In his State
of the Union Address this year, the Commander in Chief of the War on Terror
asked the newly-elected Democrat-controlled Congress to join him "in pursuing
a great goal."
To effect regime change in Iran, thereby delivering "a decisive blow to
terrorism," and achieving yet another famous "victory for the security
of America and the civilized world"?
Well, how about cutting our losses and getting out of Iraq, incurring as few
additional American casualties as possible?
No, not that either.
Bushs "great goal" is to reduce gasoline usage in the United
States by 20 percent within ten years!
Whats so great about achieving that goal?
"When we do that we will have cut our total imports by the equivalent
of three-quarters of all the oil we now import from the Middle East."
Aha! Our National Security requires it.
But how are we to reach that goal?
"To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels,
by setting a mandatory fuels standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable
and alternative fuels in 2017."
Of course, if Bush goes ahead and does unto Iran what he did to Iraqi, our
total imports of oil from the Middle East will be cut for us, by the Iranians,
before Bush even leaves office, long before we achieve that goal.
Hence, Bush ought either to forego his impending War of Aggression against
Iran, or ask Congress to require the production of 35 billion gallons per year
of ethanol (from corn) before he leaves office.
No doubt the 110th Congress will support Bushs impending attack
on the Mullahs (and their non-existent nuclear-weapons program), especially
if it means the next President can focus on assisting the "farm lobby"
solve the principal remaining "threat" to our National Security (indeed,
according to Al
Gore, [.pdf] to the "survival of our civilization"): Climate Change.
The CNA Corporation has just issued a report
[.pdf] of its Military Advisory Board entitled "National Security and the
Threat of Climate Change."
"The nature and pace of climate changes being observed today and the
consequences projected by the consensus scientific opinion are grave and pose
equally grave implications for our national security."
According to the Board
"Climate change, national security, and energy dependence are a related
set of global challenges.
"As President Bush noted in his 2007 State of the Union speech, dependence
on foreign oil leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes and terrorists,
and clean domestic energy alternatives help us confront the serious challenge
of global climate change.
"Because the issues are linked, solutions to one affect the other."
The Board adopted the latest assessment of the International Panel on Climate
"Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as
a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values.
"The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2005 [1774 ppm] exceeds
by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm).
"The primary source of the increase in carbon dioxide is fossil fuel use."
So, how does the IPCC come to those conclusions?
And what are "fossil fuels"?
Well, according to Wikipedia,
fossil fuels are buried combustible geologic deposits of hydrocarbon materials,
formed from decayed plants and animals that have been converted to crude oil,
coal, and natural gas by exposure to heat and pressure in the earths crust
over hundreds of millions of years.
So what distinguishes such organic hydrocarbons from inorganic
Recall that isotopes are atoms that have the same chemical properties
but have different physical properties. About
1.11 percent [.pdf] of the stable carbon atoms are C-13. The rest are C-12.
Plants take carbon dioxide out of the air and through the process known
as photosynthesis fixate nitrogen, enabling them to eventually produce
the 20 amino acids that both plants and animals need to live.
The reaction goes much faster for the C-12 isotope, so there is a C-13 deficiency
in all organisms, plants and animals, living and dead.
Hence, there is a measurable C-13 deficiency in carbon dioxide that has been
produced by burning something organic, like a tree, for example.
But on the basis of C-13 deficiency analysis of oil and gas found at considerable
depths beneath the earth's surface, there is reason to believe fossil fuels
may not be organic in origin after all.
Nobel Laureate Sir
Robert Robinson, who investigated the chemistry of natural petroleum in
some detail, noted that the deeper one goes into the earth's crust to find the
oil reservoir, the fewer are the signs of anything biological in the oil one
True, there are signs of organic activity microbial life in oil
found near the surface. But as the depth from which the oil is obtained is increased
to the depths where microbes aren't found the more nearly the
C-13 deficit disappears.
"Actually it cannot be too strongly emphasized that petroleum does not
present the composition picture expected from modified biogenic products, and
all the arguments from the constituents of ancient oils fit equally well, or
better, with the conception of a primordial hydrocarbon mixture to which bio-products
have been added."
Why does that matter?
Well, the measured C-13/C-12 ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere has decreased over
the last 200 years by 1.5 parts per thousand. The IPCC assumes that decrease
has resulted from a huge increase in additions of "organic"
CO2. Since the IPCC assumes coal, oil and natural gas are "organic"
hydrocarbons, the IPCC concludes that mankind is "very likely"
[90% certain] to be responsible for that CO2 increase.
But, since the isotopic carbon ratios for natural gas obtained from great depths
is indistinguishable from the methane ejected in volcanic eruptions, it follows
that the carbon dioxide produced by burning natural gas obtained from deep reservoirs
is also indistinguishable from the carbon dioxide ejected in volcanic eruptions.
Similarly, methanol produced from natural gas obtained from great depths will
not have an organic C-13/C-12 ratio.
How about ethanol, produced from Iowa corn or Brazilian sugarcane?
Will that ethanol have an organic C-13/C-12 ratio? Will burning 35 billion
gallons per year of that stuff contribute according to IPCC lights
to Climate Change? Will burning all that organic ethanol contribute to our National
You bet your sweet bippy.