Open Letter to Kevin Killough and Cowboy State Daily About So-Called Fossil Fuels
 |
Why Modern Civilization Doesn't Need Poisonous Fuels
 Marc Rauch |
Author of THE ETHANOL PAPERS
Exec. Vice President/Co-Publisher
THE AUTO CHANNEL
Hello Kevin -
In the past week, you have written two editorials that were published on CowboyStateDaily.com that relate to the same general topic; a topic that is incorrectly labeled as "fossil fuels."
 Kevin Killough |
To begin with, "fossil fuels" is an incorrect term to describe the fuels you are writing about. The fuels you are writing about are "abiotic fuels." Petroleum oil along with its derived products (gasoline, diesel fuel, natural gas, and propane), and anthracite and bituminous coal, were not formed from fossils or decayed living matter. They were - and still are - formed from inert minerals that are subjected to intense heat and pressure deep within the Earth.
I know that the term "fossil fuels" is so commonly used to describe petroleum-based fuels and coal that it's become an axiomatic colloquial expression. But it's still incorrect, and it carries an implication of status that it doesn't deserve. If anything, petroleum-based fuels and most coal should be lumped together as "poison fuels" or "killer fuels" because poisoning and killing are what they do. If you want to describe these fuels less subjectively, then "abiotic fuels" is the correct term.
Perhaps lignite coal (coal formed from peat) could be termed a "fossil fuel" because peat is derived from decayed organisms. But, since lignite coal is relatively unimportant in modern civilization it's not a serious issue.
In any event, the purpose of my open letter to you and CowboyStateDaily.com is not to grumble about the use of the term "fossil fuel," it's to correct your underlying message about how modern civilization (and farming) wouldn't be possible without the KILLER FUELS!
As I hope you already know, profuse praise was wrongfully heaped on petroleum-based fuels and coal in a book written in 2014 by Kathleen Hartnett White ("Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case"), and then in the book published later that same year by Alex Epstein ("The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels").
In 2018, I laid waste to both authors' books in my essay "The Immorality of Arguing That There's a Moral Case for Fossil Fuels".
In 2019, I expanded on my disdain for the stupidity of praising petroleum oil fuels and coal with my essay "The Moral Case for Internal Combustion Engines Powered By Ethanol".
In the case of your two editorials, Kevin, you touch on much of the same absurd, fallacious worship of the killer fuels. The difference is that where White and Epstein declare that the life-enhancing results of mechanical devices such as engines and automobiles wouldn't have been possible without so-called fossil fuels, you contend that life-improving substances and materials such as plastic, steel and concrete wouldn't be possible without the "uniqueness" of petroleum oil as a formula-ingredient, or from the heat energy provided by petroleum-based fuels and anthracite or bituminous coal.
My rebuttal to White and Epstein is that the life-enhancing mechanical devices were all invented before petroleum oil fuels were created. The original mechanical devices used alcohol or vegetable oil fuels, and the modern-day versions of these devices could all still be powered by alcohol or vegetable/plant oil fuels - and produce equal or better performance without destroying the health and well-being of our populations via disease and wars. My argument - the reality - is that poisonous petroleum oil-based fuels were and are irrelevant.
In rebuttal to your assertions, the materials, and substances you mention could be made from one type of alcohol or another just as easily and economically. In the case of the production of steel and cement (two substances that I agree are vital in the modern world), alcohol an/or plant oil-based fuels could just as easily be used to produce the heat required to make steel and cement. In fact, both steel and cement have been produced by man for thousands of years before the creation and systematic use of any petroleum oil-based fuels. The caption of your masthead photo reads, "Steel, considered one of the pillars of modern civilization, isn't possible without fossil fuels." This statement is nothing more than pure bullshit.
As I wrote in rebuttal to White and Epstein, the heroes of their "morality stories" is not the fuels, the heroes are the mechanical devices and the men who invented them. Gasoline, diesel fuel, natural gas, and coal didn't do anything; it's the machines that improved human existence.
In your second editorial ("Farming Without Fossil Fuels..."), Kevin, you assert that the farming couldn't be done without diesel fuel to power the machinery and provide heat for ammonia (fertilizer) production. This is another nonsensical claim since biodiesel and methane (produced from waste materials) could easily and efficiently replace petroleum diesel and petroleum-related natural gas, respectively. Moreover, the same algae used to produce ethanol and biodiesel can be used as a highly effective natural fertilizer, replacing ammonia-based fertilizer.
The most important aspect of everything I've stated above is that all of this doesn't just pertain to America, it pertains to every country in the world. Ethanol and methanol can be produced by anyone, anywhere, from a wide variety of sources. Energy independence, healthier lives, manageable expenses, and maybe even fewer wars would be possible.
Unless you, Kevin, and/or Cowboy State Daily are being paid by the oil industry to write and publish the two editorials, I don't understand how and why you could take such ignorant positions. You should be ashamed of yourselves, and if you are being paid by the oil industry you should be doubly ashamed.
By the way, if you're going to quote outside sources and individuals, you should make sure that they know what they're talking about and that the citations are in context with what you're writing about.
Thank you for your time. If you'd like additional correct information about this subject matter I'd be delighted to provide it.
SEE ALSO: Eliminating "Fossil Fuels" Is Not A Problem.
