Thursday, April 7, 2011

New posts from Gas 2.0!

New posts from Gas 2.0!

GOP Puppet Group AAPS Moves to Block Ethanol and Biofuels

Posted: 07 Apr 2011 12:00 PM PDT

Every once in a while, I read something that doesn’t quite jive.  Sometimes it’s a simple typo or a misplaced decimal point, and a quick double-take + common sense will straighten things out.  Other times, like when I read a report on Autoblog Green about the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) predicting a move to ethanol-based bio-fuels “could kill 200,000 people a year”, something more sinister (or possibly just “more stupid”) is behind the apparent disconnect.

Reading the article (which I encourage everyone to do), the argument the AAPS is making essentially “boils down” to a single passage, which reads -

Increased production of biofuels increases the price of food worldwide by diverting crops and cropland from feeding people to feeding motor vehicles. Higher food prices, in turn, condemn more people to chronic hunger and “absolute poverty” (defined as income less than $1.25 per day). But hunger and poverty are leading causes of premature death and excess disease worldwide. Therefore, higher biofuel production would increase death and disease.

-  got that?  At first glance, it might seem like solid reasoning.

It’s not.

Before I get down to the business of analyzing the logic behind that argument critically (i.e., like a good little philosophy major) I’m going to play a little “logical argument game” with the AAPS.  Mind you, this little game will not actually refute the argument in any way (but we’ll get to that, I promise) and serves no grander purpose than letting me vent about something that irks me, but play along.  I think you’ll enjoy it.

Logical argument game:  attack ad hominem.

Generally speaking, the validity of a given argument is independent of the arguer – which is to say:  it doesn’t matter who says “2+2=4″, the statement is either true or false on its own merit.  So, when an ultra-conservative GOP lobby calling itself “the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons” says things like “HIV doesn’t cause AIDS”, “the homosexual lifestyle reduces lifespan by 20 years”, and that “human activity has not contributed to climate change”, these shouldn’t take away from the group’s credibility.

So, despite the fact that other medical and scientific journals have claimed that the AAPS “is waging a war on science- and evidence-based medicine in the name of its politics” and that the New York Times described AAPS’ members as an “ultra-right-wing … political-economic rather than a medical group”, that shouldn’t influence our reading of the AAPS’ “biofuels kill” argument (in gray) above.

So, while the AAPS are (op-ed comment in 3 … 2 … 1 …) a malicious, racist, and homophobic bunch of douchebags, their malicious, racist, and homophobic douchebaggery is not a logically valid reason to automatically disbelieve what they’re saying about biofuel production being causally related to 200,000 deaths each year.

See?  That was fun!  Sophomoric, sure, but still fun.  Besides, we don’t need to go after the AAPS’ own creditability to cast doubt (if not totally dismantle) their “biofuels kill” argument.  From here on out, we’ll apply sound, 101 “intro-logic” level reasoning to the argument and see how it stands up.

Let’s start with the first sentence of the AAPS’ statement, which reads “Increased production of biofuels increases the price of food worldwide by diverting crops and cropland from feeding people to feeding motor vehicles.”  The sentence itself, as a grammatical English sentence, is really a compound sentence, making a first point (increased production of biofuels increases the price of food), whose truth is implied by a second point (biofuel production diverts crops and cropland from feeding people to feeding motor vehicles).  As a logical argument, the compound sentence could be rewritten as “If you divert crops and cropland from feeding people to feeding motor vehicles (by increasing production of biofuel), then the price of food worldwide would go up.”  If you look at it that way, you can see a few major problems.

  1. There are plenty of ways to produce biofuels from sources that aren’t food, ranging from non-food algae to non-edible fish waste, shrimp shells, poop-filled diapers, and landfill waste … surely increased production and implementation of landfill waste and poop won’t divert existing food away from people (excepting the AAPS’ members – who are so full of it that they may actually be full of it).
  2. The availability of crops and croplands is just one of several factors influencing the global cost of food (per this 2008 DoE report).  Another (volatile!) factor in food prices?  The price of oil (which is required to plant, harvest, store, transport, and distribute food) is a major factor in end-user food prices (indeed, the Wall Street Journal presents the connection between high oil prices and food prices as causal).
  3. According to the US Department of Energy under George W. Bush, increased biofuel use reduces both the demand for and price of gas and diesel fuels, which could (per no. 2, above) actually decrease global food costs.
  4. Even if you do divert some crops and croplands to product biofuels, doing so could just as likely save lives as end them, even if you accept the hyperbole of the AAPS.  How so?  Look at the picture at the start of this post, and consider the number of people killed in war – not only ideological wars but (especially) resource wars …

… I’m going to take a bit of a side-track here and point out that 3,976 Iraqi civilians were killed in 2010 as a direct result of what many have called a war for oil.  That was 2010, which was an improvement compared to the 4,680 civilians killed in 2009.  This war has been going on for nearly 10 years now, and the heaviest fighting was early on.  How many deaths, then, were directly caused by just this one war, even if you exclude combatants?  40,000?  50,000?  That’s not worldwide, that’s just this one war in Iraq!  What’s causing those deaths?  Tanks, Hummers, planes, etc. all had their role – and the continuous wartime operation of all these vehicles is adding to the demand for oil to the tune of 40 million barrels a year over and above peacetime ops (395,000 barrels per day, according to the DoD).  This sort of massive oil use is driving up costs according to exactly the same “supply/demand” model the AAPS applies to crops and biofuel – which begs the question:  How many deaths were caused by the rise in oil prices that were a direct result of feeding the war for oil machine?

“Too many.” is the correct answer.

Note, also, that these are not hypothetical deaths – these deaths are happening now, and they are happening precisely because we haven’t shifted our focus away from petroleum fuels.  The AAPS doesn’t care about these deaths, however – because these deaths don’t advance the AAPS’ agenda …

… before we get back to the (super fun!) attacks ad hominem, though, let’s get back to the AAPS’ “biofuls kill” argument.  We’ve already shot a few holes in the reasoning and consequences laid out in the first part of the argument, but what about its second half – wherein the AAPS’ writers are “leading” us to their conclusion?  That conclusion being, “Therefore, higher biofuel production would increase death and disease.”  Again, this is based on the validity of the first sentence in the argument (the one we already beat down) so, in a pure “classroom” sense, we can ignore this completely.

This isn’t a classroom, though, so I’ll make it as clear as I can:  because it is not immediately clear that increased biofuel production would directly cause an increase in food prices (see items 1, 2, 3, and 4, above) it is not possible to causally connect higher biofuel production with increased death and disease.

For objectivity’s sake, the AAPS’ full press release is included below.

TUCSON, Ariz., March 28, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — U.S. and European policy to increase production of ethanol and other biofuels to displace fossil fuels is supposed to help human health by reducing “global warming.” Instead it has added to the global burden of death and disease.

Increased production of biofuels increases the price of food worldwide by diverting crops and cropland from feeding people to feeding motor vehicles. Higher food prices, in turn, condemn more people to chronic hunger and “absolute poverty” (defined as income less than $1.25 per day). But hunger and poverty are leading causes of premature death and excess disease worldwide. Therefore, higher biofuel production would increase death and disease.

Research by the World Bank indicates that the increase in biofuels production over 2004 levels would push more than 35 million additional people into absolute poverty in 2010 in developing countries. Using statistics from the World Health Organization (WHO), Dr. Indur Goklany estimates that this would lead to at least 192,000 excess deaths per year, plus disease resulting in the loss of 6.7 million disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) per year. These exceed the estimated annual toll of 141,000 deaths and 5.4 million lost DALYs that the World Health Organization attributes to global warming. Thus, developed world policies intended to mitigate global warming probably have increased death and disease in developing countries rather than reducing them. Goklany also notes that death and disease from poverty are a fact, whereas death and disease from global warming are hypothetical.

Thus, the biofuel remedy for global warming may be worse than the disease it purports to alleviate.

Sources:  too many to list, but clicking on the embedded hyperlinks above will get you there, and I encourage anyone with even the slightest bit of interest in politics and environmental policy to do just that.

Photo:  Associated Press.

EPA Streamlines Process for Alt-Fuel Conversion Manufacturers

Posted: 07 Apr 2011 11:00 AM PDT

I've done a lot of research into converting a car to CNG or propane, and its slim pickin's for EPA-approved conversion kits. That's about to change as the EPA is "streamlining" the process through which conversion kit manufacturers can certify their kits.

Do-it-yourselfers and shadetree mechanics have been converting cars to run on CNG, propane, biodiesel, electricity and other alternative fuels for literally decades. The problem is that for a mom-and-pop fuel conversion kit maker, the costs for getting their kits EPA-certified is prohibitively expensive, and they were forced to undergo the same stringent testing and regulations as multi-billion dollar auto companies. Thus many of the kits out there are for "off-road use only," and only a handful of companies have had the wherewithal to get their conversion kits, whatever it may be, approved by the EPA.

The EPA will now make the process for certifying a conversion kit much easier, based on the age of the to-be-converted car. Conversion manufacturers must still demonstrate to the EPA that the kits meet air pollution requirements on new and "intermediately aged" automobiles, which covers all cars made after 2,000. These tests includes submitting technical plans for the conversion, as well as exhaust and evaporative emissions testing and, though intermediate cars there is no certificate or regular re-certification required.

This is my favorite part. For vehicles older than model-year 2000 though, no such testing is required; merely a notification of the EPA of what was done to the converted car, if I am understanding this correctly. Prior to this change in procedure, even making conversion systems for much, much older cars was very costly and usually not worth it. But these changes could help a cottage industry of alt-fuel conversions crop up. Yes, I know there are already some out there, though not nearly as many as I'd like to see. Perhaps it will help bring down the costs of those propane and CNG conversion kits I've been eyeing…

Get the full details over at the EPA’s website or read the press release on the next page.

Chris DeMorro is a writer and gearhead who loves all things automotive, from hybrids to HEMIs. You can read about his slow descent into madness at Sublime Burnout or follow his non-nonsensical ramblings on Twitter @harshcougar.

Ever Monaco Electric Auto Show (video)

Posted: 07 Apr 2011 04:00 AM PDT

Our friends at PluginCars.com recently visited Ever Monaco, an all-electric car show  which takes place in the heart of the tiny municipality, itself probably best known for its numerous appearances in James Bond movies and the classic Super Monaco GP game on Sega Genesis.  Also, there’s a race there.  Prince Albert in a can.  Lots of stuff.

In any event, the Ever Monaco show is the largest all-electric show in the region, so all the French automakers were there – Citroën, Peugeot, even Venturi and the Renault/Nissan alliance.  My favorites, of course, tend to skew either small and goofy or giggle-inducing racecar, so I’ve included shots of the GreenGT (above), along with a video from CleanTechNews (below).

The video is a little slow, but it does have some great close-up shots of cars like the Renault Twizy, and more.  Enjoy!

The original article over at Plug in Cars is worth a read, so CLICK HERE for that, and be sure to visit the Ever Monaco website, which has pictures of all the hybrids and highlights.

Sources:  Clean Tech News;  PluginCars.com
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)