Conservation*Yes,But Watch Out**

The movement for conservation was for a long time lacking in popularity and enthusiasm. Industry lobbyists shamefully denied that global temperatures were being steadily raised by economic growth worldwide. Recently both the science experts and public voters have joined up with the “green” movement. That is a good thing. But unthoughtful programs to preserve ecology can sometimes do net harm. Let’s take the case of using ethanol made from U.S. farm-grown corn to run our autors and trucks in place of gasoline. Will such use of corn displace use of Mideast or other oil and natural gases, and necessarily be a clear good thing? If that new demand for ethanol raises the housewives must pay for their daily food, then it would be regrettable-but still could be a justifiable cost well worth incurring for the good cause of twenty-first century conservation.But, alas, what if what helps American farmers does not in fact help preserve for the future the world’s supply of oil reserve?Careful measurement of how much oil energy is used up in producing U.S. corn suggests that there may be no net saving at all of current oil consumption!Ethanol from Brazil is a different story.There the sun shines brightly on the sugar cane fields. If North America and Europe repeal all tariffs on imports of ethanol from Brazil, truly there could result a net preservation of geological petroleum reserves. And furthermore, reliance on Brazilian ethanol from sugar cane could help protect Korean housewives from rising food prices. Top chemists in the West had hoped that new catalysts could be discoveryed to make ethanol from the unused stalks of corn and also from ubiquitous weed grasses. That too would keep food cost inflation down. Alas, hope is not yet reality. Similar dilemmas still prevail in the hope to have old-fashioned coal replace the petroleum now being used up for factories and electricity generation. Maybe 20 years from now scientists will learn how to remove from coal use its harmful effects on air purity and global temperature. Informed chemists know that replacing gasoline by hydrogen is itself not a way of conserving oil. The hydrogen that fuels the auto must itself be newly produced from old-fashioned fossil and other convention fuels. What about the use of nuclear generators of electricity? France, Japan and the U.S. earlier began to rely on this substitution for fossil fuels. However, accidents in the USSR and elsewhere killed off much enthusiasm for such nuclear generators. In the hands of North Korean or Iranian extremists, peaceful nuclear power generators can secretly turn into threatening weapons of mass destruction. Paul A.Samuelson said” I must warn against letting excessive pessimism quench enthusiasm for present and future green intervention. Yes, there will be costs in controlling the new environmental risks that will be created when more than two billion Chinese and Indiana attain the prosperity of America and Europe.However, continuing future advances in science can be expected in this twenty-first century to more than offset what science itself imposes on the environment.It won’t happen automatically. My advice therefore warns:DOnot be misled by the self-serving propaganda of corporate lobbyists. They will fabricate lies in their selfish pursuit of current profits. I’m Quote this article from Ybm-sisa magazine 6 2007.These days news inform that nowadays oil price  steadily soaring . I think that petroleum will be exhausted in the future. If  the petroleum run out of in the future our life would be helpless.So we have to make economies to avoid this phenomenon and we have to invent alternative energy.