Comments bryankwalton has made

Couldn't disagree more

What if Mitt wins the nomination and then the general election?  Don't say it can't happen, because it can.  If that happens, you will dread the day you cheered for him to win the Florida primary.  It is much better to try and nominate the greenest candidates in each party.  Then, work your tail off to help the greenest candidate win the general election.

-BryanOn Republican primary in Florida posted 1 year, 10 months ago 2 Responses

Why are you watching Fox News?

Don't you guys realize that Fox News LOVES it when you get upset over their content? -- you are falling into their trap.  Just don't watch it and move on.  The same goes for people like the Greenpeace guy on the show.  He should have never gone on the show to begin with. On Fox News disses Clinton climate plan posted 2 years ago 8 Responses

And we should be taxing the hell out of fuel.

We should be promoting efficiency.

And we should be taxing the hell out of fuel.  Until we make fuel more expensive so that we have a disincentive to drive more, we will never fix the problem.  We need a steep gas tax.On New study claims ethanol and biodiesel may actually boost GHG emissions posted 2 years, 2 months ago 28 Responses

Redesign Cities First, Then . . .

Mass transit works in places like NYC and Boston due to the density of the development.  Most American cities grew up AFTER the invention of the automobile.  And that is why we are blessed/cursed with the space/sprawl we have.  Mass transit will never work successfully in places like Houston or LA because the rail lines face an unsolvable problem.  You make the lines go really fast and stretch out the stops, or otherwise you won't be able to cover a large area.  Of course, if you focus on a small area, you can have many stops, but then you don't get the stops that people need in a large metropolitan area.  So, designers put high speed in lines in that go long distances between each stop, but then you are forced to walk long distances to get back to where you needed to go.  So what do you do, you say to hell with it, and hop in your car.  If mass transit is going to ever work in the US, it will be with dense urban development.  Focus on that, and the mass transit will follow.On More fun with analogies! posted 2 years, 9 months ago 32 Responses

We are all responsible for this

The economic and political leaders of our country have all jumped on board the "coal train".  After all, its an issue of national security, right?  We, as environmentalists, spend a lot time fighting the coal lobby and pushing for renewables.  That is good and we should be continuing to do so.  Furthermore, we need good lawyers like the folks at WildLaw ready to pounce on these kinds of deals.  But finally, we must remember that the energy brokers in this country will sell only what sells.  Most energy companies now days offer some type of "green" energy option for their customers.  When we don't purchase those options, we share the guilt for mountain-top removal mining.On Arch Coal gets the go ahead for record-size strip mining permit posted 2 years, 10 months ago 9 Responses

Nice read!

David, thanks for the link.  That was a great read.  Not only Schmitt's piece, but also the discussion following it.  Very refreshing.  Honestly, one of the more interesting things I've read in a good while.On Checklist liberalism posted 3 years, 4 months ago 1 Response

Condesencion won't get you what you want.

Long Island is a grimy industrial smear with some dirty beaches.

Sorry David, I agree with most of what you on Grist, and I even agree with your frustrations regarding efforts to block off shore wind farms.  But I fear your condesencion toward Long Island and its inhabitants only helps to alienate wind farm supporters and to polarize the issue.

I don't live on Long Island, or anywhere near it, but I've been there.  And there is more to it than can be justifiably described in your summary of the place.  Have you ever visited the Fire Island Wilderness Area, part of the Fire Island National Seashore?  It is the only federally protected wilderness area in New York State.  And it is a beautiful place.

I hope that people like Jayne will come to see the merits of an offshore wind farm, but it won't happen by slamming her community or her.

-BryanOn STFU posted 3 years, 4 months ago 28 Responses

His refusal to run means nothing

Lets be candid,

Gore's "refusal" to run in 2008 means absolutely nothing, currently.  Sure, he might not run.  But his refusal right now means nothing.  The credibility of his film would be hurt immediately, if he even hinted at a possibility of running.  Gore wisely is working to push the focus to the film, and away from him as a candidate.  I'd be amazed if he wasn't currently evaluating his 2008 options.  If he never annouces his entry, then he simply keeps the details of his evalution secret.  If the evalution pushes his entry into the race, he will simply have "changed his mind".  When a politician says (s)he won't run, their options are never set in stone.

-BryanOn Al Gore won't run? posted 3 years, 6 months ago 3 Responses

Hmmm . . .

I know how I feel about loosening the clean-air regulations on coal-fired ethanol plants -- I'm strongly against it.  I totally agree with your points there David.

However, regarding removing the tariff on ethanol imports, I don't know how I feel about that.  On the one hand, I don't really care about protecting large  corn interests here.  If ethanol can be maid more efficiently with other crops like sugarcane, I'm all for it.  

However, on the other hand, I agree with what I've read on the Cut Oil Imports blog:

So for 2 or 3 cents, these geniuses would critically wound the US ethanol industry and leave us dependent on Brazil for ethanol. Is this any different than being dependent on the Middle East for oil? We need to be able to create our own energy sources in order to avoid being dependent on any outside source.

So I don't know where I stand on this second issue. On Protecting the ethanol industry posted 3 years, 6 months ago 7 Responses

Gore's BTU tax and Kyoto Involvement

Many people give Gore a hard time for his years as VP, but I believe those critics have little understanding of the way the political process works in this country.  I was more critical of him during his presidency, but in reflection, I'm much more forgiving.  

It was Gore that in 1993 got the administration to push for a broad-based BTU tax that would have incentivised (sp?) renewable energy while discouraging coal and other fossil fuels.  They got the tax through the house before it stalled in the Senate.  Think of this tax as a carbon tax.  It is still an awesome idea.  Still needed, and yet it still seems almost a radical idea given our current politcal realities.

Also, don't forget that it was Gore, who at the Kyoto summit, proposed a binding commitment to return CO2 emissions to 1990 levels between 2008 & 2012. After that, a series of market mechanisms would be employed to drive emissions below the 1990 baseline by 2017.  The summit, before Gore spoke was stuck in a politcal quagmire, and making no progress.  His proposal (on behalf of the US) to cut emissions 7% below the 1990 levels between 2008 & 2012 got each of the countries commited to making concessions, if I recall correctly.On Gore and environmentalists posted 3 years, 6 months ago 14 Responses

The latest research on biodiesel...

Hi biodiversivist,
   Thanks for your reply.  You know, the interesting thing about Monbiot's quote is the fact that it applies to everybody, not just those sympathetic to biodiesel.  It even applies to him.  The unfortunate thing about his article, which I have read previously is that it is incredibly limited in scope. The one thing I agree with him on is that large scale deforestation of rainforest to grow biodiesel crops is not a good idea.  And I don't think anybody would disagree with him.  There are several good critiques of his article:

Is George Monbiot a corporate oil shill?
Better Than Fossil Fuel

The first of those two links is a very well written critique and makes some very wonderful points.  I highly recommend it.

Another point I would like to make concerns biodiesel production methods.  Concerns have been rightly raised both here and elsewhere regarding whether we can seriously derive enough biodiesel from farm crops and the environmental damage that would result from such an effort.  The wonderful thing about biodiesel however is that it doesn't have to come from just soybeans or palm oil.  In fact, the most exciting area of biodiesel concerns its future with regards to algae.  As I'm sure everybody here knows, palm oil (as Monbiot also states) has been considered the best source of biodiesel.  But that is no longer true.  Please read:

Widescale Biodiesel Production from Algae (this isn't the easiest piece to read though, perhaps too academic.)  But another article which breaks it down and is easier to digest is Algae - like a breath mint for smokestacks.  As this article states:

...This kind of algae also grows so fast, it can produce 15,000 gallons of biodiesel per acre. Just 60 gallons are produced from soybeans...

I understand your concerns about biodiesel NOx emissions.  As I stated in my very first reply to your original post, we can (and will) be cleaning that up beginning either this year or in 2007.  I'm all for that, as is everybody else who has posted here.  We have the technology to clean up biodiesel NOx emissions.  Unfortunately, it requires that, first, ultra low sulphur (petro) diesel be introduced due to the fact that petroleum based fuels are still our primary fuel source in this country.  Again, this will start changing.  I wish it was already in effect, but if I could control that, I would have already.

I also understand the concerns of amazingdrx, yourself, and Monbiot about the destruction of land held in conservation and also the reduction in food crops that might arise from large scale farm-based biodiesel production.  But as I have talked about above, I'm struck by the idea that this is an oversimplification of the issues.  There are many home-based producers and coops that are making their biodiesel from things like waste restaurant vegetable oil.  So that can't supply enough biodiesel to fuel our country, I agree.  But that doesn't mean that soybeans or palm trees or all that is left.  The promise of biodiesel from algae seems very hopeful, and I would hope you can see that.

(On a completely unrelated note, for the last 6 years I have lived in Wisconsin and Iowa. I have been watching our farmland be reduced almost daily from urban sprawl, which I deem to be a much greater threat to a potential reduction in food production.  It is basic economics.  Farmers all around me are selling their land because it is no longer profitable for them.  If biodiesel drives up soybean prices enough that these farmers use some of their land for soybean production and it helps keep the rest of their farm afloat, that might be a good thing.  Soybeans might not be the most efficient source for biodiesel, but it it helps slow down sprawl and keep other important crops in the field, then I deem that a good thing.)

I'm of the opinion that the era of monolithic energy sources is ending.  I don't have a source to back this up.  I imagine I could find one if I looked, but I'm stating this as my opinion.  I believe our energy future includes not only biodiesel, but solar, wind, geothermal, hybrids, pure electric vehicles, bicycles, etc.  I think we make a grave mistake if we make the assumption that we need to be finding some universal source to replace everything.  Biodiesel doesn't have to replace all diesel and gasoline, hopefully there will be many other technolgies that arise to assist it.

Let's keep an open mind. But lets not "throw the baby out with the bath water".   On Smells like french fries posted 3 years, 7 months ago 33 Responses

Perhaps you meant smog forming HC?

This is what is so frustrating here. You said

I have focused on the NOx issue, but there are others. According to the Union of Concerned scientists:

In a full lifecycle assessment, hydrocarbon    emissions are 35% higher in biodiesel than conventional diesel.

Again, here is the link:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/big_rig_cleanup/biodiesel.html

But the actual quote from the UCS webpage says:

In a full lifecycle assessment, smog forming HC emissions were 35% higher than conventional diesel.

Note the key difference -- the addition of the word smog.  Your statement above says:

I have focused on the NOx issue, but there are others.

But no, the UCS is still talking about the NOx issue -- the same issue, not another issue.  I don't know about greenstork, atreyger, and jpelty, but I feel like many of your arguments are moving targets with shifting facts.
On Smells like french fries posted 3 years, 7 months ago 33 Responses

PZEV is Great, But Don't Neglect the CO2

I love the PZEV technology.  And once the governement quits dragging their feet, the diesel passenger cars will start catching up. But for clarity, please make sure you aren't confusing PZEV emissions with CO2 emissions.  PZEV emissions refer to the smog forming emssisions -- NOT the global warming emissions.  According to the EPA, that Honda Accord EX in California is indeed a PZEV.  However, they say it still emits almost 6.4 tons of global warming gasses each year (almost 1 ton more than than a diesel VW Jetta).  

You are right to celebrate the PZEV technology. But let us not forget global warming -- which has far greate consequences to biodiversity than does smog.  Lets encourage the governement to get the cleaner diesel fuel on the market, so that diesel emissions can get cleaned up.  And then encourage everybody to buy the most fuel efficient cars on the market.  The best cars are both low-emissions AND ALSO high on MPG.On Smells like french fries posted 3 years, 7 months ago 33 Responses