View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:21 pm Post subject: Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat |
|
|
Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat
Quote: |
It does not matter if it is rain forest or scrubland that is cleared, the greenhouse gas contribution is significant. More important, they discovered that, taken globally, the production of almost all biofuels resulted, directly or indirectly, intentionally or not, in new lands being cleared, either for food or fuel.
�When you take this into account, most of the biofuel that people are using or planning to use would probably increase greenhouse gasses substantially,� said Timothy Searchinger, lead author of one of the studies and a researcher in environment and economics at Princeton University. �Previously there�s been an accounting error: land use change has been left out of prior analysis.� |
As you can see below, the energy use analysis was never so helpful in the first place.
But now we're being told that this will increase demand for corn, which will in turn use more land. Thereby, more oil will be consumed, and more trees cut down. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anyone who advocates corn as the main source of bio fuel is insane. There's so much organic waste produced by industry and agriculture, that's the real source of bio fuel. And that's carbon neutral (within error bars).
The only reason corn is advocated in the USA is the corn lobby is powerful and sees a new market. I think it kind of worked like: farms produced an excess of corn so the government bought up corn. What to do with all that surplus corn in the 70s and 80s? Oh hey, gasahol. Now of course corn has found a bunch of other markets. Corn is cheap (because of government hand outs) so food makers use it in place of can sugar, food filler, etc. I don't think there's a lot of excess corn produced these days like there was in the '70s and '80s. However, if the government dropped the hand out, corn would go back to its market price and would be less attractive to food makers. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sidebar:
The way to reduce the amount of corn being produced in Iowa (the #1 or #2 producer) is to adopt daylight savings time. This would reduce the amount of sunlight in the summer when the corn is growing and return it to the farms in the winter, when the corn is not growing.
This was a real argument when daylight savings time was being debated. It was a Commie plot. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Compunction Junction
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Biofuels are also having a very serious deleterious affect on food prices in poorer countries as demand drives prices up and the poor can no longer afford corn, maize, etc. Aid organization also take a HUGE hit on how much they can afford to buy (the money that previously bought 30tonnes of corn, now buys 20, etc...) |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
jkelly80

Joined: 13 Jun 2007 Location: you boys like mexico?
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Sidebar:
The way to reduce the amount of corn being produced in Iowa (the #1 or #2 producer) is to adopt daylight savings time. This would reduce the amount of sunlight in the summer when the corn is growing and return it to the farms in the winter, when the corn is not growing.
This was a real argument when daylight savings time was being debated. It was a Commie plot. |
I think Iowa is #1, and Illinois is #2. Two very politically connected states, Illinois all the time and Iowa every three years or so. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mistermasan
Joined: 20 Sep 2007 Location: 10+ yrs on Dave's ESL cafe
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
deleted |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|