He doesn't ask the obvious question — "do you believe in evolution?" — even once! I guess when you interview the serious candidates, you don't need to ask the stupid baby questions.
It's not a bad interview; Edwards says all the pro-science and pro-education stuff, favoring increased investment in public education, respect for the Office of Science and Technology Policy, strict standards to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, increased funding for NIH, etc., but I confess to being suspicious and not at all won over. That's what you'd expect a candidate to say in an interview with a science blogger. I like science! I like education! We'll do more of it if I'm president! Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of details on how he's going to do it, and where he does sketch out specific ideas, like his free tuition for one year to all college students, he doesn't spell out how he's going to pay for it, or what part of government gets cut to compensate.
I note he also doesn't commit on certain contentious issues. He deplores the Bush treatment of stem cell research, but doesn't come right out and say he'll endorse the use of human embryos in research.
He also supports one major boondoggle: ethanol. It's a farm subsidy, not an answer to our energy problems.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I am afraid that getting elected to higher office in this country still means having to state publicly that you're religious. But contrast Edwards' more benign stand on science with that of global warming denyer Fred Thompson, who if polls are to be believed, would be an instant front-runner.
Scary.
http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/04/fred-thompson-global-warming-deny…
Well, when it's been a hard week at work and the sun's shining lazily in the garden, I'm a great supporter and avid user of ethanol too.
I don't have the links, and I could be wrong, but didn't Edwards make his $$$ using junk science?
Suing OB-GYN's out of the state to accusing them of causing birth defects and leading to incredibly high malpractice insurance rates in SC.
Agreed that corn ethanol is a bad subsidy. Meanwhile, price supports on sugar and excise taxes on ethanol import keep corn just slightly cheaper than it's alternatives.
Bring the cellulosic ethanol into production, and we'll suffer from the fact you can't pipeline it (extremely hygroscopic). Try Bio-butanyl which can be pipelined. And no engine conversion needed.
Do any of the Democratic candidates have a sensible policy on ethanol?
My understanding of the situation is that corn is the primary crop used for ethanol production, but it's not necessarily the most efficient. Sugar would be the most efficient and eco-friendly, but of course corn appears to be cheaper because it's so heavily subsidised.
Speaking of which, can someone explain corn subsidies to me? Is it really just a mega-powerful farm lobby double-dipping by growing a hugely profitable crop that's in damned near everything (HFCS!) and also being paid on top of that by the government for doing it? Or is there an actual reason for the subsidies?
I, for one, support ethanol production.
Oh, wait, you want to burn it for fuel in engines?
Screw that. It belongs in my glass.
Joshua,
As to corn subsidies, remember the first three letters of the alphabet - ADM.
Ken
Hey, at least if we use corn for ethanol we might not have enough to make high fructose corn syrup?
Yeah: don't listen to what politicians say when they're talking to people you agree with; wait till they're talking to evangelicals, agribusiness etc. and see what they say then.
Ken: Fair enough, but in my infinite optimism I was kinda hoping there might be at least some flimsy excuse for them other than a kickback to big farm-a. Oh, well.
Corn ethanol is a crossover technology to more efficient and productive and environmentally friendly sources of ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass or miscanthus would be the more long-term technology.
One of the things that I don't understand about the current opposition to corn ethanol is the subsidy issue - demand for corn ethanol would drive corn prices up, reducing the need for those subsidies. This would have beneficial effects not only in our own country, but it would reduce the undercutting of prices in poorer countries and help out farmers internationally.
There are some Diesel-like compounds that can be made from carbohydrates, and perhaps those might be better (they don't need distilling, for one) than ethanol, and those should be actively pursued as well. But we know more about ethanol and with just a little research it can start replacing gasoline within years.
Ed Brayton also seems to think that ethanol is a scam, I wonder, what are your reasons, PZ?
if you elect me for student body president, we'll have half days and ice cream every friday! and more pep rallies! and our football team will win more! and there'll be less homework!
we elect presidents based on empty promises. have since grade school.
Compare and contrast the Edwards interview with Wes Clark speaking at the Science Panel at the last YearlyKos.
http://securingamerica.com/node/1101
Anyone else left wishing there were more candidates to choose from?
This web site, while biased, might answer some questions.
www.ethanolrfa.org
My brother-in-law, a neuroscientist specializing in Alzheimers and other degenerative brain diseases/processes, has said that Edwards was a champion of NIH and NSF funding when he was in the Senate. J. met with Edwards on numerous occasions, and was always impressed not only with Edwards's commitment but also the depth of his scientific understanding.
Part of the reason is just to keep large parts of the midwest from turning into ghost states. My relatives live in the upper midwest prairie. The larger towns are sort of empty and many of the smaller ones are all but ghost towns.
It is a rathole. OTOH, compared to all the other ratholes we pour money down, it is a benign and cheap one and we do get inexpensive food and beer out of it.
Don't get too excited over the candidates. The usual choice, who do you dislike the least. And which one is least likely to destroy the USA.
There are many worse than Edwards. He doesn't seem to have delusions that we can take over and run the world.
Thanks for the Wes Clark link. Reminds me why I voted for him last time. But on to ethanol: I think it's pretty clear this is mostly a wealth transfer program. Ethanol research takes from our productive urban residents and gives to agribusiness huge sums to create no net gain in energy. If you really want to reduce dependence on foreign oil, just use a system of taxes and subsidies to change the mix of vehicles. More small and midsize sedans, fewer SUVs. Mission accomplished. No new tech required.
As for education, I think the probem isn't that not enough people go to college. I think colleges are asked to do too much, and asked to do things they don't do very well. What we really need is better K-12 education and assure that almost everyone has basic reading and math skills, and that most have at least some inclination to value learning things on their own. A population that has the means and disposition to learn will take care of itself.
Ethanol being considered "a scam" has nothing to do with dollarses or subsidies, it has to do with the fact that it requires 1.29 gallons of fossil fuel to produce a gallon of ethanol. Try googling ethanol energy inputs for more citations than you can shake a gas nozzle at.
www.ethanolrfa.org is a total Astroturf site. Life is too short to spend reading press releases, son.
wildcardjack wrote....
"I don't have the links, and I could be wrong, but didn't Edwards make his $$$ using junk science?
Suing OB-GYN's out of the state to accusing them of causing birth defects and leading to incredibly high malpractice insurance rates in SC."
Uh, no. First off, he did most of his personal injury stuff in North Carolina, not South Carolina. As far as malpractice rates, I believe you're thinking of Mississippi, not South Carolina. We're not all the same down here, thank you very much. Lastly, unless one considers a little girl having her intestines sucked out of her body from the suction of an outlet drain at a municipal pool "junk science" I'd say you're wrong. He made most of his money from the "Lakey case" which involved just such a situation. From what I've seen, most of Edward's tort cases involved personal injury, not med-mal.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NTB/is_22_43/ai_n6360899
That was back in 1997. Here's another similar incident this month....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19619471/
Sorry to seem a bit testy. Seems personal injury lawyers are real easy to beat up on....that is until you're the one injured by some large corporation's screw up. Yes, there are some real slimy ambulance chasers out there filing some seriously crappy cases but thankfully, they are a minority.
Yeah, but it's crap beer. Where are my amber waves of grain? Barley and hops for everyone!
Personally, I'm somewhat surprised that PZ would have such a positive view of a TV Psychic.
oh. THAT John Edwards.
For good coverage of Big Corn (and our relationship to food in general) read "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan - a very good book.
At first I thought this post was titled "Borat interviews John Edwards". Now THAT would be entertaining.
It's actually possible for ethanol to be a boondoggle, a farm subsidy, and an answer to (some of) our energy problems.
I am skeptical of the ethanol skeptics.
I want to know more about the ethanol issue--for instance, is the 1.29 gal of ff to make 1 gal ethanol an equal energy or simply equal volume equation (I'm guessing ethanol has less energy per gallon, actually), but moreover does the calculation rely on using ff to ship and farm the corn/cellulose, or just to process and distill it? If so, couldn't we find a on-farm process-and-distill system to produce ethanol that would (at least) be used in farm equipment? That is, convert the farms first (and put yer money where yer mouth is, big ag). Wouldn't this eliminate some energy costs? And remember, the goal might be less CO2, not less foreign oil.
Lastly, doesn't Brazil already use ethanol (from cane) to reduce dependence on foreign oil? How well has that worked out?
Again, I'm no expert and if you've got some recommended websites I'd love to read 'em.
You mean butanol? I heard (?) it's not very practical because it's very viscous, it doesn't flow easily. The alcohol I'm interested in is methanol - there's a Nobel laureate chemist, George Olah, who's devoting his career to promoting a methanol economy, so... I think the idea is to get it by converting natural gas, or maybe syngas. Also there are methanol fuel cells.
[interview with Olah]
[wiki article]
He probably didn't feel a need to ask since he already answered that question on CNN's Faith, Values and Politics forum.
So he believes in evolution, but by the word "evolution" he means a process which was guided through every step by the hand of God, is compatable with belief in Christ, and isn't mutually exclusive with a six day creation or the existence of Adam and Eve?
What stupid baby answers.
Does anyone know of any site that lists the presidential candidates' views on evolution? To me, not accepting evolution indicates a lack of understanding of science...and there is no way I want (another) president who doesn't understand science.
Several people have asked for links to websites on ethanol. Here's one: a link to our in-depth study, "Biofuels--At What Cost? Government Support for Ethanol and Biodiesel in the United States."
"Scam" seems like an apt word to describe the current policies. As for the argument that ethanol subsidies reduce traditional farm subsidies, they do in the short run. Over the medium and longer term, however, they will result in a much larger costs to the U.S. Treasury ($22 billion a year by 2025 if Edwards' target is met) -- not to mention higher costs to consumers of grains and oilseeds, whether directly or through the purchase price of meat, eggs and milk.
And as for sugar, U.S. production is highly protected. Sure, that sugar could be converted to ethanol, but then of course the USA would have to import sugar to replace it. (Not necessarily a bad thing.) But wouldn't it be more efficient to import cane-derived ethanol directly? Of course it would. But that option is difficult at the moment, because Congress insists on maintaining a $0.54/gallon import tariff on ethanol, thus giving rise to even higher costs to transport ethanol from the Midwest to the coasts, where, were the tariff not in place, it would make more sense to import from abroad.
Finally, though sugar-based ethanol may be more energy-efficient and have a better greenhouse gas emission profile than corn-derived ethanol (which is pretty poor), the production of cane, at least in Florida, is hardly environmentally benign. Just have a look at what it has done to the Everglades.
Get real people. The choice today for president will be between a christian and a christian. Might as well at least pick one who believes the earth is older than 6,000 years. Edwards answer was a good one for a politician. Agreeing with the creos but not really agreeing with the creos.
In a good election we might be able to end up with someone who won't destroy the country. Or not.
Saying ethanol from corn requires 1.29 gallons of fossil fuel is rather asenine. No figure remotely that precise is known, but the consensus seems to be that more energy from fossil fuels goes into growing corn and converting it to ethanol (more so the former, believe it or not) than comes out.
Pushing ethanol from corn isn't so much a scam, as just more of the same - making public policy in the interests of big business. In this case, the big business is corn farming.
But celluosic ethanol production is a no-brainer regarding energy input and output. If you use something like switch grass, then no energy goes into growing it (none that we provide, that is - the sun takes care of that bit for us), which leaves just what you use to harvest and convert it to ethanol, which is a fraction of the energy you get out of it.
There's even room for something of a compromise on corn - keep using it for food, but convert the leftovers (stalks, leaves, etc.) into ethanol, where it'd be just another cellulosic source.
Another fuel replacement that I'd like to see more research done on is methanol. You can use electricity (which can be generated cleanly) to produce it, taking carbon dioxide out of the air in the process. It can then be consumed via combustion, or be converted back into electricity via fuel cells. The CO2 sucked out of the air is re-released, of course, but it's balanced. For fuel cell use, CO2 scrubbers can be used, making methanol use a decent vector for carbon sequestration.
The fuel cell allows you to basically transport electricity in liquid form, reducing the need for more grid infrastructure. Generate electricity cleanly at site A (solar, wind, etc.), then use that power to create hydrogen (from water) and methanol (the former goes into making the latter). Ship the methanol to site B, where clean power generation isn't available. Convert the methanol back into electricity with fuel cells, and site B has clean power.
Plenty of inefficiency, but the fundamental energy source is the sun. But not millions of years worth of accumulated solar energy, as with fossil fuels.
What enthusiasts for cellulosic ethanol tend to forget is that there is no "waste" in nature. The biomass that they want to turn into energy has a value to the soil, and to wildlife. Studies by the USDA suggest that if corn is to be grown "sustainably" (note, only a fraction of a percent of corn in the USA is grown using organic methods these days), all but 1/4 to 1/3 of the non-cob part of the plant would need to be left behind on the ground, or plowed under.
Also, many of the cost estimates of cellulosic ethanol seem to have made heroic assumptions about the cost of the feedstock -- starting from the cost of producing plants like switchgrass on prime Midwest farmland. What these studies forget is that, unless bribed (i.e., subsidized) to do otherwise, farmers are going to grow the crop that offers the greatest profit per acre, not necessarily the crop that can be produced the cheapest. And that is, and will remain, corn. (See, for example, this excellent study from Iowa State University.)
Yes, some switchgrass (or hemp) might be able to be grown on CRP land. But that land rarely exists in nice, large contiguous parcels -- the kind of catchment areas that large cellulosic plants (i.e., the ones that can exploit economies of scale) would need in order to be profitable. For a graphic illustration of this point, click here.
As for keeping the kernels for human and animal consumption, and using only the residues for ethanol production: good luck. Most ethanol plants that are planning to use corn stover also plan to use the kernels.
So, what about wood chips? Well, it seems, the various biomass industries are each laying claim to it. In the northeast USA, for example, wood-fired power plants are also counting on having cheap fuel available. Yet there is only so much that can go around. The result already may be a doubling in the price of wood chips by next year.
We could always choose to change our lifestyles so that we didn't need so much fuel.
Not that America would actually do that...
It is a tribute to how desperate we are getting for transporation fuels that we are converting food into ethanol and biodeisel.
Some people (mostly deep time ecologists) claim that we are mining the earth's life support systems unsustainably. And that we are in the overshoot phase. I used to hang around a few of these. Their big argument was whether the crash and die off was sooner or later.
It was depressing enough to stop worrying about it and hope everything hangs together for my lifetime. I have no idea how correct these theories are. The thing about overshoots, you never really know it until afterwards.
What is so magic about 6.7 billion people anyway? As a fan of wide open spaces and wildlife, the more is better philosophy has always left me puzzled.
So what about a High Fructose Corn Syrup fuel economy?
http://www.slu.edu/x14605.xml
Thanny, I listened to a recent Scientific American podcast on a researcher who said the same about methanol. Seems like it could be a great solution.
Therefore, I doubt it will ever come to fruition.
Raven (post #29), you seem to have misunderstood the purpose of my post (#26). I am well aware of the realities of the election process, and I long ago came to terms with the fact that they usually amount to a vote for the lesser of two evils. I wasn't arguing that people shouldn't vote for Edwards, but rather that PZ was incorrect when he implied that Edwards was above being asked this question because he was a serious candidate. Either this is a question suitable for serious candidates or Edwards is not one.
Edwards' answers were certainly politic, but on the surface they are little different than those put forth by some of the republican candidates. Frankly I think that McCain's statement on this topic is the best that I have heard from any current candidate.
It's highly religious, but at least he says that claims of a six-day creation are wrong. Edwards actually said that such claims weren't wrong. I have to admit that this does worry me somewhat even if Edwards doesn't accept the biblical view of creation, because those who are unwilling to stand up for truth during a campaign typically are no more courageous after they are elected.
But there are certainly other issues that I would take into account when deciding to vote, and there are some bright spots for Edwards in that interview. He was the only one of the three democratic candidates to state flatly that non-belief should be respected.
Clinton and Obama both spoke as if everyone had faith in a Magic Man in the Sky. Edwards was also the only one to mention the separation of church and state, and he stated clearly that he didn't believe that a president should try to impose his religious beliefs on others. I really can't ask for more than that. So the big picture is different than the specific issue I was addressing.