Two great environmental articles

Both of these stories appeared in the February 3rd Denver Post editorial section.

Buh-bye, nasty plastic bags (Chicago Tribune)

When San Francisco Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi helped make his city the first in the U.S. to ban plastic shopping bags early last year, he said that he hoped other cities and states would follow suit.

Turns out he was dreaming far too small.

The Chinese government recently banned one type of particularly flimsy plastic bag and stipulated that other sorts may no longer be given away for free. The Chinese government is encouraging people to revert to an old habit — using reusable cloth bags when they shop.

Bangladesh, Ireland, Italy, South Africa, Taiwan and the city of Mumbai have banned or taken steps to discourage the use of disposable plastic bags. Australia is considering a full-scale ban by the end of the year. So is the city of London.

The grocery chain Whole Foods just announced that its 270 stores in the U.S., Canada and the United Kingdom will stop handing out plastic bags by Earth Day, April 22. The aim in all these efforts: reduce oil consumption and litter. Americans use tens of billions of plastic bags each year. Many wind up in our waterways, where they are a danger to marine animals. According to the Ocean Conservancy, its International Coastal Cleanup program yields hundreds of thousands of plastic bags each year. Plastic bags are strong, lightweight and about the only thing you’d want to use to tote your groceries in a rainstorm. And, yes, they work as a handy pooper scooper. But we can use plastic bags more judiciously. Chinese officials say their ban will reduce use by more than 60 percent and save more than 37 million barrels of oil used in the production of the bags each year. Reducing the reliance on plastics is not going to solve the world’s environmental problems. But it will make the place a little cleaner and greener.

A bad idea hits Colo. gas pumps, by Dustin Heron Urban

A quiet invasion is underway. Inconspicuous black stickers are appearing on gas pumps announcing the arrival of a new molecule looking to occupy gas tanks. It goes by the name of C2H5OH: ethanol.

Economic and environmental studies consistently criticize corn-based ethanol because increased demand for the fuel can push up prices for food with corn ingredients and because its production is so energy-intensive. According to Scientific American, the energy balance for corn ethanol is at most 1.3-to-1, meaning that its output of energy is only 30 percent greater than the energy it took to produce and ship it. Since ethanol can bond with condensed water in pipelines, it must be shipped by diesel trucks or trains.

Meanwhile, gasoline’s energy balance is 5-to-1.

Ethanol production is so energy-intensive that the United States would have to increase its imports of natural gas to meet mandates for this “domestic” fuel. What’s more, thanks to ethanol’s lower energy density, your vehicle is 33 percent less efficient when it burns ethanol, so you’ll be paying more to fill up more often. Energy experts such as Jan Krieder of the University of Colorado find that burning ethanol produces more carbon dioxide, a major component of global warming, than just burning gasoline.

It appears that politics drives the production of the new fuel more than any benefits to the environment. Agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland, one of the world’s largest corn processing firms and the country’s leading ethanol producer, has contributed $3.7 million to elected officials since 2000. Those politicians, in turn, handed out corn subsidies totaling $51 billion between 1995 and 2005. Congress has also subsidized ethanol itself at $1.38 per gallon, and mandated huge increases in ethanol production. All told, the ethanol hoopla seems more like a cynical and misleading marketing campaign than an ecological fix to what’s ailing our atmosphere.

And that is why, when forced to, I will buy ethanol-supplemented gasoline only when there is no other kind available. At a time when it is crucial that we do everything in our power to curb global warming, the ethanol boom seems a distracting waste of precious time and tax dollars.

I invite you to join my boycott of the black stickers, and gas up with non-ethanol-supplemented gasoline. Spread the word and help prevent the hijacking of the environmental movement by fat cats who could care less about saving the planet so long as they get paid.

[By the way, I (Paul) am not participating in this boycott. But I had to share this article with you, since it is mind-boggling to me that our state and federal governments have so easily bought into the lie of ethanol - because it is so politically correct.]