[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

E-M:/ You changed the subject ...

Enviro-Mich message from "Lowell Prag" <lprag@mail.msen.com>

Roger Kuhlman said:

... see below ...

Hello Roger,

You changed the subject.

1) I do not agree that we have enough energy. Demand for electricity is
rising at an exponential rate which cannot be met in the near future, with
our present power plants and infrastructure.

2) Our population numbers have nothing to do with our problems and
suggestions to limit immigration is counterproductive to a sane

We produce plenty of food for everyone, we have the brains to compete
against anyone globally, and if we would improve our educational system so
everyone can live a productive life, we can continue to accommodate anyone
who wishes to live here.

3) The main problem is our economic system which is based on an ever
increasing Gross National Product. At some point, we must stabilize the
GNP and live within a sustainable use of resources.

As you point out, energy conservation is part of that issue but it goes
far beyond that.

We need an industrial system which wastes nothing, where everything is
recycled and our present throw away mentality is eliminated.

We also need an industrial system which is based on zero toxic emissions
for all aspects of production, rather than postponing the costs for lack
thereof, to future generations and at the peril of destroying our planet.

One could explicate many more such examples but for the sake of brevity,
all those problems are not engineering problems, as solutions can be
implemented right now with present technology.

Rather, they are political problems which are presently unsolvable, due to
corporate power controling our political process, to achieve ever
increasing profits without any responsibility for the results.


Lowell Prag

Roger Kuhlman said:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Enviro-Mich message from Roger Kuhlman <rokuhlman@yahoo.com>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I really don't know why we are talking about new
> sources of energy. We already have plenty of energy
> supplies. The real problem we should be persistently
> addressing is reducing energy demand. The focus here
> should be on energy efficiency, energy conservation,
> and reduction of energy use. America has less than 5%
> of the World's population but uses about 25% of the
> World's energy. That pattern is not ecologically
> sustainable in the long term nor is it fair to the
> rest of the World's population. Also this fact is a
> potent argument why the United States needs to
> stabilize its population now. The only way the
> American population can do be brought under control is
> by restricting legal immigration to pre-1965 levels
> and stopping illegal immigration completely.
> Roger Kuhlman
> Ann Arbor, Michigan
> --- Lowell Prag <lprag@mail.msen.com> wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Enviro-Mich message from "Lowell Prag"
>> <lprag@mail.msen.com>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Mark Richardson said:
>> ... see below ...
>> Hello Mark,
>> The issue on whether or not there is a net energy
>> savings in using corn to
>> produce ethanol for fuel, has been debated for many
>> years and there is
>> much data available. The answer is yes and no,
>> depending upon which study
>> you read.
>> To me, the whole issue is stupid.
>> There is enough fuel contained in all of our waste
>> organic bio-mass in
>> this country which can be extracted as methane (it's
>> natural gas: the same
>> as you use in a stove) and it can easily be used to
>> power both cars and
>> trucks without resorting to using our farm lands to
>> produce fuel.
>> In Europe, anaerobic digesters to produce methane
>> from waste organic
>> bio-mass, are widely used.
>> The issue in the USA, is why we have not widely
>> employed this proven
>> technology which could while producing fuel, rid us
>> of most of our land
>> fills and incinerators, resolve the manure problems
>> with cafos, etc., and
>> solve all of the other problems created by our
>> present methods of dealing
>> with our other organic wastes.
>> Regards,
>> Lowell Prag
>> Mark Richardson said:
>> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Enviro-Mich message from "Mark Richardson"
>> > <Mark.Richardson@macombcountymi.gov>
>> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > I'm asking myself these questions:
>> >
>> > 1) Is there likely to be any net energy savings
>> from using ethanol for a
>> > percentage of transportation fuel, given the
>> energy expended in mining and
>> > transporting coal, and growing and transporting
>> corn and other feedstocks?
>> >
>> > 2) Is there likely to be any net environmental
>> improvement from using
>> > ethanol, given the tradeoffs between reductions in
>> pollution from vehicles
>> > and increased pollution from ethanol plants and
>> further up the fuel
>> > manufacturing chain?
>> >
>> > 3)  Is there likely to be any net economic benefit
>> from using ethanol,
>> > given the cost of manufacturing ethanol and the
>> increase in cost of coal
>> > resulting from increased demand due to a host of
>> factors?
>> >
>> > I'm suspecting the only real benefit of using
>> ethanol is decreasing our
>> > dependance on foreign oil, but maybe even that is
>> open to question.
>> >
>> >>>> "Alex J. Sagady & Associates" <ajs@sagady.com>
>> 03/01/06 6:02 PM >>>
>> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Enviro-Mich message from "Alex J. Sagady &
>> Associates" <ajs@sagady.com>
>> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > OK Michigan....courtesy of the BUSH EPA....get
>> ready for
>> > a spate of coal-fired ethanol plants.  EPA is
>> proposing to
>> > relax Clean Air Act new source review rules for
>> fuel-ethanol
>> > plants by declaring the major stationary source
>> level for
>> > such plants to be 250 tons per year rather than
>> the current
>> > 100 tons per year.
>> >
>> > This will encourage large, but poorly controlled
>> coal-fired ethanol plants
>> > in the midwest, including Michigan.   Under the
>> proposed EPA
>> > rules, ethanol plants emitting less than 250 tons
>> of any criteria
>> > pollutant will no longer have to ensure that
>> facilities are controlled
>> > with best available control technology and to
>> evaluate air quality
>> > impacts around the plants.
>> >
>> > This is another example of big time agriculture
>> trying to extend influence
>> > to allow high impact facilities that are also
>> subsidized with taxpayer
>> > dollars.

ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at

Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info enviro-mich"