I have been thinking along these lines for sometime. Trading food and water for oil is probably a bad deal. WVO is a different subject.
ROME - Biofuels like ethanol can help reduce global warming and create jobs for the rural poor, but the benefits may be offset by serious environmental problems and increased food prices for the hungry, the United Nations concluded Tuesday in its first major report on bioenergy.
In an agency-wide assessment, the United Nations raised alarms about the potential negative impact of biofuels, just days after a climate conference in Bangkok said the world had both the money and technology to prevent the sharp rise in global temperatures blamed in part on greenhouse gas emissions.
Biofuels, which are made from corn, palm oil, sugar cane and other agricultural products, have been seen by many as a cleaner and cheaper way to meet the world's soaring energy needs than with greenhouse-gas emitting fossil fuels.
European leaders have decided that at least 10 percent of fuels will come from biofuels like ethanol by 2020, and the U.S. Congress is working on a proposal that would increase production of biofuels sevenfold by 2022. With oil prices at record highs, biofuels have become an attractive alternative energy source for poor countries, some of which spend six times as much money importing oil than on health care.
But environmentalists have warned that the biofuel craze can do as much or more damage to the environment as dirty fossil fuels — a concern reflected throughout the report, which was being released Tuesday in New York, by U.N.-Energy, a consortium of 20 U.N. agencies and programs.
While saying bioenergy represents an "extraordinary opportunity" to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it warned that "rapid growth in liquid biofuel production will make substantial demands on the world's land and water resources at a time when demand for both food and forest products is also rising rapidly."
Changes in the carbon content of soils and carbon stocks in forests and peat lands might offset some or all of the benefits of the greenhouse gas reductions, it said.
"Use of large-scale monocropping could lead to significant biodiversity loss, soil erosion and nutrient leaching," it said, adding that investments in bioenergy must be managed carefully, at national, regional and local levels to avoid new environmental and social problems "some of which could have irreversible consequences."
It noted that soaring palm oil demand has already led to the clearing of tropical forests in southeast Asia.
In addition, the diversion of food crops for fuel will increase food prices, putting a strain on the poor, as evidenced by the recent steep rise in maize and sugar prices, the report said.
"Liquid biofuel production could threaten the availability of adequate food supplies by diverting land and other productive resources away from food crops," it said, adding that many of those biofuel crops require the best land, lots of water and environment-damaging chemical fertilizers.
While bioenergy crops can create jobs in impoverished rural areas where the bulk of the world's poor and hungry live, creating biofuels favors large-scale production, meaning small-scale farmers could be pushed off their land by industrial agriculture.
It suggested that farm co-ops, as well as government subsidies, could help small-scale farmers compete.
Such concerns have been raised by Greenpeace International and other environmental groups worried that the biofuel fad is being driven by big agricultural interests looking for new markets.
"More and more, people are realizing that there are serious environmental and serious food security issues involved in biofuels," Greenpeace biofuels expert Jan van Aken said. "There is more to the environment than climate change," he said. "Climate change is the most pressing issue, but you cannot fight climate change by large deforestation in Indonesia."
Individual U.N. agencies have previously issued small-scale reports on biofuels, but they were largely optimistic and did not highlight negative consequences because they were not yet known, said Gustavo Best, vice chair of U.N.-Energy and a biofuels expert at the Rome-based U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization.
But with the surge in interest by the private sector, the rise in commodity prices and an awareness of the strain on water supplies that has resulted from biofuel production, "we now have to raise the red flags and say 'be careful, don't go too fast,'" he said in an interview.
"There are winners and losers," he said.
That the report exists is something of a miracle, since there has long been opposition among U.N. member states — including OPEC, nuclear and other energy lobbies_ to have any kind of international dialogue on energy. There is for example, no U.N. Millennium Goal for energy, and recent U.N. working documents on sustainable development continue to be very fossil-fuel oriented, Best said.
The document is intended for governments to help them craft bioenergy policies that maximize the potential but minimize the negative impacts — even as the technology continues to change.
"We can't cross our arms and wait to have better data or better methodologies," Best said. "We need to contribute to the discussion, but in a balanced way."
Well you can jump in your bio-fueld car and run down to Mickey D's and pay $22 for a hamburger!!!!!! Everything that we eat will go through the roof. Bio fuel is a real bad idea!!!!!!!!!! The problem is the people in power that want to eliminate the middle class will shove them down our throat.
So, Do we drive to the END of the World on Bio Fuel or Diesel..
???
Wheres my Bycicle.. ?
I am not sure what to think yet about bio diesel. But have a couple observations:
- Once upon a time the nations that became OPEC were some of the poorest nations on Earth. Then oil became a highly profitable business and companies found oil in those countries. Companies went in and set up their oil infrastructure and the standard of living and modern conveniences available went up dramatically for many if not most of the people. I suspect that if bio fuel became the primary fuel, companies would take irrigation and farming equipment, fertilizer, seed and farming expertise to impoverished places all over the world that have land that can be irrigated into fertile land. Their economies will grow, the standard of living will go up and starvation will go down.
- Whether it is 20 years from now or a 100, one day fossil fuels will run out. Everybody better hope that somebody has worked out alternatives that are renewable and meet the need. Whether I agree with any given approach or not, I applaud those who are trying.
. I suspect that if bio fuel became the primary fuel, companies would take irrigation and farming equipment, fertilizer, seed and farming expertise to impoverished places all over the world that have land that can be irrigated into fertile land. Their economies will grow, the standard of living will go up and starvation will go down.[/li][/list]
I like the way you think but it will not work that way. The best real life example I can give of this is the farmers who grow coca and poppys. They are farming the highest dollar valu crops in the world. They may make a few pennies more than thier neighbors but the money is not trickling down to them. They are still poor subsistance farmers.
The same will be true if they are growing bio fuels. It will be legal and on a massive scale but the poor will never see the money.
Quote from: jjrbus on May 08, 2007, 08:00:41 PM
I like the way you think but it will not work that way. The best real life example I can give of this is the farmers who grow coca and poppys. They are farming the highest dollar valu crops in the world. They may make a few pennies more than thier neighbors but the money is not trickling down to them. They are still poor subsistance farmers.
The same will be true if they are growing bio fuels. It will be legal and on a massive scale but the poor will never see the money.
Well, there is the big difference of who is employing them - drug cartels or legitimate employers. Again I would point out Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Iran and even Iraq as real world examples of what happens to the standard of living for the culture as a whole when legitimate companies bring employment to a region. I'm not saying the farmers will get rich. I'm not saying that it will cause cities to flourish with 3 bedroom homes and multicar families. Farming is not a source of wealth for the workers. But it does help to build infrastructure and is employment and it is better than sitting on the ground in front of a grass hut starving to death. Further, even though the primary reason for the crops would be for fuel, once they have the ability to grow crops, they will grow for food as well.
Drug cartels, oil company's= same thing! Most of the worlds fertile land is already under production. The infrastructure is already there to transport the goods to market. In country's where crops are mass produced, farmland will be diverted from edible to fuel rich crops thus depriving poor country's of food. For the 2006/7 season the US exported 27.5 million metric tons of wheat (that is just wheat there are others)
Much of that is sold some is given to poor country's. Converting to fuel crops will affect our trade balances with the rest of the world. Also depriving poor country's of much needed food.
Changing to fuel crops will end our bountiful surpluses and drive up the cost of food. Canada has managed to become a fuel exporting country, we can buy Canadian fuel for less money in the US than they can in Canada? Why? Oil company's=drug cartels. If they want to keep the price up at home to curb consumption, why are they exporting it?
I'm really cynical and do not trust "them" whoever they are with our food supply.If we want to use food for fuel we should tell the Arabs that a bushel of grain costs a barrel of oil!
Quote from: jjrbus on May 09, 2007, 07:54:37 AM
... we should tell the Arabs that a bushel of grain costs a barrel of oil!
On this point I agree fully! ;) I don't think we will ever see it happen though. :(
Right on High Tech!!! Your analysis is quite good.
I have no stake in the future (after I'm gone) except that I care about other people. If I had kids and a blood line to be concerned with, I would probably push a little harder. But as it stands, I would just like to see world progress smoothly and we HAVE to start getting away from oil. And like you, I stand up and applaud anyone striving towards that end. They are the pioneers and adventurers. They don't get near the credit they deserve. Just grief from short sighted people who don't care.
"If ya can't help them, at least don't hinder them".
Chaz
what nobody touches on on the bio fuel:
in the US, if all farmland was used for BioFuel crops and not for food it would not come close to meeting the demand for fuel in the US. then what are we going to use for food crops? not to mention the increased fuel cost to grow and transport these fuels which by the way have a limitied shelf life.
now if we look elsewhere in the world...the 10 billion Chinese or whatever they are up to now.....used to ride bicycles......now they have cars. Same goes for alot of third world countries.
Non Polital correct thing......stop interviening in others wars and let them kill themselves off like in the old days.
Stop giving food and $$ to this group or that group of foreign nationals.
Also: Mandate us of public transportation...outside of a few cities in the US these systems are very underutilized. For instance Harrisburg, PA...has a huge fleet of buses which often drive around empty or with one or two passengers......while almost every State worker ( Harrisburg is the capitol) drives there car to work.....the tear down blocks at a time every year or so to increase parking for stateworkers, and steet parking is scarce for the public........Answer.......State stops paying for employee parking......they will start taking the damn bus once they are paying 20.00 a day to park
Furthermore, we are all driving big fuel hogs...be it bio or dino and I bet very few of us are driving around little hybrid cars.
I think as long as your driving anything that gets less than 10 mpg unless your hauling around a truckload of items for hire or a load of 40+ people.....your a Hypocrite.
Quote from: tekebird on May 09, 2007, 12:18:03 PM
I think as long as your driving anything that gets less than 10 mpg unless your hauling around a truckload of items for hire or a load of 40+ people.....your a Hypocrite.
I disagree. I don't think most of us here are hypocrites.
- If we were driving our buses for our own use and demanding that everybody cut back on consumption (i.e. mandating public transportation), then that would be hypocritical.
- A celebrity riding in their personal bus or private plane several days per week while telling everybody else they should cut back to one square of toilet paper per bathroom visit is a hypocrite.
- A busnut that drives a high economy hybrid to work isn't a hypocrite, but they are like a person who king sizes their Triple Whopper w/cheese meal with diet coke reasoning that the diet coke offsets the calories in the rest of it.
- A busnut who advocates the development of alternative fuels isn't a hypocrite unless they are demanding that everybody else change while they continue to burn 5 miles per gallon for the fun of it.
Damn Tekebird........... I guess you really are for real!! :-\
I've read some, if not most, of your posts and more often than not, had a hard time figuring you out. NOW, I am SURE your reasoning mind has been using multi-grade oil instead of the good straight weight stuff. Dude, things aren't black and white. But your 3rd and 4th paragraphs have a little truth in them. I will give you credit there.
Thanx Hightech. I can only sit here and shake my head.
Chaz
Let me dig up that study with the figures on bio fuel feasbility I saw......forget what Ivy leauge school it came from........now it did not doubt the benefits only that large scale use of B Fuels is not sustainable from an economic standpoint.
Just last week there was a 60 minutes type show that touched on this...it was a special about the 20 biggest lies falsehoods misconceptions......it also had some highly educated folks that said the same thing.....
With that all said, In 1 year I will give a report on the feasbility I find......as I am being paid to manage a year round daily use coast to coast tour with a Bio D bus...which may also get an Aux SVO system.
Also I will give feedback in 1 week or so as to the performance differences between B100 and Dino after an 900 mile shakedown cruise.
lets dig out that 1960's Nuclear Reactor powered Bobber technology the Air Force was working on......then all we will have to worry about is Dumb @$# Drivers, crashing and having their car/truck..etc melt down in suburbia
Quote from: tekebird on May 09, 2007, 12:18:03 PM
Furthermore, we are all driving big fuel hogs...be it bio or dino and I bet very few of us are driving around little hybrid cars.
I own two vehicles: a VW Golf TDI (diesel) and a Dina bus. The VW Golf gets 38 to 40 MPG in mixed city/highway driving.
I owned the Golf several years before I bought my bus and driving the Golf is not an attempt to make up for owning and driving a bus.
Teke, as usual alot of great points.
We should not add parking for additional state workers but rather limit the size of Gov't, but that is another thread.
What I believe we need is:
1. Get Nuclear energy in full production, & look at additional plants.
2. Get the EPA out of the oil refineries way and increase refinery production, increase the number of refineries within the US. ( 1981 324 refineries- 1995 134 operating refineries)
3. Limit the number of grades of fuel within the states. This would reduce downtime to change the refinery over, reduce the duplicity of storage tanks specific deliveries.
This from a simple boy for W Va.
Gary