The Role of Violence in Addressing Injustice

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, Mother's Day 2015

Americans do not suffer injustice well.  The latest example is the protests and violence in Baltimore in response to the match thrown into the tinder box named Freddie Gray.  Those who focus on the rioters and property damage instead of the underlying issues fail to see the role of violence throughout American history in addressing injustice.

 There is a difference between explaining and understanding violence and making excuses for it.  Those individuals who engage in protest violence, whether property damage or bodily injury, will be prosecuted and considerable public resources spent on bringing them to criminal justice.  Those who cause the spark, such as police who kill people for things they should not be killed for, are not very likely to be so pursued.  Nevertheless, the history of using violence to bring attention to injustice has a long and fruitful history in the United States. Already the violence in Baltimore is sprouting fruit because the Baltimore officer(s) are charged with homicide.  Time will tell whether the officer(s) are ever actually tried and convicted.  If not it might be another spark.

The Boston Tea Party is an early American example of violence toward property to protest injustice.  Bostonians, some disguised as native Americans, illegally boarded ships sitting in Boston Harbor and threw the shipments of tea overboard, ruining it.  The tea was the property of the East India Company, perhaps one of the first notorious multi-national corporations.  The British government retaliated, no doubt using many of the same kinds of statements we hear today by those deploring the violence in Ferguson and Baltimore while diminishing the underlying issues.  This is an iconic story in American history, perhaps a spark for the American Revolution, inspired by the injustice of “no taxation without representation.” 

 Slavery, arguably the most sinister institutionalized injustice in US history, was violently protested by members of the abolitionist movement.  John Brown argued for armed insurrection to overthrow the institution of slavery.  Some go as far as to suggest that Brown’s attack on Harper’s Ferry was a spark that ignited the Civil War, which remains the most deadly conflict in American history and whose underlying tensions around race continue today.  John Brown was captured at Harper’s Ferry, tried, convicted and executed. His violent actions as an individual were punished but his cause, turned out to be, on the right side of history. 

 A bomb thrown at police in Chicago, in Haymarket Square, during a labor protest against police killing protesters the day before (a nationwide labor protest in favor of the eight hour day (“eight hour a day with no cut in pay”)) is viewed as a watershed moment in international labor relations.  The resulting trial of the bomb throwers resulted in convictions and death for two of the protesters.  The eight hour day is a reality today, thanks in part to those willing to resort to violence for the cause.

The Weather Underground, protesting the injustice of the Vietnam war and what they viewed as the ineffectiveness of the peaceful protests against it, escalated to a bombing campaign of federal buildings, including the Pentagon, robberies, and a call for armed revolution.  The Weather Underground morphed its call to action to include anti-racism and other social justice movements as well.  The government response to the Weather Underground was largely deemed illegal and whatever efforts to bring the individuals to criminal justice were largely undermined by the lawlessness by which the authorities pursued them. 

 The US has the worst anti-abortion violence of any country.  There is no question that it has been effective in reducing access to abortion and creating an increasingly hostile environment for its practice. Anti-abortion violence has included murder, attempted murder, bombings, harassment, and kidnapping.  Harassment and threats are almost a daily occurrence with mixed responses from government authorities.  Here, too, individuals have been prosecuted and held responsible in the criminal justice system for their violence but the overall movement has strong supporters in government. 

 The point is that violence as a political response when conventional politics fails has a long and effective history in the United States.  Before condemning the violence in Baltimore do we consider the role of the Boston Tea Party property violence, the insurrectionist abolitionists, the bomb throwing anarchists, radical left Vietnam anti-war bombers, and anti-abortion assassins in the struggle against injustice as well?  Or do we white wash history in order to change the subject from one of police brutality and injustice to one of petty criminals and threats to law and order? 

Indiana's place in America matters, so act like it

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 5 April 2015


Congratulations, Indiana! You matter. The firestorm that you find yourself in surrounding the RFRA began locally, quickly spread nationally and is now international. While some think what others think shouldn’t matter and are annoyed at the negative attention, the fact is Indiana matters now to a lot of people beyond your borders. This has not always been true.


I moved to Indiana almost 30 years ago and as an outsider, it was clear there was tension between those who didn’t care what outsiders thought (especially those in Washington, New York, California and especially Illinois) and those who did. When I first came here, those who didn’t care were in charge. But Gov. Bayh was different: He cared what outsiders thought and focused on education and economic development. Gov. Daniels continued bringing Indiana more in line with the world beyond the borders. Recall, his first action was to move Indiana onto daylight saving time.

Indianapolis has transformed in these almost 30 years. Despite Indianapolis hosting an NBA and NFL team, the city seemed backwards and wasn’t in the same league as major cities like Chicago, New York and Atlanta. This is no longer the case. It’s hosting another Final Four this weekend; it will, no doubt, host another Super Bowl before the end of the decade. It has become a major destination city and it is not because of its bustling waterfront or mile high mountains or unpolluted air. It’s the welcoming attitude, world class facilities, operations and people.


Hosting events like Super Bowls and Final Fours, major conventions, and hosting major businesses like Angie’s List (a new tech service industry), Lilly, NASCAR and the NCAA come with the price tag of success, that is, Indiana matters because people care about stuff that happens here. And while the ardent supporters of RFRA might try to hide what RFRA is about, to outsiders, it is clear what RFRA is about and it doesn’t fit with a city/state that only has one thing going for it: Being a world-class host. RFRA clashes with the image and expectations (think of Indy as a brand) of a world-class host.


Over the past few years, I’ve talked with travelers about Indianapolis. I’ve never heard a negative thing. I hear stories of the fantastic waiter, Martin, at a well-known steakhouse; the pioneering owner of a restaurant that is quietly doing a hard business in a sustainable fashion; and near world-class entertainment and a growing hub of culture and creativity. My best and longest friend, a Chicagoan, recently visited me in Indianapolis. He adhered to the former image of Indy and after a weekend, left most impressed. Far from a hinterland, whether you like it or not Indiana, you matter to a lot of people who do not call Indiana home.


Let’s not kid ourselves. If a caterer doesn’t want to cater a gay wedding, or a pizza joint doesn’t want to provide pizza for a gay event, all they need to say is “Sorry, we’re booked that day.” This is what myriad other bigots do every day in the housing, restaurant, transportation and other service industries. It’s not right, but it happens and it’s typically unknown to the would-be customer. But some extreme Christians, who think their business is also a ministry, want to tell the gay customer why they won’t serve them. This is the reason why this bill was passed into law. This is the freedom that its supporters want. After all, as your legislative leaders said, there is no law in Indiana against discriminating against gays and lesbians. RFRA would just “cover” those who want to pretend they are acting morally.


Anyone who manages a brand knows how hard it is to establish a brand and how easily it can be hurt. Make no mistake, Indiana; you’ve hurt your brand. When the hometown conservative newspaper in a bold front page editorial says “Fix This Now,” you’ve screwed up. And damage control won’t work with a brand; you have to act in a way that reflects the brand. Dodging and weaving, stuttering and stammering, does not befit this brand. Take a cue from the Visit Indy website and get back to the brand: Indiana is Welcome to All.


PS. Stop blaming the media for your woes. It is news when big companies express themselves like this.


PPS. Indiana Democrats, you need a better candidate. Mayor Ballard will take care of Governor Pence. Who do you have to run against Ballard?

In race, experience more valuable than perception

previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, March 15th, 2015

Last week’s video of University of Oklahoma fraternity brothers regaling whomever with a racist chant captures our attention. Why? Is it really news that racism exists in the U.S.? Is this particular instance newsworthy because it is young people and for how many generations have we older folks forgiven ourselves by thinking the next generation will be better and lo and behold we find they are not? Is it because so many white folks seem to think racism is not much of a problem and then to have it so glaringly staining sons of the middle class?


Putting aside the predictable outrage, and those who would blame black culture for the brothers’ racist chant, those who are serious about the state of relations between black and whites should point to the black and white differences in perceptions about things in this country. “Black” and “white” may serve as common labels for racial identity but it also describes how blacks and whites view many issues that confront us.
 

There are sharp differences in how blacks and whites perceive things in the U.S. Not surprisingly, there is a sharp difference in how the criminal justice system is viewed. In data from August 2013, The Pew Research Center asked blacks and whites about “how blacks are treated in your community.” The differences (point differences in parentheses) in those reporting “less fairly than whites” is wide:  By the police (32); in the courts (40); on the job or at work (38); in stores or restaurants (28); in local public schools (36); in getting health care (33); when voting in elections (36). Pew reporting on public opinion on the death penalty in 2011 showed a 35-point difference in support for the death penalty (whites over 70 percent and blacks half that). All this before the police shootings of unarmed black males in Ferguson, Cleveland, in a Wal-Mart or choked to death for selling cigarettes.
 

This is not new, either. The American Enterprise Institute, citing Gallup surveys, points out that in 1993, 68 percent of blacks said that the American justice system was biased against black people and after 20 years that percentage has not changed. A third of whites in 1993 thought the system was biased and 20 years later that percentage has dropped to a quarter.
 

What lies beneath these perceptual differences? Reality. Asking about experiences gets us closer to reality. In a study of Georgia youth (18-29 years old) those kinds of questions were asked in relation to gun violence and gun control (research.blackyouthproject.com/files/2013/07/guns-memo-FINAL-1.pdf); 46.2 percent of whites compared to 24.4 percent of blacks reported either they or someone they knew had carried a gun in the last month (the previous month did not cover hunting season). While whites were more likely to be around guns, it is blacks who experience gun violence, 22.5 percent of blacks compared to 8.3 percent of whites reported themselves or knowing someone who was a victim of gun violence in the last year.
 

These experiential differences probably lie at the heart of black/white differences in views on restricting access to guns versus the rights of gun owners as well as why black and white youth have a large perceptual difference on whether gun violence is a problem in their community (27 point difference). The point is that perceptual differences are not just a matter of perspective but of experience as well. The report from the Justice Department on Ferguson demonstrates the differences in how black and white Fergusonians are treated by the police.
 

Even on tax fairness blacks and whites differ. In a study by Georgia State University (cslf.gsu.edu/files/2014/06/public_opinion_on_issues_of_tax_fairness.pdf), in terms of viewing different kinds of taxes as fair, there is a 15-point difference in the state income tax, a 27-point difference in the sales tax, and a 7-percent difference in the property tax. I suspect that there is also an experiential difference at the foundation of these perceptual differences, too.
 

We can argue all day over whose perception is closest to reality. Let’s try moving to discussing experiences, it gets us past “that’s your opinion.” We can ask why the police disproportionately ticket one group over another; why are blacks given longer and harsher sentences for similar crimes? It get us past acting shocked when the scions of the middle class are caught with their white hoods on and expelling them (making them victims and generating sympathy for them) and onto asking why did they think this was OK?
 

Thomas L. Steiger is a professor of sociology and director of the Center for Student Research and Creativity at Indiana State University. Email thomas.steiger@indstate.edu.

In education battle, Dems need different approach

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 22 February 2015


 Indiana’s political juggernaut to lead the nation in charter schools is breathtaking. Who says government is broken? Some Republicans have worked for many years on this across two administrations and despite some serious setbacks such as Tony Bennett’s stunning defeat and the “cheating” scandal involving changed letter grades for some charters, they are revolutionizing K-12 education in Indiana.




Glenda Ritz, a political novice with a quintessential grassroots campaign, was elected overwhelmingly, garnering more votes than even Gov. Pence. I voted for Ritz and what I recall of her message was “slow down” and assess the changes already made. I’ve lived in Indiana for nearly 30 years and that message of “slow down the change” seems as much a winning political strategy as is appealing to “Hoosier values.”

For Democrats and “friends of education” it seems like it’s an outrage a day.  The most recent outrage regards a bill that just passed out of committee on a party-line vote regarding required accountability assessments that charter schools use. ISTEP, even a shortened one, is onerous and seemingly unforgiving. And so far, though time is still short for an appropriate assessment, charters aren’t demonstrating superior performance, perhaps not even as good, as the bureaucratic laden, unionized public schools.





So, this problem will be “fixed” by letting the charters off the hook by picking their own test. This is a bold if transparent fix to rig the competition by changing the rules. It’s a master stroke, too, because parents trying to decide between charters and their public counterparts or other charters will now be faced with comparing apples, to oranges, to bananas.





The Democrats and “friends of education” response to this puzzles me. They don’t seem to understand that for those conservatives (and their corporate backers) pushing these changes, the test they want to decide the “quality” of a school and its services is the market, the same “test” we use for restaurants, car dealers, hair stylists, home improvement companies, etc. The market’s elegance is unparallelled. Plus no one is compelled to shop at Wal-Mart or Dollar General or Target. If you can afford it, it’s yours and you can pay a dollar, four dollars, or 14 dollars for the (seemingly) same thing — it’s your choice. The metrics used to demonstrate the quality of the charter’s product is vulnerable to the market, too. Parents may prefer a certain test or at least common tests so they can compare apples to apples. Of course, professional marketing plays into consumer evaluation. I mean, it’s not like slick advertising has any impact on people’s choices or price.





Democrats and other “friends of education” protest by arguing about “fairness” and allude to the corporate interests that are pushing the privatization of Indiana public schools. While I sympathize with these protests, politically they are ineffective as are threats about 2016 or running Glenda Ritz for governor.





Perhaps a more effective political response would be a jujutsu move. Jujutsu is a Japanese martial art form that developed in response to the formidably armed and armored samurai for an unarmed and unarmored opponent. In short, the idea is to use the advantages of the more armored opponent against them, to use their energy against them. It seems to me that the supermajority juggernaut might be vulnerable to political jujutsu.





I think it’s a mistake to assume the supermajority is all like-minded. I’ve seen fissures and I think the idea of “slow down the change” might resonate with some and if the argument for charters is to unburden them from all the bureaucratic red tape, then why not focus on reducing the bureaucratic tape on public schools? Let public schools choose their assessment tests, too. An equally bold move to stripping Glenda Ritz of her chairship of the state board of education would be to offer up a market reform in public schools:  Public school choice not just limited to failing schools.



I think this might cause some pause among the supermajority. Plus, if it got any traction at all, it would expose those cynically trying to undermine public education in favor of corporate education, and make targeting specific officials more effective in the next election. Use the arguments for market solutions, choice, and accountability against those who push this for charters and challenge them to introduce it into public education

Ideology, acrimony get in the way of finding solutions

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 25 January 2015 

I believe making good political decisions and good public policy need robust discussion, not “acrimony, accusations, and aspersions,” (Mike Varney, 2015). Unfortunately, recent research by the Pew Research Center does not bode well for robust discussion in our political arenas. In a report titled “Political Polarization in the American Public” (www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/) Pew demonstrates a trend toward more political polarization among Americans, “Today 92 percent of Republicans are to the right of the median Democrat, and 94 percent of Democrats are to the left of the median Republican.” That Democrat and Republican elected officials are becoming more ideological, less moderate and less cooperative with each other is obvious. Supposedly the larger body politic doesn’t like it and wants more cooperation and less posturing. Except the public is becoming more like that, too.

One can quibble over how Pew measured polarization. Indeed, I think some of the choices suffer some wording problems and for anyone who takes a scalpel instead of an ax to such statements, the “test” is crude (www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/appendix-a-the-ideological-consistency-scale/). Nevertheless as Pew has measured liberal and conservative ideology, polarization is occurring.

Polarization doesn’t appear to be a problem identifying what the important issues are (www.people-press.org/2015/01/15/publics-policy-priorities-reflect-changing-conditions-at-home-and-abroad/). Two-thirds or more identified these as important issues for the next two years: terrorism, economy, jobs, education, and Social Security while less than 40 percent identified global warming or global trade as a priority. And Democrats, Republicans and Independents agree on what the top challenges and priorities are. All three list terrorism and the economy as a top policy priority, both Democrats and Republicans list improving the jobs situation. Social security is a top priority for Republicans and Independents. The specific solutions are starkly different and reflect the polarization.

“Compromise” and possibly developing better policy by incorporating elements of the competing views is unfortunately nearly impossible when there is little common ground between the groups. According to Pew, the more consistently liberal one is, the more likely they are to prefer urban environments, while the more consistent conservatives prefer suburbs or the edges of small towns. This is not just social separation but physical as well; its de facto self-segregation. Indeed, Pew labels the phenomenon “ideological silos” where half of consistently conservative and 35 percent of consistently liberal people indicate it’s important that they live where most of the people share their political views and 63 percent of consistently conservative and 49 percent of consistently liberal people indicate that most of their close friends share their political views. In terms of what is important to people about the community they live in, everyone agrees that being near family, good schools, having access to the outdoors for fishing, hiking and camping are important, but for consistently liberal folks, so is access to the “arts’ (73 percent) while for consistent conservatives it’s not (23 percent). Perhaps this explains why there seem to be few conservatives in Hollywood.

Most distressing is the antipathy between the groups; 79 percent of consistently liberal folks hold negative views of the Republican Party, just under half, “strongly unfavorable” views. Consistently conservative people hold similar negative views of the Democratic Party, 82 percent unfavorable, with over half “strongly unfavorable.” Half of consistently liberal people view the Republican Party as a threat to the nation’s well-being. A whopping two-thirds of consistently conservative people view the Democratic Party that way. I wonder how consistent liberals view the National Socialist Movement (white supremacist party) and how consistent conservatives view the Socialist Workers Party? This antipathy extends to individuals; nearly a quarter of consistent liberals would be unhappy if a family member married a Republican and 30 percent of consistent conservatives unhappy if a family member married a Democrat.

I can see the increasing polarization leading to extremism where even members of the respective sides do not and really cannot question their own positions due to accusations of heresy and apostasy. In short, their beliefs become articles of faith. Questioning the beliefs is viewed as a weakness. The beliefs are no longer held “rationally” but emotionally, similar to how people with racial or sexual prejudices respond to contrary evidence to their prejudice; evidence to the contrary only hardens their belief(s). This kind of insularity contributes to “group think” and an increasing narrowing of perspective. Don’t we tend to scoff at the insularity of Saudi Arabia and North Korea?

Before shootings, beheadings and bombings started between the Sunni and Shiites, Israelis and Palestinians, IRA and Loyalists, and other polarized violent groups, did ideological polarization, silos and antipathy between the groups come first?

Candid discourse needed on U.S. use of torture

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 4 January 2015


A Gallup Poll from summer 2013 asked Americans if the country’s moral values are getting worse. Seventy-two percent said yes (among Republicans, 87 percent; Independents, 68; Democrats, 56).


In December 2014, Pew asked Americans if the CIA’s interrogation techniques were justified. Fifty-one percent said yes. An ABC News/Washington Post poll used the hot button word “torture” (usually not a good idea in good polling practices) and received the highest positive response of the major polls asking that question, 58 percent. Over half see the future torture of suspected terrorists as justified. (Only 20 percent reject any justification for the use of torture.) Is it ironic that 87 percent of Republicans said that the country’s moral values are getting worse yet in the Pew survey, 76 percent of Republicans said that the CIA’s interrogation techniques were justified, followed by 49 percent of Independents, and 36 percent of Democrats?

Following the US/Allied defeat of the evil of Nazism/Fascism, and based on the atrocities uncovered in war crimes trials of the Nazi/Fascist leaders, the U.S. signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Geneva Convention as well as subsequent conventions. Rebecca Evans writes:

                                                                                                                                                                            
“The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates, in unqualified terms, that ‘no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’ (Article 5). The Geneva Conventions of 1949 not only provide protection for enemy combatants and civilians but also instruct that unlawful combatants must be ‘treated with humanity and … shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial’ (Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 5). The 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits torture even ‘during public emergencies that threaten the life of the nation’ (Articles 4 and 7). Similarly, the 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment insists that ‘no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability of any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture’ (Article 2).”





It would be interesting to see how many Americans today agree or disagree with these statements. In light of recent poll results, I suspect no more than around 20 percent would strongly agree.

                                                                                                                                                                            
Legalities aside, it’s the moral and ethical questions that are of concern because in the moral calculus that 80 percent of Americans are willing to use to justify torture (generally viewed as an evil act), to torture one person to obtain information to stop another 9/11 or worse (the Fox series “24” justification), do we also calculate the corrosive effect of violating our own moral positions? Since so much of the moral discussion is in terms of “effectiveness” then should that calculation also not estimate the inevitable loosening and “normalizing” of torture?

                                                                                                                                                                            
History shows this is the case, from Abu Ghraib to the French in Algiers to Argentina in the 1970s. The use of torture, history shows, undermines the rule of law, something that should be very worrisome to a “nation of laws.” Is the use of torture in the war on terrorism related to the seeming increase in police brutality? History suggests that it may be. We have been in the war on terrorism now for over a decade. President Obama ordered torture stopped. What assurance is that?

                                                                                                                                                                            
If “effective” is the justification for what is moral or not, then Jim Wright poses this challenge to that argument:





“Theft is an effective means of making a living.


“Murder is an effective means of winning an argument.




“Abortion is an effective means of ending a pregnancy.

                                                                                                                                                                            
“Terrorism is an effective means of conveying a political point.”





We need a national conversation on where the lines should be drawn, much like we have been having with abortion for 40+ years. Where is the point too far? Is torturing, raping or beheading a family member of a suspected terrorist justified if it’s effective? How about slowly cutting off fingers, toes, nose, ears, then limbs with an axe, if it’s effective? Why not bomb Mecca if a suspected Islamic terrorist doesn’t cooperate? Where is it that our moral compass finally quivers over to “no, not justified.”

                                                                                                                                                                            
Lastly, Americans used to value freedom over all else and claim that it was the universal value. What does a prisoner want more than anything else? To escape; to be free. So, why don’t we offer their freedom in exchange for what we want? If giving Sheik Mohammed Khalid his freedom in exchange for information to stop another 9/11 or worse, wouldn’t it be worth it?

'Sustainability' project prompts excitement, skepticism

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 28 December 2014


When I first heard of the Powerdyne-City of Terre Haute partnership, I was excited. I teach a course on sustainable development in the fall semester, so I am focused on “possibilities” and “realities” of new, more sustainable technologies, the challenges of transitioning to a “post-carbon” society, and being scholarly about it all. When I first read about a company that proposes to transform sewage sludge to a motor fuel, sustainably speaking, that is a big deal. 

My first inclination was to examine the technology, as I am familiar with a variety of waste-to-energy processes, from burning garbage to produce electricity, to bio-digesters in Thailand producing methane gas for cooking and home use from home kitchen wastes, to large commercial biogas facilities in Europe. So, I knew there were things that were possible. But biodiesel? That was new, so I did some research and found recently published breakthroughs in the process in South Korea and a demonstration plant there. However, I could find nothing about the experience with the demonstration plant. Hmm, troubling. Yet, I remained excited at the prospect of a cutting edge technology and such an important development in the U.S.’s virtually nonexistent transition to a “post-carbon” society, happening right here in Terre Haute.

As more information comes to surface, and because of a Facebook discussion group on the Powerdyne deal, I reluctantly became disillusioned, both at the prospect that the technology was viable and whether this arrangement was a good one. Just because a technology is theoretically sustainable, and in energy issues it has much to do with the energy return on energy investment (EROEI), it must also be economically and socially sustainable as well. The secrecy surrounding the deal, the less-than-forthcoming information from the company and then the economics of the deal raise questions about how sustainable the project truly is.

The discussion group on Facebook has been a model for what passionate civil discussion can be. The technology has been discussed with local experts in chemistry and engineering reading and sharing various research articles on the process of transforming sludge to biodiesel, some thoughtful searches for patents in the name of either Powerdyne or company personnel that might suggest some technical expertise on the part of the company (none were found). The contract between the City and Powerdyne was analyzed line by line by various people. One would think that contract language would be intelligible to the layman, but I have learned that legal language only resembles English and it’s a good idea to have a trained interpreter. I’m not sure if any lawyers deciphered the contract. It seems confusing to me and there appear to be many errors in it. In any case, those who discussed the contract itself were unsettled. Add to the discussion group Arthur Foulkes’ terrific investigative reporting in the Tribune-Star, and I have significant doubts about this “deal.” My greatest concerns, however, are not what you might think.

Turning waste into gold is one way to look at sustainable practices. And turning sewage sludge into biodiesel is about as good as it gets (assuming the process of turning the waste into biodiesel has a favorable EROEI). This is not just a matter of pricing, as pricing does not always capture the true cost due to a variety of political and social practices. Biodiesel, generally, does not have a favorable EROEI. What could make that return more favorable is the use of sewage sludge instead of corn or other plant materials. It depends on the process involved and we do not know what that process is. This doesn’t mean that the Powerdyne deal won’t make money, but it might not be very “sustainable,” especially if the EROEI is low and could become unprofitable should any of the energy inputs rise in price without an equivalent rise in the price for biodiesel.

I applaud Mayor Bennett for even considering turning Terre Haute sewage waste into transport gold. I know him as a leader who is willing to seriously consider thinking about sustainable practices as Terre Haute moves forward. And regardless of what happens with the Powerdyne deal, I hope he will continue to be open to the more sustainable option.

I worry that the public may not readily distinguish between the particular “deal” with Powerdyne and “sustainable solutions” and equate all such “crazy” ideas like turning sewage sludge into a transport fuel with Powerdyne and dismiss similar future proposals as a sham at best and a scam at worst.