Would seeing Ben Affleck dressed as an ear of corn make you more or less interested in learning about ethanol and supporting legislation requiring service stations to sell it?
It's an interesting question -- especially without context -- but one the Center for American Progress is eager to investigate. This week, they launched an online video series, "Project Phin," to address energy issues -- specifically flex fuels. The six-episode series is being released one YouTube video at a time, and will include cameos from green-leaning celebs like Matt Damon, Jennifer Garner, Sarah Silverman, and the corn-husk-clad Affleck.
Check out the first two episodes now, and return next week for the rest of the lot.
It’s Getting Ha! in Here: Maria Bamford
Climate Citizen: Mary Stuart Masterson
Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix
Comments
View as Flat
GreyFlcn Posted 7:44 am
20 Jul 2007
http://greyfalcon.net/lcarough7.png
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 7:52 am
20 Jul 2007
Big Oil has no reason to fear and every reason to love biofuels, since the commitment the government has made to them basically ensures many decades more of the dominance of the internal combustion engine as the main technology for personal transport (as opposed to, for example, electric vehicles). And the blending of biofuels with gasoline and diesel ensures continued demand for those products for even longer.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:02 am
20 Jul 2007
http://greyfalcon.net/biotaxes.png
Why should we be paying a subsidy of ~$1.70 in taxes for every gallon of biofuel?
_
Thats why $7.3 Billion in direct subsidy
And $14 Billion in indirect subsidy
http://www.meatnews.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Article& ...
_
And international markets are taking the brunt of it.
http://greyfalcon.net/grocerybill.png
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:05 am
20 Jul 2007
Has actually caused a net increase of 9 million gallons of oil usage between 2000-2005
Permalink
Karen Lee Orr Posted 9:03 am
20 Jul 2007
Who are the Grist staffers who compile the People Magazine level lists of "green" celebrities?
There seems to be a giant chasm between the environmental perspectives of the Grist writers and the clueless celebrities Grist features as "green."
I think promoting most of these celebrities as "green" is misleading and harmful.
Is there any way to determine if the sorts of readers who are attracted by Grist's clueless celebrity lists also read the often excellent Grist articles?
What is the benefit of promoting celebrity agrofuel promoters as "green"?
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 10:52 am
20 Jul 2007
They will eventually own all production of it.
I also find it frustrating that the celebrities we are relying on to spread the word can be so clueless.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 1:25 pm
20 Jul 2007
I am at least as outraged as Karen Orr is, but this is the nature of marketing, and this is why they find personable but clueless celebrities to do the talking. Most of them are well meaning and willing to help, but they only get one side.
Hell, I used to think bioDiesel was the answer, and I even made it myself. The only difference is that I only used waste vegetable oil, which obviously is only a maximum of 2-5% of the Diesel volume. When you then realize the full impact of the potential, you reconsider. IF (big IF) the celebrities ever reach that point the lie is already in place. The damage is done. They then have no voice to address the damage, or are too embarrassed to do so.
I also agree this entire celebrity issue is extremely trite and a lot of crap. I wonder at the motives of those who put such crap up for people to read.
Why aren't we fighting against agro-fuels? Some people here want them. Some sell offsets, some support nukes, some want the Alice in Wonderland lie of "Clean Coal"--all about greed, none of which of course are sustainable. Look at people's motives and bona fides. Karen, and surprisingly Greyflcn and even more odd, BioD are correct. Talk about goofy stars.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
tico89 Posted 2:08 pm
20 Jul 2007
If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 8:34 pm
20 Jul 2007
And just a word of explanation: lest GreyFlcn or anybody else think I was defending agro-fuels in my earlier remarks, much less subsidies to agro-fuels in my remarks about Big Oil -- au contraire!
I was merely trying to refute an argument that I hear all the time in support of ethanol, FFVs, and spending gobs of money on promoting both: that it is a good way to attack Big Oil. Excuse my French, but that notion is bullshit!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:10 am
21 Jul 2007
While the negative effects of Corn and Palm Oil is obvious.
Apparently the achillee's heel of soybean is N2O.
http://greyfalcon.net/n2o.png
What suprised me is that this may carry over to Switchgass as well. Since the foundation of it's supposed GHG reduction would be no-till agriculture.
http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/full/35/1/3#ABS
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/Publication ...
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:13 am
21 Jul 2007
The best way to slow things down is to "Divide and Conquer"
Especially since BioFuels and Hydrogen are essentially just wild goose chases.
Permalink
Karen Lee Orr Posted 2:58 am
21 Jul 2007
I don't understand Grist, an environmental news site, giving celebrities a platform to promote environmentally destructive activities without comment or question.
Here's the link to a Grist list of "green" musicians:
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2007/06/22/musicians/
If you click on the stories about each band, you'll see that even more of them are promoting agrofuel destruction or their agrofuel tour buses than are mentioned in the blurbs.
Agrofuels and agrofuel tour buses are relentlessly promoted as "green" in the celebrity section of Grist, an environmental news site.
I think this is a serious problem because it's likely that many, if not most, of Grist's celebrity profile readers don't read much else. To those readers, if Grist, an environmental news site, presents a celebrity agrofuel destruction promoter as "green," then agrofuel is the envirnomental way to go.
I saw how thoughtless celebrity promos effect the unworldly masses at the Sheryl Crowe/Laurie David Global Warming College Tour in Gainesville, home of the University of Florida. Every mention of ethanol from the stage was greeted with whoops of approval from the mostly college age audience.
Why does Grist feed this harmful phenomenon?
On the other hand, Grist regularly ridicules vegans as humourless, self-righteous prigs. It's all in good fun, I'm sure, but vegans are a teensy percentage of the population, generally harmless, lacking political clout and unlikely customers for the biodiesel SUV or McMansion.
Why not direct some of that ridicule at Grist's profiled celebrities (in politics or entertainment) who promote agrofuel - one of the most environmentally destructive drives to hit the planet.
As for the agrofuel promoting celebrities themselves, I imagine that most of them mean well. But what can you say about reasonably intelligent adults who publicly put their names on destructive fad fuels without apparent research. There is tons of easily accessable information out there now. There's no good excuse for this level of ignorance at this point.
Grist needs to be more responsible in its presentation of "green" celebrities. Instead of perpetuating this ignorance, Grist should work to correct it.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:14 am
21 Jul 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 4:13 am
21 Jul 2007
In all fairness, Sarah von Schagen DID ASK the question:
"Would seeing Ben Affleck dressed as an ear of corn make you more or less interested in learning about ethanol and supporting legislation requiring service stations to sell it?"
I guess the answer from most is a resounding "NO!" But what remains is the motive, whether it was a simple sincere question, or was it just a way to promote the videos?
And as for the question, it looks like the Center for American Progress has already answered it to their shallow satisfaction--that is, if they asked themselves the question to start with.
This is again why I have consistently stated that we need to demand much more of leaders and ourselves, we need to have and apply the highest standards, and search for the best solutions. Half-assed environmentalism will get us to Hell soon enough.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
justlou Posted 4:54 am
21 Jul 2007
I don't know where the legislation stands but these greenwashed videos were addressing an attempt to force the major oil companies to not prohibit their franchisees from selling E85. On the face of it this looks bad of big bad oil attempting to keep this great clean fuel from their marketplace. But, ironically, there is currently not enough ethanol to even supply enough volume of the 10% stuff. So, why invest in the infrastructure if you cannot obtain reliable supplies or market it at a competitive price?
Congress was also considering offering new subsidies to allow E85 retailers to sell it at a price that would compete with gasoline factoring in the lower fuel mileage with E85. There was some concern that some of the retailers who were selling it had priced it too high and were killing the demand for it. Locally, I don't see anyone, even the corn farmers driving their big flex fuel pickups, stopping at the E85 pump until there is a threshold price diffential when the price of gasoline rises substantially.
Many of the concerns expressed about corn ethanol on this site are making it into the major news media. But, I would guess that the views expressed in the above comments represent a small minority. And, the views expressed by these celebrity air heads are the dominant views, genuine or not, expressed by our political leaders. I don't think you can find a single candidate running for president who represents the skeptics' perspective on this issue.
So, the light is green for green lite. So, you greenies may just have to turn your color to red ... FLASHING RED!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:42 am
22 Jul 2007
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=49 ...
Basically, it turns raw sewage into Salable Ammonia, Fertilizer, and Fuel.
Permalink
DrDigiPol Posted 1:15 am
23 Jul 2007
Our goal is to generate widespread discussions about increasing fuel efficiency, reducing dependence on oil, finding alternative sources of fuel, and reducing emissions leading to global warming. So, while we use corn ethanol in the videos to hang the narrative (and to take advantage of putting Ben Affleck into a corn suit and Mat Damon in a Fuel Pump suit), think of this as a launch point for discussing the issues above.
As for the technical details, there is a longer discussion on Phin's MySpace blog: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&am ...
I hope you take a moment to read it. And I hope we can spread this conversation into every living room.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 2:26 am
23 Jul 2007
At this juncture, corn-based ethanol can play an important role as a transitional fuel to to replace oil while we develop biofuels made from better sources -- such as switch grass, wood chips, and agricultural waste.
No, no, no, no. We have discussed this endlessly on Grist. Massive amounts of money are going into machinery to planting, till, harvest, store and process corn. Most studies now show that corn will still be the preferred crop in the Corn Belt, even if the cost of producing cellulosic ethanol drops as significantly. Elsewhere, those counting on making ethanol from things like woodchips forget that other industries -- notably, the electric power industry -- also have designs on the same feedstock.
In your linked commentary, NOTHING is said about the economic distortions caused by the massive subsidization of agro-fuels, and the import tariff on ethanol, much less the poor -effectiveness of current policies. THAT is what needs to be discussed, not whether one should try to fit Ben Affleck into a blade of grass.
Permalink