A political party that claims to back environmentally friendly causes has inexplicably come out against biodiesel, even though the feedstock for the green fuel would actually remove waste from a landfill.
The SF Weekly blog says San Francisco’s Green Party has come out against a proposal to make biodfiesel in the city:
The Examiner reported this morning that a facility that renders bones and fat from slaughtered animals into oil is moving to upgrade its facilities to make biodiesel from animal parts, as well as from used cooking oil from local restaurants. The facility, owned by Darling International, is located in the city’s Backlands industrial area.
While the proposal has the backing of officials at the Port of San Francisco, which runs the Backlands, the San Francisco Green Party is loudly opposing the project. The proposed expansion was also targeted by a lawsuit last year filed by the Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates.
Eric Brooks, chairman of the Green Party’s sustainability working group, told SF Weekly the idea that biodiesel is environmentally superior to traditional fuels is nonsense.
“Biofuel has got this good image, even with a lot of environmentalists,” Brooks said. “And biofuel is not good.”
I think we really get to the heart of his opposition when we look at his dietary habits:
Said Brooks, “I’m a vegan, and animal-rights person. The first thing that caught my attention was, ‘Wow, we’re going to make fuel out of animals. That can’t be good.'”
No, you’re wrong Mr. Brooks. It CAN be good. Using what would fill up the sewers and landfills as a feedstock for a renewable energy source that actually burns much cleaner than its fossil-fuel cousin is one of those win-win-win situations … unless you’re crazy or dumb … or maybe both.