Americans face an unprecedented economic crisis centered in the housing sector. At the same time we face an energy crisis that matches dwindling oil supplies with global warming. These problems are unprecedented. The old ways of doing things don't apply anymore.
Not since the days our Pilgrim Fathers first set foot upon the land have we ever faced a problem of surplus housing. The early settlers were happy to live in log cabins. As people moved West onto the treeless plains of the Mississippi Valley, they lived in sod houses. Nineteenth-century cities were filled with rickety slums and housing reformers such as Jacob Riis chronicled immigrant families living eight-to-ten in a room in decaying tenements.
Even after public housing reforms began relieving the situation in the 1930s, the housing shortage persisted. Urban renewal leveled whole inner cities without providing much in return. Public authorities erected high-rise housing projects but they quickly turned into vertical slums. Government authorities turned to section-8 vouchers to allow the poor to scatter into suburban neighborhoods but studies soon found this brought with it mini-crime waves.
Unwilling to rely on the vagaries of the free market, the federal government did everything it could to promote housing construction. Home mortgage tax deductions, real estate investment trusts, accelerated depreciation and property tax deductions on income tax all pumped up supply and demand. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 enhanced the effort. Mortgages were extended to people once considered uncreditworthy buyers. Community groups like ACORN forced the banks to comply. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac started buying up these subprime mortgages. Finally, in the first decade of the 21st century, government finally created a surplus of housing. Prices collapsed and speculators defaulted, setting off a financial crisis that has reverberated throughout the globe.
The situation still will not bottom out soon. As long as surplus housing remains on the market, home prices will not rebound. We could find ourselves facing a prolonged, worldwide recession.
SO WHAT CAN WE DO? As with so many other things, we tend to remain focused on dollars and cents while failing to see the situation in a holistic manner. We do not take account of the seamless links between economics and the natural environment. It is time to think outside the box. It is time to think green.
Biofuels have been an ingenious solution that has alleviated our dependence on foreign oil and mitigated global warming while reducing agricultural surpluses. When first introduced by environmentalist in the 1970s, biofuels did not seem to make much sense. The energy gain from turning crops into ethanol is marginal and the process was uneconomical as well. Fortunately the federal government stepped in with lavish subsidies and as a result the biofuels industry has prospered. Almost 30 percent of the corn crop is now going into gas tanks -- American fuel for American cars. On a global scale, tropical forests are being decimated to provide Americans and Europeans with palm oil for biodiesel. Busybodies at the UN say this practice has driven up the price of food among undernourished people around the world, but that is hardly to be believed.
Across America, the success of corn ethanol has set off a rampage for turning every kind of agricultural and household waste into biofuels. Chicken manure, crop wastes, turkey droppings, used tires -- anything and everything is being thrown on the pyre. Only a few weeks ago a Wisconsin utility announced it would substitute wood chips for coal in a new electrical generation plant as its way of "going green." The wood chips will reduce global warming because wood doesn't…well no, I guess wood actually puts more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than coal. But wood chips will lessen our dependence on foreign…no, I guess that's not right either. We have enough coal in this country to last us another two centuries. Well look, I forget exactly why they're substituting wood chips for coal but anyway, it's clean, green, and good for the environment.
So here's my proposal. Let's start turning surplus houses into biofuel! Studies have shown that in houses where the owner has defaulted, 95 percent of all the material can easily be converted to clean, green biofuels. It's clean because wood products don't contain all that nasty stuff that's in coal. (Just pick up a piece of coal and see how easily it comes off on your hand.) It's green because houses are made of wood and wood is organic, coming directly from the natural environment. And it's good for the environment because burning up surplus homes will return thousands of acres to their natural state, replacing suburban sprawl with natural wilderness.
The Homes-to-Biofuels Movement provides us with the opportunity to solve at one stroke two of our most pressing economic problems -- the mortgage meltdown and energy independence. It will require no new authorization of federal funds and will not discriminate against anyone by race, class or sexual orientation. Rats and other animals that have taken up residence in abandoned structures can be transferred to new homes so that no member of the animal kingdom will suffer as well.
I suggest you call Washington to express your support right away. Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Congress will be happy to undertake this effort when the new Administration takes office in January. After all, they're eager to burn down the rest of the economy as well.
Bill Pearce | 11.17.08 @ 11:01AM
A great idea except it is physically impossible to convert a house into a liquid fuel.
Tom Wasney | 11.17.08 @ 1:39PM
There is no energy crisis beside the manufactured one.
According to RAND:
The largest known oil shale deposits in the world are in the Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Estimates of the oil resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.5 to 1.8 trillion barrels. Not all resources in place are recoverable. For potentially recoverable oil shale resources, we roughly derive an upper bound of 1.1 trillion barrels of oil and a lower bound of about 500 billion barrels. For policy planning purposes, it is enough to know that any amount in this range is very high. For example, the midpoint in our estimate range, 800 billion barrels, is more than triple the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Present U.S. demand for petroleum products is about 20 million barrels per day. If oil shale could be used to meet a quarter of that demand, 800 billion barrels of recoverable resources would last for more than 400 years.
Danny L. Newton | 11.17.08 @ 2:25PM
Burning old homes is not practical, at least older than 1972 because of the lead and asbestos content. These items would have to be pulled out and discarded first. That is very labor intensive and expensive. Termites are better at telling the wood from the non-wood portions. The brick and stone could be recycled however.
The reason wood or other biofuels are considered safe to burn or safe in spite of their CO2 production is the outrageously dishonest view that those evil byproducts are on a long and circular conveyor belt and any interaction with those items does not add or subtract, in the long run, the total volume of green house gas. The longer conveyor belts containing coal are millions of years long, so I guess they get no pass from the eco-freaks. Building concrete highways actually sucks a little CO2 out of the atmosphere by a process known as carbonization. No eco freak would suggest we build more roads to save the planet however.
Marc Jeric | 11.17.08 @ 4:15PM
Seems the readers did not get the joke. Globaloney warming scam has followed the 1970's globaloney cooling scam, both of them propagated by the same "scientist" - Dr. Hansen. Whatever works to bring us socialism, poverty, and perpetual power for the Abu Hussein's marxists!
Derrick D. | 11.17.08 @ 7:00PM
Its called sarcasm people.
Richard Wheeler | 11.17.08 @ 11:58PM
All that hot air in Washington D.C. is a steady source of energy.
sdcougar | 11.18.08 @ 10:26AM
Even this tongue-in-cheek piece helps to continue the myth of 'global warming.'
Conservatives need to educate themselves and spread the word, not fertilizer.
See an excellent documentary with dissenting IPCC scientists
http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-4123082535546754758
Ms. Know | 12.4.08 @ 7:11PM
Ironically, the left-wing illuminati keep looking back into the past for ways to handle the present, and the future. Those times were different, and the plans will not work.