Several weeks ago I spoke with Daniel Becker at the Sierra Club's
"corporate" office in Washington, DC. The topic of discourse was a recently
posted article to "biofuels" where Mr. Becker relegated biodiesel to status
of no better than low sulfur diesel and an alternative fuel which the Sierra
Club could not endorse, as it might prove only to become a substitute for
"clean burning" natural gas.

The technical data which Mr. Becker used to support such liberal claims
against biodiesel were actually derived from B-20 emissions studies, not
B-100 (true biodiesel). When this was pointed out, along with the fact that
the stated position of the Sierra Club grossly mis-represented the truth to
millions of the club's members and the public at large, Mr. Becker stood pat
with his response.

The following topics were broached in conversation, all to no avail; the
concept of carbon neutral (biodiesel is and natural gas is not), comparative
inefficient fuel economy of natural gas, unparalleled capital infusion to
renovate fueling infrastructure to deliver natural gas (read "decades to
implement"), massive renovation or manufacture of transportation vehicles to
utilize natural gas (read "enormous consumer dis-benefit"), sky rocketing
cost of natural gas (read again "consumer dis-benefit"), year in and year
out delays in implementation as lobbying groups fight such change and the
inevitable loss of lives annually until such an infrastructure exists.

Apparently Mr. Becker's opinion holds some sway with news reporting
agencies, as his comments continue to emerge in articles on a regular basis.
Unfortunately, these news agencies tend to roll Mr. Becker, Sierra Club,
their membership and all other environmentally inclined individuals into the
same "environmentalists" burrito.

I submit to this list and or anyone that Mr. Becker does not speak for those
who truly understand energy, infrastructure and or health issues, and that
his and Sierra's stated position discounting biodiesel in the effort to pave
the way for the transportation sector's conversion to natural gas is at best
going to perpetuate the erosion of human health for the next quarter
century, culminating in untold loss of human life - unintentionally or not.

The last time I read Sierra's bylaws, these results were written nowhere
within as being preferential.

The most thoughtless statement Mr. Becker has made lately is in the snipped
article below, previously posted to this group. In this instance, Mr. Becker
not only looks down his nose at a vehicle which achieves an unprecedented
~78 miles a gallon, but fails to inform the public that the emission
reductions of such a vehicle could easily match its impressive fuel economy
if biodiesel were the fuel of choice, rather than petro-diesel

One can only hope that the next time Mr. Becker misses the boat, which
appears to be rather frequently, that he is forced to swim for it. Should
his pockets fill with silt, sharks dine on him or he hypothermiate, it might
prove all the better for those who are truly attempting to preserve human
and environmental health, today, tomorrow and in perpetuity.

> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/27/business/27DIES.html
> May 27, 2001
> It Gets 78 Miles a Gallon, but U.S. Snubs Diesel
>
> By EDMUND L. ANDREWS with KEITH BRADSHER
>
> FRANKFURT, May 26 - To judge by the mileage it can get, the Audi A2
> sounds like just the kind of exotic hybrid-fuel car that President
> Bush would want to promote with his new energy plan.
>
> The sporty new four-door compact has a top speed of 100 miles an
> hour. It can travel 78 miles on a single gallon of fuel and emits
> fewer "greenhouse" gases than almost any other vehicle on the market.
> Yet the A2 has at its core a technology that generates scorn in the
> United States: the diesel engine.

<snip>

> Engines emit carbon dioxide and other gases implicated in global
> warming in direct proportion to the amount of diesel or gasoline they
> burn, so vehicles with more efficient diesel engines emit less of
> these gases. And today's diesel engines produce far fewer tiny soot
> particles than just seven years ago.
>
> As a result, European environmentalists and government officials have
> been much more comfortable with diesels than their American
> counterparts. "A liter of diesel takes one farther and produces fewer
> greenhouse gases," said Albrecht Schmidt, a top expert on energy
> issues for Germany's Green Party. "The big problem with diesel is the
> small particulates, but we think that problem can be solved with new
> particulate filters."
>
> American environmentalists remain highly critical. "Diesel is the
> quick and dirty way to increase fuel economy," said Daniel Becker,
> the director of energy and global warming policy at the Sierra Club.
> "As long as we have other technologies that are clean, I don't see
> the point in producing carcinogenic soot."

Todd Swearingen
Appal Energy
apenergy@...