Put a Man ina House — Not a Bobsled Trevor Hargreaves dab latest spending estimate for the 2010 Olympics is in, and the BC taxpayer is officially on the hook for one kazaillion dollars. What the hell? Personally, I would have cancelled the Olympics if it was revealed that the total cost was equal to what we spent on that idiotic countdown clock. You can tell it is truly representing the people when it requires a guard posted 24 hour to protect it from what would surely be an endless stream of quickly spray- painted sarcastic slogans. And speaking Eastside is a collection of drug-addled skids who are special people that deserve love and rainbows. Frankly, they are a collection of organic effluent. But here’s my take on things: they are still people. And even a total piece of cracked out human crap is worth more than a televised bobsled race. It’s a race! A race?! Is this fact lost on people? Human suffering in exchange for a race? Where are our priorities? Do we live in an Eden-like Utopia that affords such social entertainment based on the complete happiness of the populous? No. We are of that clock, who is the poor bastard basically spending the same amount that gets stuck with that job? Saddled of money as a lunar oa - with minimum wage . a bunch of stupid while denying the We are basically events on ski il right of expression to spending the same or the same cash, overly opinionated we could basically hippies? What a amount of money as a a ec ice! . single person in co Butl lunar moon landing on country has a roof My thinking q bunch of stupid events vert head, and on the subject is thus: The Olympics are a collection of marginally interesting sports that few of us actually practice. Granted, when I see the Skeleton downhill race on television, I’m somewhat inclined to watch, but it’s mainly because I’m fascinated to see a guy careening out of control down a bobsled track on a little sled at 90 miles an hour. Why not just save yourself time and jump off a bridge? What is the trouble anyway? Your parents didn’t love you? Your girlfriend left you? You have a mental problem that makes skintight spandex seem attractive? Beyond the obvious pot shots at the games of the few for the mild benefit of the many, I’m somewhat disillusioned with the whole homeless displacement situation. Now I’m not going to start waxing on about how the Vancouver on a Ski hill some medicine, Kraft Dinner or whatever else suits their base needs. I’m not one to wear my heart on my sleeve, but I do think that people need to be helped out. This is something that seems to happen very rarely. These are fellow Canadians, and just because they sleep on cement instead of a futon, it doesn’t lesson their value as a member of the country. We live in a social state. We pay taxes, and they’re currently being diverted to Whistler. I’1] tell you this much, if I was running this province, that lame-ass one zillion dollar skating rink in Richmond would sure as hell be turned into a gratis Best Western for those in need once “the games” are done. Anyway, I’ve gotta go. I need to get to work. I have a clock to guard. Biofuel ties Necessaril Best Option Science Matters Dr. David Suzuki .. this year, when I crossed our great country to talk to Canadians about environmental issues, some media pundits took issue with our vehicle of choice - a diesel bus. Even when I explained that diesel actually has a lower carbon footprint than gasoline, some of them immediately shot back an agricultural subsidy for farmers than it is a sound environmental policy. Things get even dodgier for biofuels when you look at the land area that would be needed to grow fuel crops. We use a lot of fossil fuels. Switching to biofuels would not reduce the demand for fuel, just change the way we get it. And that would require a lot of land. In with - then why fact, substituting isn’tit biodiesel? Substituting just 10 per = oe — In truth, we : of fossil fuels to had actually cent of te ossil Juels to biofuels for all our wanted to biofuels would require —_*hicles would showcase an require about 40 slicenative faci about 40 per cent of the _ percent of the like biodiesel, we . : entire cropland , re cropl E Se patonareats CTS OOP and in UFOPE in Europe and leasing agent who and North America. North America. could get us an That is simply not appropriate vehicle. But from the very beginning we were also nervous about highlighting something that might be more of a problem than a solution. Turns out, we were probably right. According to a recent analysis published in the journal Science, attempting to save the planet by wholesale switching to biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel may unintentionally have the opposite effect. Proponents of biofuels, which are often made from plants such as corn or sugar cane, often point to their many advantages over fossil fuels like gasoline. Biofuels are less toxic or non-toxic in comparison to fossil fuels. They are a renewable resource, whereas once fossil fuels are gone, they’re gone. And biofuels can be grown just about anywhere you can grow crops, reducing the need for giant pipelines or oil tankers, and potentially helping to reduce conflicts in areas like the Middle East. So far so good. But things start to get complicated when you look more closely. Much has already been debated about the energy requirements to produce some biofuels, especially corn-based ethanol. Ethanol made from corn only contains marginally more energy than what is needed to produce it. In fact, we use about a litre’s worth of fossil fuels to grow, harvest, process, and transport a litre of corn- based ethanol. Many people argue that making corn-based ethanol is more of sustainable. Of course, reducing the amount of fuel we use, no matter what the type, is very important. But the authors of the recent article in Science say that if our primary motive in switching to biofuels is to reduce global warming, then we have to look at all our options for the land that would be needed to grow fuel crops. The authors conclude: “If the prime object of policy on biofuels is mitigation of carbon dioxide-driven global warming, policy-makers may be better advised in the short term (30 years or so) to focus on increasing the efficiency of fossil fuel use, to conserve the existing forests and savannahs, and to restore natural forest and grassland habitats on cropland that is not needed for food.” In other words, biofuels alone are not the quick-fix answer to global warming. In fact, strong legislated policies to improve the efficiency of our cars, homes and industries is a much more effective strategy. In the longer term, biofuels may certainly play an important role. Some technologies, like cellulosic ethanol, which is made from woody debris, are very promising and they need to be supported by government and industry now, so they can be available on a larger scale in the coming years. Biofuels have many advantages, but we have to look at all our options and make sure we make the best choices to ensure a more sustainable future.