Author Archive

The Future of Biotechnology in Farming

There is a great deal of controversy over genetically modified crops; some countries have banned their growth entirely, while others have placed strict regulatory restrictions on production. As the world’s population continues to grow (it is projected to reach 9.1 billion by 2050), global food production will have to increase by 70 percent in order to meet demand.

Scientists have discovered ways to improve crops by manipulating plant DNA, creating a product that better resists insects and stands up to herbicides, allowing farmers to grow crops using fewer pesticides. For example, biotechnology company Monsanto created a crop known as Bollgard Bt cotton — a strain of cotton injected with the Bacillus thuringinesis bacterium which produces its own insecticide, reducing the need for additional pesticide. The product was introduced in India in 2002, and its benefits became evident:

Yields improved with the use of Bt cotton. One particular cotton farm increased its yield by 7,625.7 pounds per hectare while simultaneously reducing costs by $143.32 per hectare (due to decreased use of pesticides).
With more money in their pockets, Indian farmers have been able to upgrade their machinery, advancing the country’s agricultural economy.

Brazil is currently experimenting with biotechnology and sugarcane. While Brazil produces 588 million tons of sugarcane per year (half the world’s output), it could double that production; half of its potential crop is currently lost to pests, weeds and drought.

Biotechnology offers the potential to combat world hunger by greatly increasing crop yields and producing hardier plants that can withstand pests, drought and more. But because many countries do not allow the production or importation of biotech crops, the ability of these crops to feed the globe is limited.

Oct 29, 2014 | 4 comments | by David Weisser

Bag Bans are Bad Business

This past year the NCPA published numerous studies on how both bag bans, and bag regulations were harming consumers. The details of the studies revealed that not only were the local governments cashing in on taxpayers, but that the environment would still be suffering as a result. How can this be? Wouldn’t a decrease in the plastic bags being sold help the environment? After all, ecosystems suffer from trash and pollution daily, this could be the next steps towards cleaning up the country. However, this is a free market, and unintended consequences from government interaction has been an issue since people started submitting themselves to others.

Paper Bags: Plastic bags were at one time our nation’s solution to paper. Deforestation was running rampant in the world, and environmentalists were demanding paper bag removal from stores. Plastic bags, which were more efficient, cheaper and did no harm to any forests or the ecosystems within. It is also extremely important to note that paper bags create a far bigger environmental footprint than plastic, and are not able to decompose in landfills. As we approach an alternative to plastic it seems that reusable bags are in. Despite numerous reports of E.coli collecting on them, and the fact that stores are able to sell them for a bigger profit than free plastic bags, our economy is not ready to suddenly change overnight.

Increasing Taxes: Many local governments decided that instead of a ban they would propose a tax on every plastic bag used. DC for example, utilized a 5 cent fee on every plastic bag sold to consumers. The more groceries you bought, the more you would be charged. While it seemed like a good idea at the time, other countries who did the same thing ended up having to raise the tax repeatedly over time. Their tax began at 15 cents in 2001 and jumped to 22 cents in 2007. The government was forced to raise the tax after they noticed that bag use was increasing as consumers began absorbing the cost of the bags. This exact identical situation also happened to Ireland.

Sep 08, 2014 | Leave a Comment | by David Weisser

EPA’s Expanded Interpretation of its Permit Veto Authority Under the Clean Water Act

Congressional Hearing on the EPA’s Expanded Interpretation of its Permit Veto Authority Under the Clean Water Act

The hearing explored the power and reach of the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to veto permits after a length of time. The section in question is 404 C, which states;

Section 404(c) authorizes EPA to prohibit, restrict, or deny the discharge of dredged or fill material at defined sites in waters of the United States (including wetlands) whenever it determines, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, that use of such sites for disposal would have an unacceptable adverse impact on one or more of various resources, including fisheries, wildlife, municipal water supplies or recreational areas.

Since the Clean Water Act was drafted in 1972, over 2.5 million permits have been filed in conjunction with this section. Of those 2.5 million, only 13 have ever been vetoed. 12 of which, were under republican leadership.
Expanded interpretation of the term “Navigable waters” has given the EPA powerful abilities to regulate anything it deems is a navigable water.
Of the 13 times that the EPA issued a veto, it was challenged every time. Every time, the EPA won.
The costly and lengthy permit process increases the values of the projects, sometimes far too much and they are forced to shut down.
Permits should not be allowed to utilize environmental safety as a cause to delay projects.
There are numerous recommendations about limiting the amount of time the EPA can veto a permit. The reason this was suggested is because the last permit was delayed after 3 years. That is far too long of time to issue a veto. Congress is currently looking over ways to implement this change to the EPA.
Further agenda will look to clarify the scope of jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act and interpret navigable waters.

A good question posed by Democrats is why 13 vetoes are /2.5 million permits a cause for precedence and concern? Republicans responded that they do acknowledge 12 of them were under Republican presidencies, but are still political maneuvers none the less.

Jul 23, 2014 | Leave a Comment | by David Weisser

Congressional Hearing on Biotechnology

The Subcommittee on Horticulture, Research, Biotechnology and Foreign Agriculture called a hearing to discuss the societal benefits of biotechnology and study the perception of it in domestic and international culture.

While media may display biotechnology in a different light, both republicans and democrats agreed that biotechnology was our future, and must remain relevant.
Democrats responded that by increasing yields, we can decrease the amount of land and water used to grow crops. This would in turn lower our carbon emissions.
Under the guise of trying to inform the public about biotechnology, it ends up being misinformation. Which is why labeling cannot take place.
A survey was done to ask consumers whether they enjoyed Biotech chicken which was resistant to diseases, or chicken fed antibiotics to counteract diseases — 85% said that they preferred Biotech chicken.
Corporations must begin to learn how to spread goodwill amongst its consumers. As of right now, Monsanto and the other corporations are doing a horrible job.
In order to inform the public better, a line of communication must be open between consumers and producers. Farmers understand the key benefits biotechnology has to offer, but consumers have not jumped on board yet.
One witness stated that increasing pressure on organics will actually put her out of business. Rising grain prices that are organic only cost more than twice the amount that biotech farming does.
A study was recently done that found the risk associated between conventionally farmed produce and biotech produce was exactly the same.
The reason that biotechnology is receiving such a bad name is because activists are misinformed and continue to spread lies about it.

Jul 21, 2014 | 3 comments | by David Weisser

Keystone XL: More than a Domestic Issue

The United States has been abuzz with activity this past year over the promise that President Obama made concerning pushing forward the Keystone XL project. However, the President is still failing to deliver on any of his promises. What is new are the affects that are taking place on the Canadians. There are currently 3 pipeline projects (Northern Gateway, Trans Mountain Expansion and Keystone XL) that are at the forefront of energy development in Canada.

The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association predicts that all three projects combined are worth a staggering $1.298 trillion dollars to the Canadian economy. By allowing Canada’s crude to transport down to the Texas Gulf where it can be refined, Canada expects to bring in about $15.52 billion dollars in additional salaries to its citizens. In addition, the U.S. State Department reported an increase of 42,000 jobs during the construction process, and roughly 118,000 jobs to maintain the pipeline and the refineries.

There are currently four ways that crude oil is being transported in the U.S. and Canada, which are train, truck, pipeline and by ship. Depending on which environmentalist you ask, each mode of transportation is more dangerous than the other. 70 percent of petroleum and crude oil are currently shipped by pipeline, which in recent years has proven to be safer. A recent study by Fraser affirms their safety by reporting pipeline accidents are a staggering 30 times less harmful than by train. Although, an increasing number of transports by rail are creating more harm than good.

At this point, a majority of the holdup seems to come from the upcoming elections and Obama’s reluctance to fulfill his promise. The regional trade partnership that can be gained from the pipeline is very advantageous for the U.S. and can only decrease the overseas dependency on oil. For the good of the environment, Keystone XL should be moved forward. It is imperative that the safer, and cheaper alternative be used.

However, it is also important to note that all of these advantages could be multiplied significantly with a new refinery built in the Gulf Coast. North Dakota is currently building the first oil refinery since 1976 and plans to further decrease the amount of reliance on foreign oil. Just by allowing one small refinery in North Dakota, we would decrease the amount of barrels imported per day by 53,000. A larger, more advanced refinery like the Port Arthur Refinery in Texas has a capacity of 600,000 barrels a day. Combine that with an additional pipeline from Canada, and the amount of economic growth would be tremendous. As of now though, the only thing that can be done is sit around and wait until after the November elections.

Jul 14, 2014 | 2 comments | by David Weisser

Creating Reliance on U.S. Energy

The world that exists today is one of open barriers, and intertwined economies that become necessary in foreign policy. The more entwined economies get the more resistance there is for justifying conflict with each other. It just gets too expensive. It is one of the reasons that a conflict with China is not very realistic despite what some media outlets may say. The best way to accomplish this is through trade of a good, and the U.S. is producing the most sought after good of all, energy. Many countries around the world are recognizing the need for U.S. energy, and Chile just became the latest.

Where many Latin American countries such as Brazil and Venezuela are rich in natural resources, Chile is actually the poorest boasting a measly 150 billion barrels of oil and 3.46 billion cubic feet of Light Natural Gas (LNG). In order to cover for the shortfall the country is turning to light natural gas, and the United States to fill the gap. In the 1990’s the primary provider of LNG for Chile was Argentina and was delivered through a pipeline. Due to domestic shortages in Argentina, Chile had to change its reliance to countries that were further away such as Qatar, Yemen, and Equatorial Guinea.

By creating lasting economic relationships with the Americas, the U.S can help meet their energy needs. In addition to energy requirements, Latin American Counties such as Chile are also making changes to its environmental regulation that resembles the policy of the United States.

LNG is proven to provide a tremendous amount of benefits when comparing to coal and oil. LNG is cheaper than oil, and produces little to no carbon dioxide emissions which have come under fire lately in the U.S. government. While the process of fracking does leak the greenhouse gas methane the amount of leakage varies from 2 to 8 percent. According to a study by the Recorder, if methane leakage is 2 percent then after 55 years the amount of carbon reduced compared to coal use is a staggering 55 percent! While 8 percent leakage of methane still produces a benefit of 17 percent reduction over a course of 100 years. This brings up an extremely interesting scenario; can the U.S. cut the reduction of the planet’s carbon dioxide levels from exporting LNG?

Many in the U.S. continue to go on and on about solar and wind energy, when the facts are simple. The technologies cost billions in research still, do not provide the power that existing energies do, and increase costs for consumers. Even worse to imagine is that these problems are in the U.S. Where we have the most advanced technology in the world, rational thinking would prove that other countries around the world will continue to use both coal and oil.

That is where natural gas exportation comes in. By allowing exports of natural gas, and increasing relations with several countries that have high carbon dioxide emissions, we can curb emissions through the free market. It is a fairly easy thing to accomplish within the government as well. The country would be able to sell cheap, affordable clean energy, and reduce emissions while increasing quality of life in developing countries. It is past the time of easing economic regulations; in order to create prosperity in these countries it must be done utilizing free trade.

The U.S. is at an amazing time in its history where unemployment has hit a 6 year low and 200,000 jobs are being created monthly due to our spur in energy innovation. Markets around have a pressing need for our own labor capital and energy resources. It is time to meet that need.

Jul 07, 2014 | 1 comment | by David Weisser

Why the U.S. Should Already be the Global Energy Leader

Nearly 40 years ago, United States Congress passed legislation that would cease all exports on crude oil in the U.S. This was done as a way to protect our natural resources, and ensure that the country would have oil in the event of an international incident that would cut off our supply. The belief was that we would conserve what oil we had, and remove dependence on crude oil. However, it did the exact opposite.

The graph shows the amount of U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil per day from 1970 to 2013. In 1970, production of crude in the U.S. actually peaked and is the most barrels ever produced in a given year. An administration, claiming to preserve our natural interests, did the exact opposite leaving congress puzzled. However, free-market thinkers, are not puzzled. It is clearly visible that U.S. producers of oil realized the shrinking market, and began producing less and less oil. Since it was no longer advantageous to produce oil, they were forced to pull back on production or shut down altogether.

While the Energy Information Administration does not have data for oil rigs going back to 1970, we can see that until 2005 the trend was declining over time. Until the newest energy revolution or “Age of Innovation,” our country was in serious harm of reaching energy dependency. Legislation clearly harmed the oil industry and cost thousands of jobs, all for a result that produced the exact opposite of their intention. In order to achieve the desired effects the administration must do several key things;

The first is allowing exports of crude oil. If exports are allowed again, the amount of oil production our country will achieve will be monumental and our lower prices will reflect that.
Next, laws must be changed so that a new oil refineries can open in the United States. The amount of innovation and production at existing refineries is substantial, but there has not been a new refinery opened in 40 years. If our production rise is to continue a new refinery must be built.
Finally, Obama must open the Keystone pipeline. While many point out the key economic benefits associated with the project such as jobs and lower prices, we must also recognize the diplomatic advantages. Canada wants the pipeline approved as well, and is irritated that Obama has not done so. We must open it to improve relations with Canada, and work with our neighbors in the energy sector. Even Mexico has key energy resources, and with the ability to privatize oil now, we can gain a lot from both of our NAFTA partners.

The volatile nature of international energy markets that includes OPEC members and countries in the Middle East could be avoided with propelling and establishing our own energy sector. We must begin removing the barriers that constrict our energy economy.

Jun 30, 2014 | 6 comments | by David Weisser

A Government of Regulation-The EPA’s New Rules

On Thursday the EPA will question Janet McCabe, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation. The hearing will seek to sort out several questions regarding Obama’s recent proposal on power plants, specifically coal. The rules set out to curb emissions, but its indirect harm will not only shut down coal plants but cut thousands of jobs. The EPA itself has said that;

The rules could cost close to 80,000 jobs by 2030 at power plants and fossil fuel companies, but could create about 111,000 jobs in energy efficiency.

To make the assumption that jobs will be picked up through renewable energy is not only unfair but wrong. The ability to operate a coal plant versus say, a wind farm is very different. The workers who are in the coal plants will not be able to find new and comparable jobs to what they already have. These policies come at a time when natural gas prices and coal use are at an all-time low.

It is also interesting to point out that the market is naturally selecting natural gas in favor of coal for production. In fact, as seen by the graph, as natural gas has risen in recent years coal has been dropping off. This has allowed the market to gradually adjust, as well as allow states to use what is best for them. While the proposal details letting the states determine what is fit for them, some states are better off continuing to use coal. There are states like North Dakota where 80 percent of their electricity comes from coal. This will surely guarantee an increase in the price of electricity for the state, as well as a large job loss.

None of this is even necessary as since 2006 the U.S. share of energy production has been steadily shifting. In 2006, a staggering 49 percent of energy in the U.S. came from coal. At the time it was the cheapest energy source available, at least until now. Advancements in natural gas production and renewable energies such as solar and wind have come a long way in 6 years. In just 6 years the energy production from coal dropped 12 percent. If that much can happen in 6 years, trends can predict that similar drops will happen.

However, The EPA and President Obama want to force the markets hand, and introduce large market fluctuations that will only make life harder on Americans. The questioning of the Assistant Administrator will no doubt be harsh and rough but it needs to be. This administration must learn that the best involvement is no involvement.

Jun 18, 2014 | Leave a Comment | by David Weisser

Solar Roads: Driving to the Future

If Back to the Future is any indication of our real future, we won’t need roads. As cool as it would be to have flying cars, our world is stranded with realistic ideas. This is why a couple from Idaho has designed a solar roadway that does more than just support our infrastructure.

The idea of a road paved with solar panels has been kicked around for years, but no one has been able to efficiently create a proper alternative to current roads. These Hexagonal Solar panels are linked to create a network that;

Absorb sunlight to produce energy through means of the built in solar panels to provide electricity for homes and businesses.
Can replace power lines as the main means of transporting electricity throughout cities.
Withstand 250,000 pounds. Currently, the Federal weight limit for heavy vehicles is 80,000 pounds.
Utilizes LED technology to illuminate roadways and safety lines. Considering a study done in the United Kingdom, LED marker illumination can reduce nighttime accidents by 70%.
Has the ability to melt ice and snow using heat generated from stored electricity. On average there are 467 deaths due to icy conditions each year.
Also can change shapes, creating additional handicap spots if all remaining are taken.

Smart roadways are a natural technological step in the advancement of infrastructure, and can be considered a priority in advancing cities. The team that created the tiles is beginning with a parking lot as the initial public trial, and then will move on to bigger projects. The Federal Highway Administration has acknowledged the product and guided them in establishing the ability and store and move storm water through the tiles.

According to their Indiegogo, they are attempting to stay away from large investors as a way to keep jobs in America, which is similar to the strategy, piloted Elon Musk and Tesla. While this project is revolutionary, it is important to keep in mind the economic risks with a new technology. In order to advance, the environmental and economic risks must be weighed effectively and allowed to expand to the market naturally. This blogs’ current advice would be to;

Work with toll companies to create a private grid that can expand the technology, while allowing the company to sell off the power generated by the tiles.
Remain unsubsidized by the government, and instead work with American companies such as Google and Tesla to keep jobs in the United States.
Attempt to rework the tiles as roof shingles, in order to reduce the amount of upkeep involved in roads and allow consumers to purchase them independently. Roadways are generally government expenditures, and it would leave no access to independent homes aside from driveways and patios.

Keeping renewable energy in the hands of the private sector is an important task going forward if renewable and sustainable technologies are to continue advancing.

May 21, 2014 | 3 comments | by David Weisser

Solar Roads: Driving to the Future

Absorb sunlight to produce energy through means of the built in solar panels to provide electricity for homes and businesses.
Can replace power lines as the main means of transporting electricity throughout cities.
Withstand 250,000 pounds. Currently, the Federal weight limit for heavy vehicles is 80,000 pounds.
Utilizes LED technology to illuminate roadways and safety lines. Considering a study done in the United Kingdom, LED marker illumination can reduce nighttime accidents by 70%.
Has the ability to melt ice and snow using heat generated from stored electricity. On average there are 467 deaths due to icy conditions each year.
Also can change shapes, creating additional handicap spots if all remaining are taken.

Work with toll companies to create a private grid that can expand the technology, while allowing the company to sell off the power generated by the tiles.
Remain unsubsidized by the government, and instead work with American companies such as Google and Tesla to keep jobs in the United States.
Attempt to rework the tiles as roof shingles, in order to reduce the amount of upkeep involved in roads and allow consumers to purchase them independently. Roadways are generally government expenditures, and it would leave no access to independent homes aside from driveways and patios.

Keeping renewable energy in the hands of the private sector is an important task going forward if renewable and sustainable technologies are to continue advancing.

May 12, 2014 | 1 comment | by David Weisser

Author Archive

Categories

Tags