Recently, Ex-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger released a statement, titled "Energy ideas Democrats and Republicans can agree on" you can read the entirety of it here. While this may appear like a hopeful and progressive action to take, it's still only a "patchwork" solution, propagated by political agenda. A simple tactic that I like to call the "white knight facade". Leader rides in a top his noble steed, decrees that all the water in the kingdom is now free to peasants, suddenly forgetting it was always free to begin with, they all respond with admiration. Ok, perhaps I made that up just now, still in a weird way it seems to fit. So, Arnold being Arnold decides that laying waste to the Mojave Desert in order to build massive wind and solar farms, will solve all of America's problems. Let's just ignore the fact the agriculture industry has been using this energy method for years, virtually ignored and thus unfunded. Reading the article, I felt this was merely an exploitation of the problem to gain public favor and financial security. At one part he states "if we can't put solar power plants in the Mojave Desert, I don't know where we can put them. In other words, we need to worry less about a few dozen desert tortoises". Really, you can't figure out where to put them? Ok, let's face it, he is obviously a big picture kind of guy. How about replacing the millions of acres of corn being produced for ethanol in the Midwest with wind-farms? All of the resources have been exhausted and poisoned except one, the wind. With the land already maimed yet primed for infrastructure, it would be an ideal way to recycle the land. Not to mention supplying the demand for jobs where they are desperately needed and boosting the economy but reusing the farm for a cleaner energy instead of destroying yet another pristine habitat (ie the Mojave Desert). To me, this isn't just about California or the nation alone, but the whole world. To me, that's big picture.
The production of ethanol as a biofuel is just another one of those things used to make us feel all warm and cozy inside while we refill our cars at the pump. In reality ethanol contributes substantially to greenhouse gas emissions, even more so than your standard diesel, double no triple in fact, when you consider all the variables. The planting and harvesting of corn causes severe soil erosion and requires massive amounts of fresh water to sustain. Most of which is used in the boiling process (much like making beer) to produce the ethanol and is evaporated, putting constant stress on the machinery as well. On top of that, research pins a third of the runoff pollution (nitrogen rich fertilizers) to come from corn farms, causing "dead spots" off the gulf coast that span over 20,000 square kilometers (7,700 square miles) — each summer. These "dead spots" are created after huge algae blooms (comprised of tiny phytoplankton), produced by the nitrogen rich waters, die and their decomposition absorbs all the oxygen. Making it impossible for other aquatic life such as crustaceans, to live in these areas. Worsening the already devastated shrimp and fish industry in the Gulf. So why do we continue to devote more cropland for corn in the U.S.? It's an industry instilled by the government that mandates a federal subsidy of around $5.6 billion a year; taxpayers pay that to oil and gas conglomerates like Exxon and Shell to blend ethanol with gasoline each year.
Every action has a reaction and if we can't anticipate those reactions or choose to ignore predicting scientific evidence, then we shouldn't destroy existing resources in blind hope . Much like we've done with ethanol and what is about to happen to the Mojave Desert. Destroying one habitat for another is like spilling blood for peace, storytellers may glorify it but the reality is never beautiful. I personally don't believe anything sustaining (in this case wildlife and land) should be sacrificed in order to fill an economic void, especially under the guise of a "green movement". That is not a solution and should not be used as motivation either. All aspects, must be accounted for, including a few dozen desert tortoises. While I still maintain this is a more environmentally sound way of thinking for the state of California, we must not push for something we cannot possibly anticipate the long term effects, without proper scientific backing and structure. I think that's always been our main issue as a species,"go with it, see what happens".
Please let me know your thoughts, by commenting below or emailing me. I'd love to hear your opinions and ideas! Thanks for reading.
References:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erich-pica/time-to-stop-subsidizing_b_783778.html
http://www.economist.com/node/10766882?story_id=10766882
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23695288/ns/us_news-environment/
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/03/energy-ideas-democrats-and-republicans-agree-on/73228/
No comments:
Post a Comment