Bio Fuels

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

As the AGW juggernaut trundles on gathering pace finding fuel alternatives are big business. But is this really the answer? Is the knock on affect more dangerous than the alleged AGW scenario, particularly as this world is not responding 'currently' as forecast with a 10 year plateau and arguable slight cooling.

Land being used to grow bio-fuels is eating up land that should be used to grow food. The following article was an early indicator and indeed since then food prices have gone up more and more, less surplus is available and more riots have broken out across parts of the world. Indeed even Wal-Mart are beginning to 'ration' rice supplies.

here

Ta to BBC.

What's folks thoughts? For me we are heading in the wrong direction.

BFTP

Edited April 26, 2008 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Essan]

Well I doubt any biofuels are grown in paddy fields So you can't connect them with rice shortages. But are biofuels a solution? NO! Although, reusing waste vegetable matter/oil and converting that to biofuel obviously is a good idea.

Mass biofuel production from specially grown crops is just a sure fire way to increase anthropogenic climate change. Anyone would think they have an agenda

[laserguy]

Been waiting for somewhere to put this! :

http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/letter...r_14April08.pdf

[Devonian]

As the AGW juggernaut trundles on gathering pace finding fuel alternatives are big business. But is this really the answer? Is the knock on affect more dangerous than the alleged AGW scenario, particularly as this world is not responding 'currently' as forecast with a 10 year plateau and arguable slight cooling.

Land being used to grow bio-fuels is eating up land that should be used to grow food. The following article was an early indicator and indeed since then food prices have gone up more and more, less surplus is available and more riots have broken out across parts of the world. Indeed even Wal-Mart are beginning to 'ration' rice supplies.

here

Ta to BBC.

What's folks thoughts? For me we are heading in the wrong direction.

BFTP

I think trying to find 'AGWers' who think biofuels as are presently happening anything other than utter nonsense is like trying to find mammals with feathers.

Edited April 26, 2008 by Devonian

[laserguy]

I think trying to find 'AGWers' who think biofuels as are presently happening anything other than utter nonsense is like trying to find mammals with feathers.

Glad to hear that,Dev! Oil is getting harder to obtain,the demand for it explodes and there's only one way for that to go. 'Our way of life has to be maintained regardless' hence the need for biofuels as substitute. Never mind the suffering unleashed upon millions far away from our well fed and watered land,and the fact that none of this will have any effect whatsoever on climate so long as we can keep our cars and all the extraneous stuff we have absolutely no need for. Sad. I don't believe for one moment that the real and sole reason for the Western world's pursuit of biofuels is to 'tackle' climate change.

[Bobby]

Biofuels are certainly not the answer. I've been saying so for years but it seems only now that we are finding out they aren't much good and can do a lot of harm. The best thing to do is to simply stop using and wasting so much resources, but that seems too difficult or too unappealing.

[millennia]

Well I doubt any biofuels are grown in paddy fields So you can't connect them with rice shortages. But are biofuels a solution? NO! Although, reusing waste vegetable matter/oil and converting that to biofuel obviously is a good idea.

Actually the the shortage of rice is not so much the lack of supply but the increased demand caused by the tripling of the price of wheat. There are even stories of rationing and panic buying in the US and UK as people typically try to stockpile like it's the end of the flipping world. These are the same people that probably still have 2000 tins of food left over from the Cuban missile crisis :blush:

Commercial biofuel production to replace oil in a world having enough of a problem feeding itself is complete madness. Domestic biofuel production to take waste oil away from landfill is a very good idea. As usual when the big boys get involved it all goes to pot. Has anybody seen this?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008...waste.pollution

Back to brown paper bags I say! :blush:

[jethro]

As this is the one subject above all others, which makes me get the soapbox out of the cupboard, I'll restrict my reply to a simple, categorical NO. Bio fuels in their current form are wrong, wrong, wrong.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

I take it we're talking biofuels for vehicles? I don't see what's wrong with burning waste timber/logs for firewood, or using algae to produce biofuels as was highlighted in the national Geographic some time ago.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Padi fields? Maybe not but its all linked as has been mentioned. Land used for cereal crops is being used for bio-fuels. There is a shortage and no longer do countries like the US store excess grain, thye only have enough for the year after the harvest so any crop failure will have large ripples down the line...and we are seeing them now. Not enough Bio-fuels can be produced to come anywhere near covering usage by humans......so for me it has to be binned.

BFTP

[jethro]

I think these people have enough to cope with already, without us knowingly and willingly adding to the problem.

http://www.wfp.org/country_brief/hunger_ma.../map_popup.html

http://www.wfp.org/english/?ModuleID=137&Key=2820

[Roo]

The best thing to do is to simply stop using and wasting so much resources

Exactly what I think. It amazes me that we still haven't learnt our lesson: we can't carry on doing the same, we must use less, and technology is not the answer. Good old thrift and reuse are the ways to go.......we have a lot to learn from our grandparents!

[jethro]

Gives a whole new meaning to "Put a Tiger in your tank"......

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1534821.html

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

technology is not the answer.

Totally disagree. Technology is the answer.

BFTP

[Devonian]

technology is not the answer.

Totally disagree. Technology is the answer.

BFTP

Yup, it's solved the food problem - no one is short of food; the fuel problem - no one is short of fuel; the pollution problems - no one breaths in smog; it's enabled us to move into space en masse - just look at all those cities in orbit, .. ooppss, scrub that lot What problems has technology solved? Answer, the ones that don't involve hoping it can help us avoid the laws of physics, science and nature.

Still, at least you resisted accusing Roo of wanting to send us back to the stone age I was sure someone would, I was wrong!

Edited April 29, 2008 by Devonian

[jethro]

Agreed Blast; there's an awful lot more people to feed than there was in our Grandparents time.

With the best will in the world, I cannot see anyone, let alone the whole globe moving away from the comfortable life we live now, back to the lifestyle of our predecessors. We have to work with the global economy, not against it; world wide, deep recession helps no one.

Edited April 29, 2008 by jethro

[Devonian]

Agreed Blast; there's an awful lot more people to feed than there was in our Grandparents time.

With the best will in the world, I cannot see anyone, let alone the whole globe moving away from the comfortable life we live now, back to the lifestyle of our predecessors.

The closest yet to 'you want to send us back to the stone age' . Trouble is can the answer to a problem be to carry on in the same direction only faster?

We have to work with the global economy, not against it; world wide, deep recession helps no one.

This is the problem. No one is suggesting a world wide deep recession - that just to misrepresent people like Roo (and myself). Otoh, and I may be alone here, I don't think the planet is infinte nor that economic growth can be likewise. We need to think, to come up with new directions. Is life really about the trinkets wealth brings? Can we really not spread the excess wealth around a bit? Must we all drive bigger and less efficient cars around? Fly around madly like midges? Devour every fish? Chop every tree? Well, that's the way we're going if we don't have limits...

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

This is the problem. No one is suggesting a world wide deep recession - that just to misrepresent people like Roo (and myself). Otoh, and I may be alone here, I don't think the planet is infinte nor that economic growth can be likewise. We need to think, to come up with new directions. Is life really about the trinkets wealth brings? Can we really not spread the excess wealth around a bit? Must we all drive bigger and less efficient cars around? Fly around madly like midges? Devour every fish? Chop every tree? Well, that's the way we're going if we don't have limits...

Agree with this 100% - perpetual growth is not sustainable, so sooner or later there is going to have to be a change on a massive scale to a 'repair and re-use, don't buy new' and 'live locally' existence. The days of the 'buy more, have more, spend more, consume more' society are numbered....................

[jethro]

The closest yet to 'you want to send us back to the stone age' . Trouble is can the answer to a problem be to carry on in the same direction only faster?

This is the problem. No one is suggesting a world wide deep recession - that just to misrepresent people like Roo (and myself). Otoh, and I may be alone here, I don't think the planet is infinte nor that economic growth can be likewise. We need to think, to come up with new directions. Is life really about the trinkets wealth brings? Can we really not spread the excess wealth around a bit? Must we all drive bigger and less efficient cars around? Fly around madly like midges? Devour every fish? Chop every tree? Well, that's the way we're going if we don't have limits...

No sending anyone back to the stone age, either mentioned or inferred; we all have to work together for our future and our children and their children ad infinitum, can't see how endlessly looking for division either real or imaginary, is helpful .

I don't think the planet and it's resources is infinite either or that economic growth should be taken as a given, our right. But, world wide, deep recession is a real possibility if the response to climate change and our role within it is to simply consume less. Short term, it would be wonderful if every single person only replaced things on a new for old basis as and when the old broke, instead of seeking the newest and latest model. Personally, that's how I've always worked, never been one for trinkets or gadgets. However, it takes a buoyant economy, with large company profits, to plough into research to find cleaner, better means of producing. Market forces are the driver, whether we like it or not.

It's all well and good saying to people don't drive, walk but if everything they need is a car journey away, how's that going to work? When I was a child, I walked to school, we had a village shop and post office with regular bus services into town, where the weeks shop was done on the high street. If I go back to that village in the Cotswold's now, the school has gone, as has the shop and post office and there's now one bus a week to the local town. I challenge anyone to be able to do a week's shop on that high street now because there is no butcher, greengrocer, super market or any other type of food retailer; unless you can put a meal together for a family from the various health food shops and clothes stores, you're chuffed. The supermarkets are out of town, you need a car.

The same can be said for where I live now, the only thing left in the village is the post office with a small store attached; currently the post office is under notice of closure, when it closes the shop as a whole will shut as it's economically not possible to survive without that income.

The reality is there are more of us around, everything has been designed from a car ownership point of view so logically the best way forward is to make cars cleaner - technology. The world won't use less, so we have to make what we use cleaner, more environmentally sound, that takes technology.

I'd be more reassured if the current thinking for the future was a little more of the "joined up" variety, take these new eco towns, they've apparently been designed from an eco friendly point of view, the great way forward. So how come they are to be built away from existing developments? Yes, the houses will be carbon neutral, yes there will be speed restrictions or possibly car restrictions - all well and good for the eco towns themselves but where do all those people who live there work? Where do they shop? How do they get there? Mmmm, let's think; that'll be by car then.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Totally disagree. Technology is the answer.

BFTP

Yup, it's solved the food problem - no one is short of food; the fuel problem - no one is short of fuel; the pollution problems - no one breaths in smog; it's enabled us to move into space en masse - just look at all those cities in orbit, .. ooppss, scrub that lot What problems has technology solved? Answer, the ones that don't involve hoping it can help us avoid the laws of physics, science and nature.

Still, at least you resisted accusing Roo of wanting to send us back to the stone age I was sure someone would, I was wrong!

Dev

A very simplistic view IMO. Technology will solve the CO2 issue [if there is one]. There is no option but to move forward, we cannot turn back it is not in human nature nor should it be. Eventually a saturation point will be reached [maybe its here], what do we do nuke some countries and annihilate millions, hundreds of millions to reset equilibrium? Come on I think most know that we need fuel, food, water etc etc and to ensure that there is enough we need to advance to produce more in smaller areas, produce fuel that lasts and lasts and is unlikely to ever run out. Lots of people can be less greedy but that is a whole different ball game...ALthough we will still run out....so we have to advance.

BFTP

Edited April 29, 2008 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[jethro]

The message is getting through...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/business...amp;oref=slogin

Only the tip of the iceberg, but a start.

I do think a global recession will follow if consumption drastically falls; these laid off workers have an in-built back up system, the Trades Unions are much stronger over there, than here. The troubles presently affecting our banking system have their origins in mistakes made in the USA, it really is a global economy these days.

[Devonian]

Dev

A very simplistic view IMO. Technology will solve the CO2 issue [if there is one]. There is no option but to move forward, we cannot turn back it is not in human nature nor should it be. Eventually a saturation point will be reached [maybe its here], what do we do nuke some countries and annihilate millions, hundreds of millions to reset equilibrium?

The solution most certainly isn't several hundred million people being nuked. It's probably that those several hundred million aren't born, along with a realisation every human is human and that if we, the rich, think the solution is to nuke the poor we're the problem.

Come on I think most know that we need fuel, food, water etc etc and to ensure that there is enough we need to advance to produce more in smaller areas, produce fuel that lasts and lasts and is unlikely to ever run out. Lots of people can be less greedy but that is a whole different ball game...ALthough we will still run out....so we have to advance.

BFTP

Of course we advance, it how we do that, what economic framework it's within, that matters.

[The PIT]

Dunno if this be mentioned.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=11671

If it has ignore it. Seems interesting.

[bluecon]

The USA produces over half the worlds corn and turns over 25% of that crop into ethanol to replace about 5% of the gasoline.(USA uses around 150billion gallons of gas annually and corn ethanol is around 7 billion gallons of production) The ethanol has little or no advantage and is probably a net loss in energy as well as adding a whole new layer of industry and pollution. The ethanol plants are heavily subsidized and each gallon is subsidized at 51 cents. Now the poorest people in the world are going hungry and food prices are sky rocketing. All this was a result of attempting to appease the AGW proponents and also a means to subsidize agriculture under the table. What a mess, and a boondoggle only the government could think up.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Technology is an answer, but it's extremely doubtful that current consumption levels are sustainable even if we can get non-pollutive technologies working well. Some reductions in consumption will be needed as well. But for technology to be effective, it needs to solve problems, and not create bigger problems than it solves, and from that perspective the current biofuel policies need a big rethink.

Yes, we probably will have a huge global recession if consumption drastically falls over a short space of time. But bear in mind that this scenario might be unavoidable in a few decades' time if we continue to let consumption go through the roof, and suddenly find that we have to cut consumption by 60% because of the dwindling fossil fuel reserves. A gradual reduction over time might help to reduce the likelihood of such a recession ever occurring.

I'm far from convinced that relying solely upon capitalism is the answer. In theory, having a strong economy helps to generate revenues that can be used to fund environmental improvements. In practice, the desire for capitalism for capitalism's sake self-perpetuates, and generating money breeds desire to generate more money, and the environmental improvements perpetually end up taking a back seat.

I'm afraid I can't agree with the notion that we have to accept that the way society operates can't be changed because "that's just the way it is" and work within the constraints that market forces dominate and maximum consumption prevails. History shows that society can, and does, change, though it usually takes time. I'm not saying aboish capitalism or anything extreme like that, but I will certainly contend that it's overemphasised today at the great expense of other factors, and a more balanced approach may be needed.