay for the corn to fuel their limos. But people in africa will die.)
The other option: cut down forest to increase the harvest. And the warmers will be screaming.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
I'm shuddering. Hopefully,
April 23, 2007 - 21:57 ET by dahliatraversI'm shuddering. Hopefully, Al Gore will realize in time that you couldn't cut down enough forests to grow enough corn to meet the need.
Good point that ethanol/AGW advocates want to put their cause ahead of food, food for the most economically vulnerable.
Prediction for Ethanol - MSM
April 23, 2007 - 11:34 ET by Gary HallPrediction for Ethanol - MSM
This is a complicated issue - and the politics here are alarming. First, let's make it crystal clear. The environmentalist movement (with the media holding the fire under them) has supported the push to use more ethanol, for a long time. Branson of Virgin Air, recently received rave reviews in the media for his proposal to invest billions into it. Bill Clinton was loud and clear in his support for ethanol, and still is. The green movement and the media have praised Brazil in it's ethanol march.
President Bush has also been a big supporter of ethanol.
However, the debate about ethanol has been alive and well, especially in the far left side of the green movement. They have maintained for over a decade now, that not only was there a net loss of energy (fossil fuel) required to produce it, but that the end product provided much lower energy efficiency - a big drop in gas mileage and performance for your car.
The very greenies also have worried about big corporations ending up, being more interested in growing corn (or sugar cane) for ethanol, than for food - willing to starve people while they make more money growing it for fuel.
And it pollutes more.
Also, the green greenies, despised Bill Clinton for his relationship with Archer Daniels .. " In 1992, Archer-Daniels’s contributions helped elect Mr. Clinton." For the record, they also despised him for his close similar relationship with Monsanto - think: GMF (genetically modified foods). Under Clinton, compliments of his strong leadership, the US genetically modified soybean crop went from 0% of the total to 60% - similar for corn. Clinton also pushed Europe to accept the genetically modified foods from the US. A major, unreported in the MSM, revolt began taking place in Europe opposing it (just like they opposed him for sanctions in Iraq and for war in Kosovo).
Come 2001-2002, the US media decided to expose the dangers of GMF's. Bill Moyers did one of his special reports on GMF. The LA Times did a front page series on it. Guess who the bad guy was? You guessed it. None other than George Bush. Thousands of words in print, TV special documentaries - and the news is Bush and Monsanto. Bush trying to force Europe into accepting our GMF's. The name Clinton is not mentioned.
Ethanol? Give it some time, Noel. I'll bet you that, in the end, the media will jump on the bandwagon. The entire ethanol episode in our life will be shown to be the brainchild of GW Bush, who was out to starve and pollute the poor people of the earth, to pay back his friends at Monsanto.
Note: For background. There exists two left wing media's. One is the far left; Pacifica Radio, Mother Jones, The Nation, etc. The other is the MSM. Over the years, the far left has consistently given the Carters, LBJ's and Clinton's a very hard time on issues of the environment, war, terrorism, free trade. At times, it has been quite angry. Sure it is never quite what we see against conservatives, however, it is and was quite clear - Bill Clinton was considered to be a massive disappointment to the far left (they want Nader or Kucinich). They have no fear in attacking Democrats while they are in power.
The MSM plays to a different tune. While many in the MSM live in the far left, ideologically speaking, they are more interested in simply keeping house - the Democrats stay in office, the Republican must go.
No matter what the facts, be it genocide under Clinton, or war, or poverty, or pollution, or spying on civilians, abandoning MAD to defeat the terrorists, or GMF development, while Clinton, in the view of the far left may have been the instrument of all evil - the mainstream media just is not going to put it in print.
It's about wearing different hats.
Mr Hall thanks for your insig
April 23, 2007 - 15:38 ET by rightandlightMr Hall thanks for your insightful comments. Too often the environmentalists are misquoted and misinterpreted. True enviros are not Clinton lovers nor are they supportive of ethanol.
We should look towards vegie
April 23, 2007 - 12:00 ET by Dan The Man 2We should look towards vegie oil in place of diesel. From my information it not only burns cleaner it is reqadily available as waste or new. It is much better than achohol and easier on your engine.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
http://www.greencarcongress
April 23, 2007 - 15:13 ET by NiftySwellhttp://www.greencarc...
Veggie oil has similar problems to ethanol from corn or switch grass (4 bucks + a gallon to produce- INCLUDING SUBSIDIES) , but there has been only one alternative energy source that I have not been able to find a capital downside to, in fact scaling this up reduces price unlike many of the other alternatives where scaling reduces availability. I dont believe a truly green source of energy exists that does not pollute either up front, during use, or when being disposed.
Pollutants from using ethan
April 23, 2007 - 23:25 ET by MilesDPollutants from using ethanol in cars has been known for a long time; it was actually rejected for internal combustion use back in 1973 in the LA valley. The issue was the energy crisis back in 1973 (remember that one?) and somebody came up with the proposal.
The ethanol pollution problem in Rio has been known a long time too - maybe I'm just sensitive to this because I'm a pollution chemist.
Unless the author of this has the credentials he shouldn't be publishing epidemiological studies along with it, no, no, no, bad, bad, bad, ...
I've seen it happen too many times, somebody who is not a public health professional gets into disease studies, then is required to testify about it later, credentials to draw conclusions get questioned, can't defend it, reputation jeopardized.
Happened to a guy I respected when he published about leukemia and electromagnetic fields. He shouldn't have done it
Ethanol Anathema
April 23, 2007 - 23:33 ET by Cool ArrowThe road to the White House runs through Iowa. Every candidate must promise to push ethanol research even if it takes more energy per gallon to produce.
Count on a lot of global goodwill when we're putting the worlds food into our tanks.
The road to the White House r
April 24, 2007 - 21:21 ET by dahliatraversThe road to the White House runs through Iowa. Every candidate must promise to push ethanol research
That's exactly right. Several states are moving up their presidential primary dates. One good thing that might come of this is less pandering on a substance which is demonstrating less and less net value, economic and environmental.
required to testify about it
April 24, 2007 - 00:00 ET by botgrequired to testify about it later, credentials to draw conclusions get questioned, can't defend it, reputation jeopardized
Miles,
What are the chances of Gore's credentials being questioned?
(after all only the greastest scientist of all time could invent the internet)
You know? I am going to do
April 24, 2007 - 00:48 ET by MilesDYou know? I am going to do something for Mr. Gore that he never did for any of his own critics. I am going to praise him for something he did:
In 1993, VP Gore introduced legislation that enabled private business to use the Federal investment in the internet (back then calling it the "information superhighway"). This was a very good investment decision, parallel with the Federal highway system to access State roads, set up under Ike in the 1950's.
Evidently Mr. Gore later claimed he "invented the internet." I don't know what he meant, I guess he was just talking about himself too much and didn't realize what he had done. He overstated his case and he cancelled rightful recognition for his actual achievement.
When he lost the election in 2000 he was apparently put out by it, and he came up with the idea that nobody was paying enough attention to his celebrated scientific/theological/philosphical/moral/sociological portrait of human damage to the planet, "Earth in the Balance." So he went out to set the record straight.
In all honesty I never thought anybody would pay any attention to this. Boy, was I wrong. I had vastly misunderstood people's dissatisfaction with Western civilization. I had no idea the distaste for progress lingered so long in American society, in an extreme form not seen since the hippie movement back in the 1960's.
Seems nobody has come up with a message that has resonated so completely with a lot of American people. Along with a personality that leaves me mystified how anybody can idolize him one iota.
But people do. No matter how inexplicable it is to my own mind, they do, and they do, and they do.
And now he is dictating a lot of policy - to people who actually hang on to his star for their own future aspirations to power (like Boxer).
Well this just shows you how naive I am. How foolish, and how little I know about the human race
Interesting. But if ethanol
April 24, 2007 - 21:28 ET by dahliatraversInteresting.
But if ethanol has been a known problem in Rio, isn't it logical that it will create the same problems elsewhere? So doesn't that validate the epidemiological link that this author made? If not, who (professionally) or what would be needed to test that link?
First, I'll mention the dif
April 24, 2007 - 22:19 ET by MilesDFirst, I'll mention the difficulty of demonstrating conclusively the source of the pollution itself: the air pollutants discussed are also produced in photochemical smog - just from gasoline, and no ethanol burning. It would have to be shown that there was no other probable source of additional pollution above the pollution normally measured, and no weather, or sun, conditions that would have likely increased these pollutant concentrations. It might be very difficult to demonstrate this with reasonable certainty.
In Rio, and elesewhere in Brazil, ethanol has been all the fuel they use (this has changed several times by Government intervention, to reduce the pollution from ethanol). Rio has a temperature inversion problem, just like Southern California, meaning that the pollution lingers a long time and does not disperse.
I'm sure respiratory illness in Rio is well documented, but we would have to see that the same pattern of the disease had been established in California, to say that any additional disease or a new pattern came from the use of ethanol in California. That might be hard to show conclusively, because pure ethanol use in California is not common.
Nobody, who is not a regognized authority of some kind on the particular disease, should be claining anything about disease incidence at all. An expert on respiratory disease would be able to judge whether the disease pattern was consistent other known patterns of disease from pollution, and then conclude ethanol effect on new incidence was likely or not.
The problem with nonexpert disease publication is litigation, obviously. Say a plaintif sues because they have contracted the disease, and cites reference. Defense calls author of study to testify (it might not be optional to appear!!!) . If defense shows author's credible expertise is low, defense could debunk the case automatically. It might also set precedent for other cases.
So, unless a disease is your field of study, don't write stuff in journals about it without another author expert in that disease in your author team