John Stossel: Going "Green"

[bobbyw24]

I ride my bike to work. It seems so pure.

We're constantly urged to "go green" -- use less energy, shrink our carbon footprint, save the Earth. How? We should drive less, use ethanol, recycle plastic and buy things with the government's Energy Star label.

But what if much of going green is just bunk? Al Gore's group, Repower America, claims we can replace all our dirty energy with clean, carbon-free renewables. Gore says we can do it within 10 years.

"It's simply not possible," says Robert Bryce, author of "Power Hungry: The Myths of 'Green' Energy." "Nine out of 10 units of power that we consume are produced by hydrocarbons -- coal, oil and natural gas. Any transition away from those sources is going to be a decades-long, maybe even a century-long process. ... The world consumes 200 billion barrels of hydrocarbons per day. We would have to find the energy equivalent of 23 Saudi Arabias."

Bryce used to be a left-liberal, but then: "I educated myself about math and physics. I'm a liberal who was mugged by the laws of thermodynamics."

Bryce mocked the "green" value of my riding my bike to work:

"Let's assume you saved a gallon of oil in your commute (a generous assumption!). Global daily energy consumption is 9.5 billion gallons. ... So by biking to work, you save the equivalent of one drop in 10 gasoline tanker trucks. Put another way, it's one pinch of salt in a 100-pound bag of potato chips."

How about wind power?

http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2010/05/26/going_green

[american.swan]

hahahaha LOVE that article. HAHAHA

[BenIsForRon]

What a shitty, defeatist article. Reducing consumption and making more efficiency increases would get us a long way towards where renewables could serve most of our needs.

The average meal travels 1300 miles to get on a person's dinner plate. I think we can do better than that.

[fisharmor]

What a shitty, defeatist article. Reducing consumption and making more efficiency increases would get us a long way towards where renewables could serve most of our needs.

The average meal travels 1300 miles to get on a person's dinner plate. I think we can do better than that.

I'm both with you and against you.

I'm against the notion that we need to concentrate on renewables.
The whole "sky is falling" line has been shown to be a gigantic conspiracy, and people aren't buying it anymore. So there's no "death of civilization" reason to go renewable. Therefore economic reality wins: coal is cheapest. Sure, I think we should clean it up, but for Pete's sake, there's enough coal in Pennsylvania to last us hundreds of years.

But I'm with you on localization. I think the biggest tragedy of all is how people never hear the connection between zoning law and energy waste.
As long as it remains illegal in most cases to be within walking or biking distance of your job, then the car wins.
It's also no accident that most of our shopping is done in clusters of box stores that are impossible to get to on foot.

When we go back to building cities, that's when we're going to see real energy savings.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

John Stossel rides his bike to work everyday? Bullshit

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Bryce mocked the "green" value of my riding my bike to work:

"Let's assume you saved a gallon of oil in your commute (a generous assumption!). Global daily energy consumption is 9.5 billion gallons. ... So by biking to work, you save the equivalent of one drop in 10 gasoline tanker trucks. Put another way, it's one pinch of salt in a 100-pound bag of potato chips."



What's wrong with that?

That's one more gallon that can be used for something else at a reduced rate, and he's probably healthier for it too.

How much oil would a bike ride have to save before he wouldn't mock it?

[silverhandorder]

What a shitty, defeatist article. Reducing consumption and making more efficiency increases would get us a long way towards where renewables could serve most of our needs.

The average meal travels 1300 miles to get on a person's dinner plate. I think we can do better than that.

We can go a long way by abolishing subsidies for big agriculture. Even if it still persists it only means it is cost efficient in other ways. Should the price of fuel rise this relationship will change.

I cant understand why people worry about such things. What is the point of expanding so much energy in trying correct something that is actually more cost efficient.

A good analogy would be on insisting on trying to swim up the waterfall because it is easier to travel along the river most of the time.

[Mahkato]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

[cjm]

It's not all about the earth. Riding your bike is good exercise for you the individual. I bet a lot of my neighbors think I'm "green" since I don't use many power tools in the yard. I just don't like breathing fumes and I need the exercise.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

riding your bike can hurt your bum if the seat is very hard

[freshjiva]

Bryce mocked the "green" value of my riding my bike to work:

"Let's assume you saved a gallon of oil in your commute (a generous assumption!). Global daily energy consumption is 9.5 billion gallons. ... So by biking to work, you save the equivalent of one drop in 10 gasoline tanker trucks. Put another way, it's one pinch of salt in a 100-pound bag of potato chips."



That's the most pathetic critique of riding your bike to work I've ever heard of. I happen to ride my bike to work daily in Chicago. I am joined by over a thousand other daily riders. And Chicago is just one town.

I know this whole "going green" thing sounds liberal and leftist, but I for one am a huge proponent of it. But for me, its changing my own lifestyle by consuming less rather than protesting the likes of BP and Exxon.

This Bryce guy is a tool.

[Mahkato]

A car can get you a mile down the road with 10 tablespoons of gasoline, while a bike needs about 50 calories of food to do the same. How much gasoline does it take to put 50 calories of food on your table?

[fisharmor]

It's not all about the earth. Riding your bike is good exercise for you the individual. I bet a lot of my neighbors think I'm "green" since I don't use many power tools in the yard. I just don't like breathing fumes and I need the exercise.

I use a reel mower because
a) there are 1-3 year old kids running around in my yard as I mow it, who aren't getting pelted with stones
b) I can run over hoses with it
c) I don't have to keep gasoline around, and it basically costs nothing to operate
d) it winterizes much more easily
e) it weighs a fraction of what a gas mower weighs
f) I can stop and talk to neighbors passing by, without having to then press rubber buttons, jerk strings, and pray
g) it initially cost half of what a no-frills gas mower would cost

"Going green" never entered into it.
That's another problem with "going green" - it's a bullshit reason to do the things the greens want you to do, when there are multiple other good reasons to do them.
If they concentrated on those other reasons, they'd get more people doing the things they want.

[Akus]

in for later

[ChaosControl]

Even a pinch of salt adds up over time. Besides, it is good for you and will keep you in better shape and potentially reduce your health care costs. I'm going to start biking to work again since I'm in my fitness mode anyway.

And every person who thinks their efforts don't add much just adds up to the total. Everyone thinking that way is why we have the problem we have. Both with energy and politics.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

The solution to our 'energy' problem is just an engineering exercise now. The Earth, indeed the whole universe, is awash in electricity. We're part and parcel of a giant electro-magnetic 'organism' and being able to fully tap into that is going to soon enough become a reality if we don't do ourselves in. If we had a truly free market economy instead of a controlled, special-interest ridden, fascistic one, most of us would have been born under such a paradigm thanks to the later pioneering work of Nikolai Tesla. As it is, we're stuck with a power-generating paradigm that is archaic and is continually propped up by government subsidies and numerous special interests that are now beginning to be cast from their Ivory Tower positions.

[amy31416]

Most of the time I agree with Stossel, but not on this. He's missing several important reasons to bike (or walk) to work, or other places within reason:

1. You don't pay taxes using your own manual power (for the most part, don't nitpick ya whankers.)
2. You aren't nearly as heavily regulated by the gov't when walking or biking.
3. It's healthier and could, potentially, reduce health problems.
4. It's very frugal, even if you have a top-of-the-line bike, and repairs are simple enough for most anyone to do themselves.

The right-wing aversion to anything "green" is just more evidence that people engage in group-think and reject or embrace notions based on little more than the fact that that's what they're supposed to believe, based on how they've labeled themselves. Obviously, the left is guilty of this as well.

[Travlyr]

Can someone please point to proof that our air is "dirtier" today than it was 50 years ago? When I leave the city to enjoy the country air... it seems pretty clean to me.

[cjm]

I use a reel mower because....

"Going green" never entered into it.

Mine was in the garage when I bought the house. I thought, "hey, I don't need to buy a mower now." Green didn't enter into my decision either, unless you mean $$.



That's another problem with "going green" - it's a bullshit reason to do the things the greens want you to do, when there are multiple other good reasons to do them.
If they concentrated on those other reasons, they'd get more people doing the things they want.

To those suggesting we need lower auto emissions to reduce AGW driven subtle temperature increases, I suggest that maybe they should just point to the smog and focus on human health arguments. But that doesn't fit their religion. Being "green in mind" is much more important to them than being "green in action" so abandoning the AGW argument is a greater sin than allowing AGW to continue.

Note: I do not advocate AGW theories or legislation in this area, but suggest to those concerned about auto emissions that market demand could provide incentives to auto manufacturers *if* that's what the market wants.

[silverhandorder]

Most of the time I agree with Stossel, but not on this. He's missing several important reasons to bike (or walk) to work, or other places within reason:

1. You don't pay taxes using your own manual power (for the most part, don't nitpick ya whankers.)
2. You aren't nearly as heavily regulated by the gov't when walking or biking.
3. It's healthier and could, potentially, reduce health problems.
4. It's very frugal, even if you have a top-of-the-line bike, and repairs are simple enough for most anyone to do themselves.

The right-wing aversion to anything "green" is just more evidence that people engage in group-think and reject or embrace notions based on little more than the fact that that's what they're supposed to believe, based on how they've labeled themselves. Obviously, the left is guilty of this as well.

It depends how much your time is worth to you. For a doctor to bike to work it costs him more in time then just using the car. Some people need the car anyways so getting a bike becomes an extra expense.

[Travlyr]

Can someone please point to proof that our air is "dirtier" today than it was 50 years ago? When I leave the city to enjoy the country air... it seems pretty clean to me.

Really. Please. Can anyone direct me to information that we have proof that today's air is dirtier than it was 50 years ago?

I hear all the time... for the last five decades... that we humans are polluting our air beyond imagination... and I go outside... to clean air every morning... when do we get the dirty air? Proof please.

[amy31416]

It depends how much your time is worth to you. For a doctor to bike to work it costs him more in time then just using the car. Some people need the car anyways so getting a bike becomes an extra expense.

Sure. But Stossel completely disregards any good in this case, unfortunately. And there is a lot of potential good in biking and walking when it's reasonable.

[TinCanToNA]

Biking is one thing because you genuinely are not burning hydrocarbons to get to your destination. However, proponents of PV, wind farms, and other nonsensical "alternative" or "renewable" energy sources are thermodynamically illiterate. It takes more energy to make most of these "green" machines than they will ever generate in their lifetime. When we get to the point where 1000 windmills on a wind farm can provide the energy needed to produce 1200 windmills, then we can talk. Until then, it's pure fantasy.

[Danke]

What a shitty, defeatist article. Reducing consumption and making more efficiency increases would get us a long way towards where renewables could serve most of our needs.


Please turnoff your computer and recycle it.