Science – Several new studies show the biofuel boom is doing exactly the opposite of what its proponents intended: it's dramatically accelerating global warming, imperiling the planet in the name of saving it.
This is something I envisioned over a year ago when ethanol became the new cure for the gasoline shortage. I am amazed that so little thought has gone into the downside of using food for energy....is our love of the automobile that strong.
As I watch commercials and read ads for high performance cars I wonder aloud if we are taking the gas shortage to heart. It is a conservation issue as well as a supply issue.
The cuting of old rain forest is extremely dangerous, in the long term for our planet....then again....short term profit seems to drive our destruction.
When, oh when, are the moronic greedy imbeciles that run our planet going to learn ?????
It doesn't take the brain of Einstein to work out that the single possible energy source has got to be nuclear FUSION... Minimal residue, safe (as far as testing so far has gone) and would be extremely efficient...
Talk about killing a couple of birds with one stone... Fusion could provide plentiful cheap energy, sufficient for desalinisation plants, to deal with water issues, power hydrogen powered cars, etc etc....
So what do they do ??? Invest in bio-fuels, nuclear fission, wind power (massively subsidised, inefficient and sod the wildlife and views) and coal........
Morons......
Depending on agriculture for fuel is dangerous. We currently are held hostage by politicians and middle east governments. Imagine dealing with mother nature...she can throw all kinds of things our way, that will produce crop failure.....that is a real problem,as our weather is changing.
Algae is a viable source of bio fuel...This is one of several articles that discusses the issues and makes comparisons.
Anybody seen that awesome B movie (with a really big capital B) 'Bloodcar'? The guy is trying to invent a car that runs on wheatgrass juice, cuz gas is 40 bucks a gallon in the future--next year sometime, and winds up with a car that runs on blood. The government makes him president for it, because it solves the fuel problem AND the population problem at the same time...
You are right Dicax, nuclear energy is the ticket but if put into play as a safe an viable alternative it, nuclear fuel, would upset the major world economies for some time to come because those economies are built around the petro dollar.
Corn is good for many things but some things 'corn' are better than others; making corn whiskey(my personal favorite) and canned corn or corn on the cob, and should be left that way.
And also, I like Kansas corn not Brazilian rain forest corn; Kansas corn simply has a better taste to it. Brazilian corn is watered down and has a weak taste to it.
I have to go and check out my home-made 'sour-mash brew' now.
See ya' pilgrims later.
Dicax is on a roll!
..."Fusion could provide plentiful cheap energy, sufficient for desalinisation plants, to deal with water issues, power hydrogen powered cars, etc etc...."
What idiot would invest billions in perfecting fusion generating plants that would produce unlimited amounts of practically free energy? Where's the profit in that? Oh, sure, the worlds population would all chip in generously to pay their fair share of the costs........ ! Like hell!
...."So what do they do ??? Invest in bio-fuels, nuclear fission, wind power (massively subsidised, inefficient and sod the wildlife and views) and coal........
Morons......"
Morons? Beg to differ. That's where the money is, and business aims to make money. Care to look at the 11 billion in QUARTERLY PROFITS alone from just ONE oil company? Morons, indeed.
RFC - Sorry if I wasn't clear as to my intended target. My words were aimed at politicians. Very few companies would have the resources to develop fusion. It should be a Govt funded project run by ex-CEO's of major companies. That way, there'd be half a chance of
a) It being delivered on time
b) It being delivered within budget
c) It working !!
Run as a typical Govt project, it'd be late, massively over budget and probably work every 4th Friday in the month !!!
DM:
Not just that---
And when it finally became available, you would be required to fill out a 23-page form to show that you qualify to use it, and then be notified that your certified qualified user status document would be mailed to you within 10 weeks.
Then, when your user status document would arrive, you would try to use it to get access to your new wonder fuel, and you would find that it works only 21 percent as well as you were told it would work...........
And to think that some people actually believe that the government would be a good administrator of a successful health-care system.........
ROTFL&SMK
Big oil moguls don't care if their children/grandchildren have oxygen to breathe when they're gone do they? I guess they think all the money they will leave them will buy them some oxygen.
not2needy, you are so right. They won't care until it impacts them personally!
Not2 & Tex.....you get to go on to the fast money round of our game......And I like your thinking.
Fact: What commodity is available virtually FREE to all Americans that they still CHOOSE to spend BILLIONS and BILLIONS on each and every year?
If you answered "plain old water" you're correct again! Okay, so it comes in handy little plastic bottles. How many did you buy last month? Entire aisles of shelf space in supermarkets are devoted to it. Is anybody being forced to buy it?
As for oxygen and the air that you (and your children/grandchildren) breathe for free? Well, it won't be long before we'll make huge profits in selling you that too! Conveniently packaged, of course, so you'll buy it up like....well, like....bottled water!
Crazy times we live in, I agree. But very profitable.
Blood powered cars? Don't give the Chinese any ideas. They're already doing a huge business in spare body parts for those who don't want to wait in line.
Richfatcat..... I would have to discount most of your statements as you are baiting. I worked for many years in am large corporation....nobody would make such statements as you have ....actually from the point of satire they were very amusing. Then again this might be your thought process...or should I say lack of thought.
No news here. How did we ever go from regulating carbon emissions to pushing biofuels in the first place? There is no pollution relief using biofuels. Only a SUPPOSED relief of dependence on foreign oil, which really means nothing if now we're dependent on foreign food.
You wanna stop emissions buildup? STOP CUTTING DOWN THE TREES.
Here in Texas, the cement companies are one of the major offenders of pollution! http://www.cementkiln.com/
It is all about politics and pockets! The pollution costs the 7 counties residents, including DFW an extra $34 for each gasoline vehicle to have emissions testing run! Meanwhile, there are cement plants everywhere!
When the Texas Trans Corridor superhighway gets built, it will increase the pollution here in East Texas. Pine trees will be cut reducing the oxygen levels. Trees consume carbon dioxide and produce oxygen!
All that is being accomplished is, higher priced vehicles and high costs for buying corn!
Thanks Mozzer!
Come on lets be honest here. Who do you think put this government in their seats? You, me, and 300 million dumbas*'s voted for them.
Corn should be used for food. More profit can be gained by using switch grass, hemp, and investing in the future but don't look for anything to change.
The next crop of politicians are just like those who came before regardless of what they say and everyone knows it. You want to change the way government works, then get off your butts and demand it, or get ready for a revolution. Hopefully it will be a peaceful one.
Well if your talking about the Amazon jungle, as the article is, you and me didn't have anything to do with it. Unless your Brazilian.
Over 90% percent of the corn being grow in the USA is for animals not humans. AND if we planted crops for humans instead of animals we could grow enough food to solve most of the worlds food problems. BUT that would mean we all have to start eating grains, wheats and the such and not what we want to eat like steak and chicken.
It might be nice to think Brazil caused its own problems....but...thats not so. North America has a hunger for Mahogany and teaks as well as other old growth lumber. As an armature boat restorer I know all about this. Honduras and Brazilian mahogany is the wood of choice. Our domestic mahogany is by far a less superior wood. We used to have an abundance of old growth cedar....that to is going away.
greenmac - Not only mahogany. Thousands of acres of prime forests have been destroyed to grow more beef to feed our insatiable appetite for hamburgers. Thousands more to mine (surface stripping) bauxite ore for aluminum. Now comes more destructive pressure from corn.
At some point, the ecology will tip over into irreversible destruction. As more forests are destroyed, the ambient temperature will increase. The rise in land and atmospheric temp will cause alterations in weather patterns and rainfall. Thereby accelerating the death of more forest, even w/o further human intervention. This has already happened in the Mediterranean basin, which used to be more lush in vegetation and wet. It will never revert back.
It all boils down to the economy of the area. I put myself in their shoes....what would I do to survive. A sad state of affairs.....we need more education for the officials and locals in these areas. The tree poaching is very sophisticated in Brazil.....you can see why by looking at my last link.
I will be in the Rain Forest of St. Lucia by the weekend and hope to see what one really looks like.
I remember these discussions when I was in university in the 70's.
Turning food into fuel while people in the world are still hungry just never seemd right. But it turns out the farmers have about as much concern for the public as the oil companies.
I find it surprising that there is not more on this thread regarding the knee jerk reaction of people who want a quick fix to an extremely complex problem. biofuels aint the answer, fusion could do alot, and hydrogen is even cleaner and may hold the most promise. Biofuels, wind, solar, geothermal, and all of the other so called green alternatives have either not enough potential or have downsides to large to make them viable. The only problem is the 3 most likely alternate sources require sacrifice and focus... something we seem to have in very short supply.
We should not lump all "biofuels" together. While ethenol is often made from food crops, Brazil has been making it for many years from their "surplus" sugar cane... not corn. And I'm not sure if the world misses the sugar. Biodiesel uses a completly different process that does not require anywhere close to the same energy input. New crops are under development that grow on marginal land that can't support food crops. Additional, the rain forest clearing issue has been with us long time before biofuels became popular. I will concede, however, that the buring of tress and brush, to clear land for palm trees (palm oil) has been a very bad move from a global perspective and some countires have taken action by ensuring they do not import palm oil from these "new" crops.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
darwinm701977
soulkeeper009
hatukabu
2jojoyo
infiniteseo
sleepingbeauty2
noone321
Lurch
dunkirk
Ciera Marie
Teech
ind06
MajJohn
IceTi
Bonded
whatsnews9
drpolyphemus
Hullios
markmawn2
complicious
pawfoots
bonnieweelass
dumfing
simonsez
Catus
Wolfie2007
TheRealizer
lauren.megan
Helixbuilder
Debbie
Markdistinction
wonkydonkey
Alexia
mishandled
birddog54
arch.gabriel
cactushair
sheryllyon
JessicaLaurie
joeblowe
jeepndave
digitalfever
79)
Talk about your unintended consequences:
"An explosion in demand for farm-grown fuels has raised global crop prices to record highs, which is spurring a dramatic expansion of Brazilian agriculture, which is invading the Amazon at an increasingly alarming rate."
"One groundbreaking new study in Science concluded that when this deforestation effect is taken into account, corn ethanol and soy biodiesel produce about twice the emissions of gasoline."
and the end result?
"The grain it takes to fill an SUV tank with ethanol could feed a person for a year."
..."Talk about your unintended consequences.."
Don't think so. More like a carefully crafted plan by the fatcats and food brokers to increase prices on food commodities so they can make a few more billion here and a few more billion there.
And as for their concern about feeding a person for a year.....screw 'em...."let them eat cake." Hungry people just means more people willing to work for peanuts to feed their hungry families.
..."More like a carefully crafted plan by the fatcats and food brokers to increase prices on food commodities so they can make a few more billion here and a few more billion there...."
Gee, Teech, you speak as if that's a bad thing! You're right, however, in understanding that higher prices are NOT unintended, but carefully planned. So what?
The goal of business activity in this free country of ours is to generate profit. If we can do that by promoting a president and politicians who agree to our policies, that's the reality of politics. We backed a Prez who understands how business works (oil business especially) and what's wrong with that.
Seriously, Teech, when's the last time somebody starved to death in our country?
There's lots of corn and lots of rain forest left.
Rich - The pursuit of profit is not necessarily an evil thing. UNLESS that pursuit is done with total disregard of the consequences that the business engenders. There is no unlimited freedom in any field of social activity.
Why are alcohol and tobacco products prohibited to minors? Because they are harmful and addicting. Surely expanding the customer base would increase profits.
Why are there government regulations on garbage and toxic waste dumping? Because uncontrolled dumping, land fills, etc would harm humans, like Love Canal. Surely allowing companies to dump their waste as cheaply as possible would increase their profits.
Cutting out seatbelts and other safety features would make cars cost less to make and shoot up the profits for car manufacturers. So why are there laws mandating thes?
By the same token, all businesses have to function as responsible citizens within the society they exist in. That's the reality of life.
That's why we should promote presidents
who do not merely kowtow to business just for the sake of business profits. A president must look to the well being of EVERYONE in society, including businesses. If profit can be made - great. But if such a venture is harmful to the populace or deemed undesirable (selling WMD's to Saddam), then that business has no intrinsic right to that profit.
So if growing corn destroys virgin forests and increases CO2, thereby causing harm to humans now and in the future, that comapny loses its right to that profit
sinophil49: You sound like a quality, caring human being. You'll probably get to heaven before me. I have people like you writing PR releases for my firm.
Your business philosophy, however, would put me out of business, or at least eat at my bottom line.
But, I admire your thinking.
As a matter of fact, minors still get all the alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs they want. I have no truck with that rot. Laws have failed to slow the trade down even a bit, and have, instead, contributed to criminal profits.
Our freely elected government has removed practically all regulations on garbage and toxic waste dumping to allow corporate profits to increase and trickle down. Don't shoot me, I don't make or repeal laws. I obey them and use them to my advantage. That's what responsible citizens do, I agree.
Richfatcat - Thanks for your kind and generous remarks. If I die before you, I HOPE I make it to heaven. If you go before me, sounds like you're a pretty good bet to make it there.
Goodness, I'm not out to eliminate profits. That would collapse our entire economic system. I would be satisfied if even a handful of businesses made more ethical or environmentally sound business decisions.
Live long and prosper!
Richfatcat - Thanks for your kind and generous remarks. If I die before you, I HOPE I make it to heaven. If you go before me, sounds like you're a pretty good bet to make there.
Goodness, I'm not out to eliminate profits. That would collapse our entire economic system. I would be satisfied if even a handful of businesses made more ethical or environmentally sound busines
RFC:
When was the last time you went hungry while working hard because you weren't paid well enough for the work you did?
People like you make me laugh. Everything is about money and wealth. Yet when they are close to death all their money won't buy them another day worth living. Their relatives are just waiting for them to kick the bucket. Wanting the money they will receive from the deceased not even caring about the deceased just the money like they were taught.
That's not a good thing that is a sick and sad thing. Money in itself is not evil but a needed tool for trade. But like any tool it needs to be used wisely and right or it will cause harm and injury.
Look around at all of the careless tool wielders out there. See what harm they've caused already.
I know you only do what is allowed not what is right. Thats the problem with this consumerism. Greed is rewarded while sanity is ridiculed.
You backed a greedy blow fish for the president, causing massive grief.
well said. WHy worry about long term consequences when your mega million bonus is tied to what the company does next week? Greed has dominated the business market and Republicans tend to espouse that with their disdain for anything other then immediate gratification.
There may well be unintended consequences of some attempts to achieve energy independence from OPEC. But setbacks don't prove a goal is stupid. They prove only that you need to find a new way to reach the goal. We have no choice but to reach the goal. Energy dependence on OPEC is unsustainable as it is presently practiced, and OPEC is running out of energy.
The problem is NOT with biofuel. The problem is in placing a low economic value on the rain forests of the world.