Many of you will know by now that I took out a full page, essay-style ad in the Saturday December 20 edition of the Globe and Mail in order to raise the profile of my case against ethanol. Here is the ad:
Ethanol: An Imminent Threat to Humanity
Running a full page ad in the Globe ain't cheap, but I like to think that the piece is my Christmas present to the world and, frankly, to myself. This Christmas, I want to be comfortable in the knowledge that I am doing everything I can about a critically important issue.
Also - One or two people have commented on the conscious stylistic choices in parts of my blog. My writing is meant for effect and I realize it might not be to everyone's liking. But please take a look at the very first piece of correspondence - of many - that I have had with the Conservatives and the PMO on this issue. This note is addressed to the Conservative candidate in my Toronto Centre riding during last March's by-election. I think you will see that my approach could not have been more polite, courteous and reasoned.
That approach got me nowhere. I stand by my contention that Mr. Harper is well aware of the implications of his party's stance and is pursuing it anyway, for political reasons. He IS a hypocrite and a pigdog. I have shared my hypothesis with the Liberals, too, so I'm not sure they are much better. Nonetheless, the bulk of my communication has been with the governing party, who are also the strongest proponents of ethanol. There is no possible way that the economic arguments I am making could be beyond the grasp of our PM, the economist.
So sure, I haven't always chosen to be polite. But I have always been measured. Sometimes you just have to make some noise.
In closing, the early feedback to the Globe piece has been tremendous. Thank you all very much for your support, and best wishes for a happy and healthy holiday season.
Running a full page ad in the Globe ain't cheap, but I like to think that the piece is my Christmas present to the world and, frankly, to myself. This Christmas, I want to be comfortable in the knowledge that I am doing everything I can about a critically important issue.
Also - One or two people have commented on the conscious stylistic choices in parts of my blog. My writing is meant for effect and I realize it might not be to everyone's liking. But please take a look at the very first piece of correspondence - of many - that I have had with the Conservatives and the PMO on this issue. This note is addressed to the Conservative candidate in my Toronto Centre riding during last March's by-election. I think you will see that my approach could not have been more polite, courteous and reasoned.
That approach got me nowhere. I stand by my contention that Mr. Harper is well aware of the implications of his party's stance and is pursuing it anyway, for political reasons. He IS a hypocrite and a pigdog. I have shared my hypothesis with the Liberals, too, so I'm not sure they are much better. Nonetheless, the bulk of my communication has been with the governing party, who are also the strongest proponents of ethanol. There is no possible way that the economic arguments I am making could be beyond the grasp of our PM, the economist.
So sure, I haven't always chosen to be polite. But I have always been measured. Sometimes you just have to make some noise.
In closing, the early feedback to the Globe piece has been tremendous. Thank you all very much for your support, and best wishes for a happy and healthy holiday season.
Posts
8 comments:
Dear Mr Tesseris,
I have been sharing your thoughts and knowledge about this issue. You are indeed very brave to take the initiative to write in the Globe and Mail, and give the world this gift. I shall use it to promote this idea around my circle. I will probably translate the text in French and will send you a copy when I do.
Best wishes
Johanne Gaudreau
Johanne, je suis toujours toujours content d'avoir l'occasion d'utiliser mon (mauvais) francais un peu. Je te remercie infiniment de ton offre de traduction.
A bientot!
It’s not often that a private citizen feels so strongly about an issue that they are willing to take out a full page in a national newspaper in order to raise awareness. At first glance, I dismissed the page as just another lobby group tactic. Then by chance I looked a second time and realized that it was sponsored by a single individual!
If you are right about ethanol, then I sincerely hope your ad will succeed in sensitizing the politicians in power, who usually only respond to public pressure before taking action.
Dear Mr. Tesseris,
Thank you for posting your extremely important message in the Saturday Globe and Mail. I commend you.
I too believe this is a crucial matter that citizens should be aware of. Unfortunately, this topic is too far under the radar, and many do not know the overall impact it has on our food supply, economy, environment and most importantly our health.
As a nutritionist, and currently a Masters student in nutrition, I have taken many courses in food policy and food security. When I read your article yesterday afternoon, I was extremely excited to see that you wrote a clear, concise and passionate article about a matter that will affect everyone worldwide.
As a nutritionist, who often finds it difficult to encourage an individual to practice healthy eating when one is in good health (with my intention of preventing future health implications), I see the issue of ethanol as a similar problem. When people are not affected by an issue first hand, it is very hard to get someone to care about the concern. However, one should just imagine what it would be like to walk through a grocery store with deserted food shelves, or pay $5.00 for a bag of rice, or fight with their neighbours over the last box of cereal, one may see the implications of corn based ethanol. However, by then, it may be too late.
I will send a message to Ottawa. I do hope many others will follow in your tenacious footsteps and speak their mind on this imminent issue.
In good health,
Jaime
My girlfriend, who avidly reads mainstream news, showed me your article and my first reaction was that this is the work of a powerful lobby group. George, the fact is I cannot prove one way or the other if you were paid and encouraged to write this article or that you are indeed a sincere individual. But either way it is really irrelevant to what I have say.
First of all the way your article is written George, you have thrown yourself in with some very shady interests. The problem I see is you have thrown the baby out with the bath water. You might as well have attacked any alternative energy including nuclear, wind or solar. Ethanol is not the problem! The problem is making ethanol form products that could be made from food. If you really have an engineering background you should know this. The fact that you did not make this distinction in my opinion reflects badly on your credibility as an independent concerned citizen rather than a cohort of the oil barons that have virtually ruled this planet for my entire lifetime. Technically your entire thesis falls apart because to my understanding alcohol can be made from a whole host of non-edible products and crops. The only people on the planet who would want to conceal this vital point form public knowledge is the coal and oil industry who are out to suppress any form of alternate energy because of their vested interests. Any true scientist would welcome investigation into any viable energy source.
George, you seem like a intelligent an sensible person. I ask only one thing. If you sincerely have an interest in serving humanity, please investigate the work of David Blume who has written a book Alcohol can be a Gas in which he suggests that one of the best sources of many for producing alcohol from plants is cattails! Is what he says in his book true? The fact is I do not know. But what I do know is that we need to get off coal and oil and unfortunately the people that would have us stay on those sources of energy have huge amounts of capitol that can be used to have it their way forever. When a person attacks alternative energy of any sort they automatically join the powerful powers that would maintain the status quo.
If you are truly a concerned citizen and a sensible person I would expect that you will address my question “Why attack ethanol when it can be made cheaply and easily from non-edible products”. If you are not willing to address this question it certainly would make it appear that you are a not only a mouth piece for big oil but possibly financially backed by them.
By the way I do not know David Blume personally and certainly do not have any financial ties to him or his work. I heard him on the radio and he seem like a informed concerned person.
Dear Michael From the Mountains,
You raise a good point re the use of switch grass or cattails to generate ethanol. It would be great if ethanol were produced this way, but it is not. These arguements are used as diversion by the corn based ethanol industry to deflect attention from the unsavory fuel from food arguement. Grow corn to fill up your SUV!! Ethanol was embraced politically as it seemed to kill two birds with one stone, appear to appease the environmentalists and a new way to throw money to farmers. Politically ethanol was a winner, but exactly as George states, the evidence is now in that ethanol production is a false economy and should be halted asap.
Vancouver Bob
The only reason grain based alcohol is a bad idea is that it's a far more productive to use something else.
Corn will produce 250 gallons per acre, sugar beats closer to 1000 gallons per acre.
Most corn is used as animal feed and it's better feed AFTER you make alcohol with it because the methane producing proteins are broken down.
Family farms could be productive again if they could get $1000 per acre.
Please don't buy into his bull, check out David Blume at alcoholcanbeagas.com.
As I say in my post "Am I a heretic? ... and other existential questions," I believe that any movement towards growing our fuel invites a slippery slope of unintended consequences that could logically lead to clear-cutting the planet, release of greenhouse gases, and loss of bio-diversity. That would be in addition to domino land use effects that could certainly impact the food supply, whether or not food grains are used.
Someone please explain to me what is so vastly different, from the perspective of GHG release, between burning coal as a fuel and burning Indonesian peat bogs to clear land for the production of fuel from palm oil?
Guess I must be a heretic...
Post a Comment