AVweb

« Back to Full Story

Media-Induced Greenwashing

  • E-Mail this Article
  • View Printable Article
  • Text size:

    • A
    • A
    • A

Trying to make sense of where the aviation fuel market is going can make your head hurt, and we in the aviation press often don't help. Specifically, we continue to perpetuate the idea that Swift Fuel is a "green" renewable when, in fact, the company has plainly said that's just one possibility. Herewith are two examples:

In this video we aired in March during our Sun 'n Fun coverage — scrub ahead to about 1:10 for the relevant point — our source says Swift is a biofuel and green because it doesn't contain any lead. If that's true, unleaded premium at the corner Hess station must be green, too, because it has no lead. I filmed this report myself, heard the biofuel statement and neither challenged nor clarified it. Thus goes modern journalism, where we use the excuse of lack of time to let statements we suspect may be misleading slide right by to be taken as factual by the reader or the viewer.

In this report from AOPA's recent coverage of Aero Friedrichshafen — scroll ahead to about the 2:55 mark — the reporter goes beyond leading the witness and just flat out states that Swift is made from biomass. Swift's Jon Zuilkowski replied that Swift can be made from biomass, but if you listen critically, he doesn't say precisely that it is or has been. He talks about estimated yields from various crop sources in a theoretical sense because, in reality, Swift hasn't carried or proven the biomass-to-fuel process end to end at a large scale. It has produced small quantities for test purposes straight from raw sugars, but just a few gallons. (He also misspeaks on yield, saying that a bushel of sorghum produces 100 gallons of Swift Fuel; he meant to say a ton of sorghum, I suspect. I asked him about it, but he said that's not Swift's area of expertise. It's being done by others.)

The larger volumes of Swift fuel for aircraft testing have been produced with off-the-shelf chemicals that aren't bio-derived. Swift recently reported that it's just now engaging companies to prove out the biomass economics at a larger scale from various crop sources. To its credit, Swift has generally explained this accurately, at least to me. But if a reporter doesn't ask the right questions, he or she is left with the impression that Swift is a biofuel when, in fact, it's more reasonable to say, as Zuilkowski did, that it could be a biofuel. The difference is neither subtle nor unimportant for its price as a biofuel will hinge on processes that Swift is not doing.

Swift has been less consistent in its cost estimates. For example, in the AOPA report, Zuilkowski says the partner companies they have engaged estimate that they can produce Swift Fuel for half the production price of 100LL. This is a tall claim that I am skeptical of for a number of reasons. First, what production price are we talking about?

At the refinery gate, avgas has been as low as about $2.50 not so long ago, but now it's more like a buck above premium car gas, so call it in the mid $4 range, according to my refiner sources. Just as a handy guide, to thumbnail price refinery gate gasoline prices, start with any index crude you'd likeÑsay West Texas Intermediate or BrentÑdivide by 42 and add 30 percent to get to premium car gas. Add another buck for avgas.

But using it as a benchmark, half would be about $2.25 to $2.50 out of the refinery, which is about a dollar less than premium car gas is now. To give you a frame of reference, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the well-established ethanol industry with benefit of considerable economy of scale, struggles to make ethanol at $2 a gallon and that's with a 45- cent-a-gallon government subsidy. A bio-derived Swift fuel requires a more difficult and unproven cellulosic process to reduce biomass to sugars, then bacteria to make the sugars into acetone, Swift's basic feedstock. Swift has been clear that its work has centered on the acetone-to-fuel conversion process, not the equally critical biomass-to-acetone conversion, which it's leaving up to other companies.

It's always possible that Swift's contractors have made huge breakthroughs, but I'd like to see these before accepting the claims at face value. In the ethanol market, cellulosic technology has been intensely hyped, but so far, it's been a bust. The EPA has backed off on its goals for cellulosic ethanol as a gasoline blendstock. "Half-price" fuels suggest near order-of-magnitude improvements in efficiency and yield. Renewables are making progress, to be sure, but we're standing by to see if they've made these kinds of gains. I'd never say never, but I would say: show me.

In this podcast last year, Swift's David Perme told me he thought Swift Fuel could achieve a retail price point between $5 and $6 if it used acetone feedstock derived from natural gas. As has Zuilkowski, Perme said most of Swift's work has centered on the end-state technologyÑthe task of converting acetone into one of the binary components of Swift Fuel, mesitylene, which is blended with isopentane to make the finished fuel. Perme's numbers were based on petrochemically derived acetone because those economics are easier to pin down.

So it seems to me that the right way to think about Swift is as a binary fuel derived from acetone feedstock and not as a biofuel. The acetone can be bio-derived, but if it is, it will have to compete with petrochemically produced acetone whose prices have proven wildly spiky due to variable demand in the plastics industry. Acetone squeezed from sweet sorghum won't be insulated from that nor does it seem likely that enough of it will be produced to impact world commodity prices for this material. In other words, unless Swift segregates its ultra-cheap acetone from world commodity prices, its investors won't want to leave any money on the table just for the good of aviation.

But we'll see.

I follow the energy markets loosely, both because it's a personal interest and because it relates to avgas. Last month, this minor chemical industry news item caught my eye: Dow plans to construct a "world-scale" propylene production facility at its Texas operations for a start-up in 2015. Why is this of interest? Because propylene is the primary feedstock for acetone, which Dow is evidently bullish enough on to take a run at the global market. One reason they are doing this is because the Marcellus Shale formation in Pennsylvania and the Eagle Ford shale in Texas are spewing out massive volumes of natural gas and related products, with yields expected to increase, with predictable effect on prices. Propylene can come from natural gas liquids, but the shales don't have much of that. Dow evidently has technology to make shale-derived gasses a player in this market.

So that means renewable sorghum-produced acetone may have to compete with a great gush of propylene-derived acetone. When Swift gets around to attracting investors, they'll no doubt take notice of this and won't have much choice but to pick the cheapest acetone they can find. That might be bio-acetone. Or not. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. To the Swift process, it doesn't matter where the acetone comes from.

In the meantime, Swift continues its research, tweaking its process and testing the fuel. ASTM approval for its fuel is near completion, a real plus. The company gives regular updates at the major shows, with AirVenture up next. They freely answer questions from the audience and I encourage you to ask the right ones. We in the media don't always do that.

Comments (35)

If oil companies ARE "greedy", then they will use the cheapest source of raw material. What is obvious is that Green/Renewable is not even in the ballpark for low cost! Oil/gas is the cheapest energy source for the next 100 years. Swift must be counting on massive tax dollars to even have a chance at producing a more expensive fuel...

Posted by: Mark Fraser | May 25, 2011 8:56 PM    Report this comment

Given the increasingly bright green spotlight on shale gas (a cause dear to the hearts of every 18-22 year old with green pretensions i.e. just about every 18-22 year old) the last thing GA needs is to be linked with it. I can hear it now: "They are poisoning our water supply so they can fly their noisy expensive toys over our back gardens. You have seen that you tube where the tap water explodes -- it is evil man!" Logic does not come into it anymore, best push for the unproven biomass to acetone process and leave the shale gas acetone for paint used on the protest banners.

Posted by: Brian McCulloch | May 26, 2011 5:11 AM    Report this comment

Paul, thank you for this insightful reporting. I for one, wish a biofuel option could be cost competitive with petroleum. If GA were to run on biofuel, it would do a lot to help our image which is in decline, particularly among young people.

Posted by: ROBERT THOMASON | May 26, 2011 6:07 AM    Report this comment

Glad you mentioned the hype around cellulosic ethanol. The EPA reduced mandated quotas for it by a whopping 95% earlier this year when it became obvious the wild forecasts from a few years ago could never be achieved. The same will happen on a larger scale soon when we hit the "blending wall" in the US, i.e. consumption of E10 gasoline is not sufficient to absorb current EISA 2007 law mandates for ethanol production. More evidence what happens when politicians, bureaucrats and enviro-extremists try to steer what should be a free market. Glad also you mentioned the Marcellus fields. I heard from one airport in that area (that is expanding to handle gas-related traffic) that towns there are full of well-paid workers but are short on two things: food on the shelves, and women. In the end, the vast majority of pilots will buy the least expensive fuel for their aircraft, regardless whether someone labels it "green" or not. All the talk of green aviation fuels sure looks like the crony capitalism that describes most of today's biofuels industry.

Posted by: Kent Misegades | May 26, 2011 7:21 AM    Report this comment

Kent, I'm not 100% sure I agree with your statement that pilots will choose the least expensive fuel. Otherwise, STC'd aircraft would be burning mogas wherever it's available. On fields with mogas, it appears that most pilots still choose 100LL. It seems to me that when fuel prices climb, pilots just fly less.

Now, for the new student starts (which I'm convinced is the future of GA), I really think we need to be able to come up with 2 seat aircraft that rent for less than $100/hr. Perhaps it's psychological, but I really believe that $100 is the price to beat!

Posted by: Josh Johnson | May 26, 2011 7:50 AM    Report this comment

Good job Paul. Another thing no reporter has asked is the cost IN WATER usage. How much water is required to produce one gallon of the Swift "green" fuel.

Posted by: Steve Ells | May 26, 2011 8:15 AM    Report this comment

The Shell GTL process can make 100/130 unleaded fuel out of abundant natural gas. Clean, sulfur-free and consistent. What else do you need? Robert

Posted by: ROBERT ZIEGLER | May 26, 2011 9:42 AM    Report this comment

I once had a boss who was death on what he referred to as "hiding the weenie", meaning intentionally obscuring the unfavorable aspects or gotchas in any scheme. You soon learned not to get caught trying to skim by some critical flaw in your pet project.

Unfortunately asking someone to be honest about the flaws in their revolutionary idea is akin to asking a human being not to ever think about sex; you are wishing for something that is just plain unnatural.

"The media" is no different from anyone else. When they buy into something, be it on the basis of political orientation or whatever, they are happy to go right along in the game of hiding the weenie.

Posted by: John Wilson | May 26, 2011 10:36 AM    Report this comment

GTL produces distillates, such as jet fuel. How do they get to 100/130? That is news to me, and Ive been following GTL technology for years.

Posted by: Jim Lo Bue | May 26, 2011 10:39 AM    Report this comment

I've been reading about Shell's and others GTL projects. Where is that stuff on economics?

Posted by: Paul Bertorelli | May 26, 2011 10:59 AM    Report this comment

Paul, the truth is that if it was cheaper to do something then it would have already been done. The more elaborate the process then the more it costs (and every step costs a LOT more when each process deals with huge amounts of explosive/flammable materials). John Wilson nailed it. It's all about "hiding" the extra cost with subsidies or over blowing benefits to make it easier to swallow.

Posted by: Mark Fraser | May 26, 2011 12:37 PM    Report this comment

" truth is that if it was cheaper to do something then it would have already been done."

True and no truer than in the energy markets. On the other hand, when gas shales came on the radar in 1978, no one ever thought they had as much volume as they appear to or that it could be unlocked. If the only reason to believe something can't be done because it hasn't held sway, we would all be riding west looking up the a-holes of oxen.

I am skeptical of renewables for the same reasons you are. But time and technology change things. I'm open minded.

Posted by: Paul Bertorelli | May 26, 2011 1:23 PM    Report this comment

IMHO modern ag is the conversion of fuel into food. To then convert food back into fuel is thermodynamically absurd. I don't have a copy available but I think the Aug 2007 issue of National Geographic looked at the efficiency of ethanol production from various feedstocks, and only sugar cane had a positive number at the end of production. this is why Brazil is a 100% ethanol economy, including some aircraft. But they cut down a lot of jungle to plant sugarcane. Algae has potential for oils, but I don't see much else on the horizon that beats petroleum for cost of production, efficiency and effectiveness.

It's good someone is doing basic research in this area, but planning on short-term solutions to come after almost 100 years of looking at alternatives seems incredibly optimistic.

Posted by: THOMAS M CONNOR | May 26, 2011 2:52 PM    Report this comment

Paul, the economics for GTL works if oil stays above $60-70 a barrel. One problem is the volatility of oil prices. We saw a fall from $126.33 in June 2008 to $31.04 in February 09. Also, natural gas prices would be expected to rise if a significant number of large scale GTL plants were built, raising the break even oil price.

Posted by: Jim Lo Bue | May 26, 2011 3:09 PM    Report this comment

Current projects are in places like Quatar, where the gas is essentially "free", due to large deposits and little domestic demand.

Posted by: Jim Lo Bue | May 26, 2011 3:11 PM    Report this comment

Jim, it is true that current GTL megaprojects (Pearl) focus on diesel, because there is a diesel shortage and an unleaded surplus in the market. There is no technical reason why you cannot make gasoline, and it has been made (100/130). Robert

Posted by: ROBERT ZIEGLER | May 27, 2011 12:06 AM    Report this comment

I don't see that there is any real link between shale gas and aviation fuel. At the end of the day, the production of mesitylene, the major aromatic component of Swift Fuel's aviation fuel, from acetone is possible via a range of reaction processes that go back to the 19th century. Acetone itself is used for a wide range of industrial chemicals, including the production of phenol, and bis-phenol-a (now banned in polycarbonate baby bottles), but it too can be made from various sources, including propylene. Propylene production has been increasing significantly to support the wide use of polypropylene in consumer products and packaging. Propylene can be made from methanol with suitable catalysts, and methanol is a very common product stream from natural gas (methane) via a number of processes, some of which have been around for 100 years. The point of all this is that methane is a commodity from which myriad chemical processes flow, some of which are directed to liquid fuel production, while of course, methane is used as a fuel itself as everybody knows. While acknowleging the unsolved risks in shale fracking, any suggestion to the media that shale gas has some magic properties that are particularly suited to the production of lead-free aviation fuel would be a huge public relations mistake.

Posted by: David MacRae | May 27, 2011 10:56 AM    Report this comment

Ag as fuel: Just a data point: I recently met with a fertilizer producer who claimed the Obama administration's goal of E-15 cannot be met for two reasons: First, worldwide ammonium nitrate/urea production is at capacity and there were no new production plants being built in the USA so he was buying overseas, raising the price considerably. Corn, barley, sorghum, wheat and other ethanol feedstocks are dependent on these nitrogen sources to get the yield per acre they depend on. Second, the number of tillable acres in CRP - the program where land owners are paid not to till for various reasons is limited. Land that can support corn, wheat, sorghum and barley production are even more limited. Long term it is possible to build another fertilizer plant, but there is little chance of significantly expanding tillable acres in this country. Some of the schemes of producing feedstocks from wood chips, switch grass and old iPods compete with schemes to burn them in electric generating plants as is done in Cadillac MI and Frenchtown, near Missoula MT.

Posted by: THOMAS M CONNOR | May 27, 2011 11:07 AM    Report this comment

Thanks for the kind of critical reporting so sorely lacking everywhere these days.

As an aside, I seem to remember from middle school science class that gasoline is ultimately a biofuel... Don't we refer to it occasionally as "stewed dinosaurs" for a reason?

...It's important to define terms.

Posted by: Justa Guy | May 28, 2011 1:40 PM    Report this comment

Stewed dinos are one source of hydrocarbons, but there is a theory put forth by Dr. Thomas Gold based on accidental discoveries of hydrocarbons in crystalline rock. Gold postulated the existence of abiotic hydrocarbons and found some such deposits at test drill sites, but they were incredibly expensive operations. In theory the carbon can come from CO2 subducted and roasted out of limestone at great depth,temp and pressure. Hydrogen comes from the rock itself, and the heat of the hydrothermal gradient can reduce the CO2 into hydrocarbons while faulting can concentrate it into viable deposits. Skeptics say the deposits were freaks caused by folding in the rock but cannot disprove the theory. Intriguing.

The core of the Earth could be as hot as 7000 kelvin and in places the solid mantle is not very thick. There is evidence of magnetic reversals of the earth, and some suggest it was due to a change in the circulation of the earth's core. Yet none of the supporters of the global warming hypothesis address the earth itself as a heat source. They try to ignore the sun too, but that's a different matter. Nope, it's all those Cessnas and iPods.

Posted by: THOMAS M CONNOR | May 29, 2011 12:03 AM    Report this comment

I just have to make this point: Who uses FOOD to make gasoline or diesel, where natural hydrocarbons in the form of oil and gas are abundant and while there is still hunger in the world, is no better than any of worst eugenicists like Margaret Sanger or Marie Stopes. What is called "green" fuel is in fact "brown" fuel.

Posted by: ROBERT ZIEGLER | May 29, 2011 6:57 AM    Report this comment

@R. Ziegler:

If the main problem is simply lack of hydrocarbon resources, a point could be made for more drilling for oil instead of ethanol or other biomass fuel. But what if the real shortage is not oil, gas, etc but the capacity of our planet's atmosphere to absorb all the carbon dioxide we're putting out? In that case, "drill baby drill" is not the answer. In that case we have to develop nuclear power (yes, even with the Fukushima disaster), ethanol, solar, and other carbon-neutral technologies. And the aircraft industry will have to redesign engines and aircraft fuel systems to tolerate ethanol.

Posted by: Alex Kovnat | May 31, 2011 7:31 AM    Report this comment

Alex, I agree about the nuke power plant. It is odd how a natural disaster - the tsunami - that killed thousands, gets less air play than the nuke plant that has killed zero. Since the usa tested two nuke warheads in Japan they know what the real dangers are, and this isn't one of them.

The problem with windmills and solar panels is that they are area expansive whereas nuke and coal plants are area dense. Covering Arizona with solar panels edge to edge sounds great. Unless you live in Arizona.

WRT the atmosphere's inability to 'absorb' CO2: Got data? And what does 'absorb' mean to gasses that mix freely? Chlorophyll plants, coral reefs & crustaceans all depend on it and in turn almost all animal life, so it's food to the corn some make fuel from. Eventually sea life turn the CO2 into limestone rock, pretty harmless stuff. Feed limestone to a volcano and it returns CO2 to the atmosphere several orders of magnitude greater than what man ever produced, so let's put a stop to volcanoes first. When I was a kid we learned the carbon cycle, derived by fossil evidence. Nobody has disproved it that I'm aware of.

And why not methanol rather than ethanol? That's what all the 2011 indy 500 cars ran on. And running out of fuel ruined a lot of dreams. Anybody recall that happening on high-test?

Posted by: THOMAS M CONNOR | May 31, 2011 1:52 PM    Report this comment

The fear (real or perceived by the feds) of ethanol contaminated aircraft fuel is phase separation. Eliminating the fear would require heated tanks. Personally I think it's overblown, and Paul has done some empirical testing he shared on another fora. Either way, alcohol reduces range and ethanol cannot survive without subsidy in this country, so taxpayers pay twice for less.

Posted by: THOMAS M CONNOR | May 31, 2011 1:53 PM    Report this comment

Bertorelli's "stick to the facts" commentary is refreshing in todays era of editorial comments from pseudo reporters. Everyone, including reporters, have a right to their opinions, however they have a duty to have facts that back up their opinions. Most reporters don't have any facts and seem to have "hidden agendas" promulgated by their directors to falsify any truths in support of their political goals. One point that occurred to me as I read the article and all comments is that when yeast converts sugar to alcohol, it also creates carbon dioxide in amounts equal to fifty percent of the sugars weight. I learned that in my beer making days. I have never read anything from the global warming crowd complaining about green house gas emissions from ethanol production, just about fossil fuels. Carbon Dioxide is food for all plant live and the more carbon dioxide available, the faster our needed plants grow. As for global warming, clouds (condensed water vapor) limit any temperature increases in the world.

Posted by: Bobby Summerville | June 1, 2011 8:28 AM    Report this comment

For the curious I suggest googling the 'scientific method.' I'll provide an admittedly poor description of it here. In science there there should be a search for the truth by collecting relevant data, forming a hypothesis and trying to disprove it, then revise and repeat. The hypothesis is expected to change as we learn more. This is very tedious, takes time and is not glamorous. With time the hypotheis firms up and takes on the form of a theory, and if others are unable to disprove it, can take on the form of law, readily described mathematically. Take the laws of thermodynamics: They fit most situations. Even then, there are conditions where they don't fit perfectly, hence if you google it you'll find there are exceptions and some propose new laws.

Note that the hypothesis/theory/law model is based on data and efforts to disprove theories until no longer able. Enter 'researcher bias,' which is the reverse. Manipulating data that proves a theory is not science, it's proving a point of view. Cold fusion and CO2 caused global warming both fall in the latter category.

Posted by: THOMAS M CONNOR | June 1, 2011 12:22 PM    Report this comment

The CO2-causes-global-warming hypothesis is based on computer modeling, the same programs that struggle to predict tomorrow's weather. That the models cannot be reproduced in the lab bothers nobody but a few doubters who understand how science methodology is supposed to work.

S. Fred Singer quotes a theory, substantiated by it's reproduction in the lab - that cosmic rays steered by the sun's solar wind, control cloud production and hence global temps in the Earth's atmosphere. I recall making cloud chambers when I was a kid so we could see particle tracks from various sources, and it worked well. Google it, they are easy to make. Anyway, global temps track cloud cover pretty well, and they also track solar wind fairly well, hence the interest. That we understand the physics and can make it work in the lab at least competes with the CO2 hypothesis, casting doubt on it's validity, not necessarily disproving it. Since there is an alternate hypothesis - supported by lab data - we shouldn't be legislating to support a hypothesis that has not graduated to the status of theory or law. It's the conceit of the anointed, central planning, anti-free market and all that.

Posted by: THOMAS M CONNOR | June 1, 2011 12:36 PM    Report this comment

On the other hand, if they say: 'You are selfish pigs consuming huge amounts of what may be finite energy and need to conserve,' I'm Ok with that. Politicians who do so probably won't get re-elected, and scientists who say so might not get funding for pet projects, but so be it. The truth will set us free. But first it will really make us mad.

Posted by: THOMAS M CONNOR | June 1, 2011 12:36 PM    Report this comment

Paul I've never met or flown with you but you consistently display two of the best traits that I imagine a pilot can possess:

1. A willingness to critically and publicly analyse you own behaviour.

2. A focus on what is right rather than who is right.

You sound like a poster boy for the principles of CRM basically and I appreciate the example you set in your public utterances. I think there should be more of it, especially when I hear and see comments from people of all political and social persuasions who sound like they can't be wrong and never consider the other side of an argument.

Posted by: John Hogan | June 2, 2011 2:14 AM    Report this comment

Tom, your outline of the scientific method is pretty close but your use of it is absolutely incorrect. There is no doubt about where things are headed, aside from that which is encouraged exclusively by certain interested parties. Healthy debate and scientific scepticism is always needed but that debate is essentially over. Aside from this comment I won't engage with you over this - I wish it were otherwise but there is unfortunately no reasonable doubt about the science.

Posted by: John Hogan | June 2, 2011 2:27 AM    Report this comment

"You sound like a poster boy for the principles of CRM basically and I appreciate the example you set in your public utterances."

Thanks for the kind words. If I'm the poster boy for anything, it's probably crankiness and contrarianism, but perhaps you are seeing redeeming virtues after all.

Posted by: Paul Bertorelli | June 2, 2011 8:39 AM    Report this comment

John Hogan: Wow, talk about vague. What exactly are you being critical of, and what is headed where? Debate is always needed but . . . stifle?

Posted by: THOMAS M CONNOR | June 2, 2011 1:34 PM    Report this comment

There is actually environmentally conscious activity and then there are activities that are done because they are perceived as “Green” (that ever that means).

The government buying up perfectly good “clunkers” to be crushed so that people can buy hybrids was just such of an activity that was done only because of the perception of being “Green” even though the actual net effect on “greenhouse gases” was not beneficial (not to mention other negative effects caused by hybrid cars).

Posted by: KRIS LARSON | June 5, 2011 9:12 PM    Report this comment

Paul, the issue of a “Green” 100LL replacement and the subject of one of your previous blogs Engine Design: No Talent (March 11, 2011) are absolutely interconnected. Engine designers will not develop the engines we need (turbocharged up to 350HP) until there is a commitment to an AVGAS standard that the engines will run on.

The lack of commitment to the production of unleaded AVGAS has led the engine designers to pursue a much more difficult path (diesel) simply because they know that jet fuel will be available for the foreseeable future. Ignition engines are a far better choice for aviation but, because there is no fuel standard, we are left with the present conundrum.

An unleaded 91/96 octane AVGAS exists today and if commitment to the availability of that fuel was made, we would see certification of engines to use it(like the TEIO-540). The use of such fuels and engines would truly make progress toward being “Green”. Instead we have people on both sides pretending to be “Green” by insisting that there be a drop-in, “Green” replacement for 100LL when there really isn’t a need.

To push the cutting edge of refining technology (and all of the inevitable problems) just so that a small percentage (<30%) of the GA piston fleet can continue using half-a-century-old engine technology is just dumb. Especially since the whole process is media driven and there is no empirical evidence that there will be any actual benefit to the environment . It’s all just for show.

Posted by: KRIS LARSON | June 5, 2011 9:46 PM    Report this comment

Probably too late for anyone to care on this forum, but here is a good summary of the political science of climate change, writ by some rather credentialed scientists. A different point of view - supported with some data - seems worth while for the open-minded.

www*heartland*org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/22835*pdf

(replace the asterisks with periods)

When the global warming thing started about 15 years ago, and carbon was revealed as a social enemy five years ago I wondered why industries that make our lives so comfortable by producing energy don't defend themselves in the media. Maybe it doesn't matter and they put their money where it does the most good, like lobbying congress. That's what Al Gore does - and he causes me mixed emotions because I support his right to fly a private jet both ways to do so, but I resent his preaching that the rest of us should bicycle.

Posted by: THOMAS M CONNOR | July 1, 2011 2:55 PM    Report this comment

Add your comments

Log In

You must be logged in to comment

Forgot password?

Register

Enter your information below to begin your FREE registration

« Back to Full Story