Ethanol exacerbates global warming. Whoops.

Greenhouse Affect – WSJ.com

The ink is still moist on Capitol Hill’s latest energy bill and, as if on cue, a scientific avalanche is demolishing its assumptions. To wit, trendy climate-change policies like ethanol and other biofuels are actually worse for the environment than fossil fuels. Then again, Washington’s energy neuroses are more political than practical, so it’s easy for the Solons and greens to ignore what would usually be called evidence.

The rebukes arrive via two new studies in Science, a peer-reviewed journal not known for right-wing proclivities. The first, by ecologists at Princeton and the Woods Hole Research Center, reviews the environmental consequences of increased biofuel consumption, which had never been examined comprehensively. Of course, that didn’t stop Congress and the Bush Administration from jacking up the U.S. mandate to 36 billion gallons by 2022, a fivefold increase from a mere two years ago. Such policies are supposedly justified because corn-based ethanol and other “alternatives” result in (very modest) reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions when mixed with gasoline.

The researchers break new ground by exposing a kind of mega-accounting error: Prior studies had never credited the carbon-dioxide emissions that arise when virgin forests, grasslands and the like are cleared to grow biofuel feedstocks. About 2.7 times more carbon is stored in terrestrial soils and plant material than in the atmosphere, and this carbon is released when these areas are cleared (often by burning) and the soil is tilled. Compounding problems is the loss of “carbon sinks” that absorb atmospheric CO2 in the bargain. Previous projections had also ignored the second-order effects of transferring normal farm land to biofuels, which exerts world-wide pressure on land use.

So, incredibly, when the hidden costs of conversion are included, greenhouse-gas emissions from corn ethanol over the next 30 years will be twice as high as from regular gasoline. In the long term, it will take 167 years before the reduction in carbon emissions from using ethanol “pays back” the carbon released by land-use change. As they say, it’s not easy being green.

Quote-a-palooza

“The government solution to any problem is usually at least as bad as the problem.” – Milton Friedman

“Vote for the man who promises least; he’ll be the least disappointing.” – Bernard Baruch

“In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant.” – Charles de Gaulle

“If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner.” – H. L. Mencken

“We’d all like to vote for the best man but he’s never a candidate.” – Kin Hubbard

“We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex- but Congress can.” – Cullen Hightower

“The Presidential winner in November will probably appoint no fewer than two Supreme Court Justices. The likeliest vacancies, from an actuarial perspective, will come from the liberal wing of the Court. So a President Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton has the potential to set back the prolife agenda by 30 years. It could well be a generation before a President would have another opportunity to shift the balance on the Court to the right. [John] McCain’s harshest critics argue that his judicial picks could easily be as bad as anyone tapped by Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama. This is caricature, but even if it had merit, [they] would be trading the risk that Mr. McCain picks moderates for the court for the certainty that his opponent would appoint liberals. It’s always possible Mr. McCain would make a bad Supreme Court nomination, just as Ronald Reagan picked Anthony Kennedy, who later affirmed Roe v. Wade… The conservative coalition has learned a lot about picking judges since 1987, and especially since the nomination of David Souter by another Republican President. As the Harriet Myers interlude proved, another mystery pick by Mr. McCain or any other GOP President is far less likely than it used to be…[S]ocial conservatives may decide they can’t vote for Mr. McCain for any number of reasons. What they can’t do with any credibility is claim that helping to elect a liberal President will further the causes that these conservatives claim to believe most deeply in.” – The Wall Street Journal

“There are seven reasons for anyone to support the eventual nominee no matter who it is: The war and six Supreme Court justices over the age of 68.” – Hugh Hewitt

“Kamikaze Republicans- those who say they’ll never vote for John McCain because he isn’t conservative enough- may get what they deserve. The Clintons… It isn’t necessary to love everything McCain has done to vote for him should he be the nominee. But it isn’t possible to argue that there’s no difference between McCain and Clinton (or Barack Obama), as some Republicans insist.” – Kathleen Parker

“A wise aphorism has it that the perfect is the enemy of the good. While conservatives tilt their noses expressively in the air at the idea of John McCain’s representing a movement he votes with 85 percent of the time, Democrats offer the electorate two strong believers in the power of big government, two babes in the woods when it comes to foreign policy, two fast friends of every liberal interest from pro-choice to gay rights to let’s-kill-the-Bush-tax-cuts.” – William Murchison

“We are a movement that believes in personal responsibility, so it’s time to take some. There are consequences to losing. Now is the time to rebuild and re-group, not whine or complain or sulk. Reagan lost many political battles along the way but never lost hope in the enduring nature of basic conservative principles. Neither should we.” – Laura Ingraham

“Conservative principles are timeless, and will outlast any politician.” – Alfred Regnery

“[Barack] Obama is a candidate whose empty bombast could float a fleet of hot air balloons… Obama’s speeches never actually capture a struggling thought- and if they did, they’d have to waterboard it for information. Obama’s speechmaking isn’t deep. It is profundity for dunces.” – Ben Shapiro

“If Hillary Clinton loses, does she know how to lose? What will that be, if she loses? Will she just say, ‘I concede’ and go on vacation at a friend’s house on an island, and then go back to the Senate and wait? Is it possible she could be so normal?” – Peggy Noonan

“We now have a pro-American President of France. And, in spite of what some radicals say, I think we should have a pro-American President of the United States.” – Martin Silbermintz

Jay Leno: Mitt Romney threw in the monogrammed towel. That leaves McCain and Huckabee. The old guy and the preacher. Which brings up the philosophical question: Which one is closer to God? … John McCain was the big Republican winner. One pundit said McCain’s lucky nickel was working. He carries a lucky nickel. It must be lucky- six months ago, that was his campaign war chest. … Hillary Clinton also carries around a lucky nickel. Not for superstitious reasons- she just flips it when she needs a position on Iraq. … Newsweek estimates that Bill Clinton made between $10 and $15 million last year for speaking engagements. That explains why Hillary never speaks to him anymore- she can’t afford it. … Hillary Clinton has the support of Bill Clinton, L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, or as she calls them, the party unfaithful. … They did a poll on whether Bill’s campaigning for Hillary helped her or hurt her. Well, 38 percent thought it helped; 36 percent thought it hurt. Then 26 percent said, “He never told me he was married!”

“I teach Sunday School, mother#@&!*%!”

Colbert is, of course, right on this one. The guest, perhaps unknowingly, is essentially trying to prove that God is not, in fact, God. If “God” was wrong, he is not God. Fortunately, Colbert knows enough theology to put this guy in his place in a way that will teach others the Truth in a way they will remember.

We do, indeed, send ourselves to Hell through abuse of our God-given free will. But He loves us enough to allow us to make that choice, rather than force us to love him, as He could. He could make us love him and want to spend eternity with Him, but that would involve denying our free choice to do so or not to do so. Love that is not freely given, but taken or forced, is not love, it’s rape. And that’s not the loving God we know we have.

Hat Tip: AmericanPapist: Not Your Average Catholic!

“I teach Sunday School, mother#@&!*%!”

Colbert is, of course, right on this one. The guest, perhaps unknowingly, is essentially trying to prove that God is not, in fact, God. If “God” was wrong, he is not God. Fortunately, Colbert knows enough theology to put this guy in his place in a way that will teach others the Truth in a way they will remember.

We do, indeed, send ourselves to Hell through abuse of our God-given free will. But He loves us enough to allow us to make that choice, rather than force us to love him, as He could. He could make us love him and want to spend eternity with Him, but that would involve denying our free choice to do so or not to do so. Love that is not freely given, but taken or forced, is not love, it’s rape. And that’s not the loving God we know we have.

Hat Tip: AmericanPapist: Not Your Average Catholic!

“I teach Sunday School, mother#@&!*%!”

Colbert is, of course, right on this one. The guest, perhaps unknowingly, is essentially trying to prove that God is not, in fact, God. If “God” was wrong, he is not God. Fortunately, Colbert knows enough theology to put this guy in his place in a way that will teach others the Truth in a way they will remember.

We do, indeed, send ourselves to Hell through abuse of our God-given free will. But He loves us enough to allow us to make that choice, rather than force us to love him, as He could. He could make us love him and want to spend eternity with Him, but that would involve denying our free choice to do so or not to do so. Love that is not freely given, but taken or forced, is not love, it’s rape. And that’s not the loving God we know we have.

Hat Tip: AmericanPapist: Not Your Average Catholic!

“I teach Sunday School, mother#@&!*%!”

Colbert is, of course, right on this one. The guest, perhaps unknowingly, is essentially trying to prove that God is not, in fact, God. If “God” was wrong, he is not God. Fortunately, Colbert knows enough theology to put this guy in his place in a way that will teach others the Truth in a way they will remember.

We do, indeed, send ourselves to Hell through abuse of our God-given free will. But He loves us enough to allow us to make that choice, rather than force us to love him, as He could. He could make us love him and want to spend eternity with Him, but that would involve denying our free choice to do so or not to do so. Love that is not freely given, but taken or forced, is not love, it’s rape. And that’s not the loving God we know we have.

Hat Tip: AmericanPapist: Not Your Average Catholic!

“I teach Sunday School, mother#@&!*%!”

Colbert is, of course, right on this one. The guest, perhaps unknowingly, is essentially trying to prove that God is not, in fact, God. If “God” was wrong, he is not God. Fortunately, Colbert knows enough theology to put this guy in his place in a way that will teach others the Truth in a way they will remember.

We do, indeed, send ourselves to Hell through abuse of our God-given free will. But He loves us enough to allow us to make that choice, rather than force us to love him, as He could. He could make us love him and want to spend eternity with Him, but that would involve denying our free choice to do so or not to do so. Love that is not freely given, but taken or forced, is not love, it’s rape. And that’s not the loving God we know we have.

Hat Tip: AmericanPapist: Not Your Average Catholic!