Biofuels harmful to environment?
- Thread starter Antsrcool
- Start date
Certainly we must use care as we transition away from fossil fuels.
It isn't as though there is a choice. Petroleum fuels are dwindling away at the same time as world demand is soaring from China and India.
Water:
Few people realize that refining gasoline takes water, about 8 gallons per gallon of gasoline (for cooling and hydrocracking). Corn ethanol takes about 3 gallons per gallon of ethanol (for cooling and fermentation).
Forest destruction:
We are destroying forests right now in Canada for Tar Sand oil and forests in West Virginia for strip mined coal.
I see similar articles to the one linked, in a variety of places. There is a bit of hysteria developing on this issue. The reality is that we must begin to use less energy overall through efficiency and conservation. In the end though, no matter how much we save, we will still end up needing to replace fossil fuels. Fossil fuels simply go away. Fossil fuels are not renewable.
It isn't as though there is a choice. Petroleum fuels are dwindling away at the same time as world demand is soaring from China and India.
Water:
Few people realize that refining gasoline takes water, about 8 gallons per gallon of gasoline (for cooling and hydrocracking). Corn ethanol takes about 3 gallons per gallon of ethanol (for cooling and fermentation).
Forest destruction:
We are destroying forests right now in Canada for Tar Sand oil and forests in West Virginia for strip mined coal.
I see similar articles to the one linked, in a variety of places. There is a bit of hysteria developing on this issue. The reality is that we must begin to use less energy overall through efficiency and conservation. In the end though, no matter how much we save, we will still end up needing to replace fossil fuels. Fossil fuels simply go away. Fossil fuels are not renewable.
BeetleGo
TDIClub Enthusiast, Pre-Forum Veteran Member
updated 10:24 a.m. EST, Wed January 23, 2008
Biofuels may threaten environment, U.N. warns
BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) -- The world's rush to embrace biofuels is causing a spike in the price of corn and other crops and could worsen water shortages and force poor communities off their land, a U.N. official said Wednesday.
Workers in North Sumatra pile up palm oil fruit, which can be used to make biofuels.
Speaking at a regional forum on bioenergy, Regan Suzuki of the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization acknowledged that biofuels are better for the environment than fossil fuels and boost energy security for many countries.
However, she said those benefits must be weighed against the pitfalls -- many of which are just now emerging as countries convert millions of acres to palm oil, sugar cane and other crops used to make biofuels.
"Biofuels have become a flash point through which a wide range of social and environmental issues are currently being played out in the media," Suzuki told delegates at the forum, sponsored by the U.N. and the Thai government.
Foremost among the concerns is increased competition for agricultural land, which Suzuki warned has already caused a rise in corn prices in the United States and Mexico and could lead to food shortages in developing countries.
She also said China and India could face worsening water shortages because biofuels require large amounts of water, while forests in Indonesia and Malaysia could face threats from the expansion of palm oil plantations.
"Particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, land availability is a critical issue," Suzuki said. "There are clear comparative advantages for tropical and subtropical countries in growing biofuel feed stocks but it is often these same countries in which resource and land rights of vulnerable groups and protected forests are weakest."
Initially, biofuels were held up as a panacea for countries struggling to cope with the rising cost of oil or those looking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The European Union, for example, plans to replace 10 percent of transport fuel with biofuels made from energy crops such as sugar cane and rapeseed oil by 2020.
But in recent months, scientists, private agencies and even the British government have said biofuels could do more harm than good. Rather than protecting the environment, they say energy crops destroy natural forests that actually store carbon and thus are a key tool in the fight to reduce global warming.
Some of those doubts were on display Wednesday at the U.N. forum, with experts saying many countries in Asia have rolled out plans to mandate biofuels for transport without weighing the potential risks.
Thailand, for example, is considering delaying the introduction of diesel blended with 2 percent biofuel for two months until April because of palm oil shortages, while the Philippines is considering shelving a biofuels law over concerns about the negative environmental effects.
India is facing criticism that its plans to plant 30 million acres of jatropha trees by 2012 for biofuel could force communities from their land and worsen deforestation. There are also concerns that it will be unable to find the 100 million acres of vacant land it needs to grow the shrub-like plants.
Varghese Paul, a forest and biodiversity expert with the Energy and Resources Institute in India, said dependence on a single species is dangerous.
"An outbreak of pests and diseases could wipe out entire plantations in one stroke," Paul said.
======
Just printing out the article and adding my own comment by printing "MAY" in red. It all depends on how we go to biodiesel, not if. This article points to the reasons why going there is a bad idea. I agree with those reasons, but they are not the ONLY ones to consider.
~BeetleGo
Biofuels may threaten environment, U.N. warns
BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) -- The world's rush to embrace biofuels is causing a spike in the price of corn and other crops and could worsen water shortages and force poor communities off their land, a U.N. official said Wednesday.
Workers in North Sumatra pile up palm oil fruit, which can be used to make biofuels.
Speaking at a regional forum on bioenergy, Regan Suzuki of the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization acknowledged that biofuels are better for the environment than fossil fuels and boost energy security for many countries.
However, she said those benefits must be weighed against the pitfalls -- many of which are just now emerging as countries convert millions of acres to palm oil, sugar cane and other crops used to make biofuels.
"Biofuels have become a flash point through which a wide range of social and environmental issues are currently being played out in the media," Suzuki told delegates at the forum, sponsored by the U.N. and the Thai government.
Foremost among the concerns is increased competition for agricultural land, which Suzuki warned has already caused a rise in corn prices in the United States and Mexico and could lead to food shortages in developing countries.
She also said China and India could face worsening water shortages because biofuels require large amounts of water, while forests in Indonesia and Malaysia could face threats from the expansion of palm oil plantations.
"Particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, land availability is a critical issue," Suzuki said. "There are clear comparative advantages for tropical and subtropical countries in growing biofuel feed stocks but it is often these same countries in which resource and land rights of vulnerable groups and protected forests are weakest."
Initially, biofuels were held up as a panacea for countries struggling to cope with the rising cost of oil or those looking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The European Union, for example, plans to replace 10 percent of transport fuel with biofuels made from energy crops such as sugar cane and rapeseed oil by 2020.
But in recent months, scientists, private agencies and even the British government have said biofuels could do more harm than good. Rather than protecting the environment, they say energy crops destroy natural forests that actually store carbon and thus are a key tool in the fight to reduce global warming.
Some of those doubts were on display Wednesday at the U.N. forum, with experts saying many countries in Asia have rolled out plans to mandate biofuels for transport without weighing the potential risks.
Thailand, for example, is considering delaying the introduction of diesel blended with 2 percent biofuel for two months until April because of palm oil shortages, while the Philippines is considering shelving a biofuels law over concerns about the negative environmental effects.
India is facing criticism that its plans to plant 30 million acres of jatropha trees by 2012 for biofuel could force communities from their land and worsen deforestation. There are also concerns that it will be unable to find the 100 million acres of vacant land it needs to grow the shrub-like plants.
Varghese Paul, a forest and biodiversity expert with the Energy and Resources Institute in India, said dependence on a single species is dangerous.
"An outbreak of pests and diseases could wipe out entire plantations in one stroke," Paul said.
======
Just printing out the article and adding my own comment by printing "MAY" in red. It all depends on how we go to biodiesel, not if. This article points to the reasons why going there is a bad idea. I agree with those reasons, but they are not the ONLY ones to consider.
~BeetleGo
RC
Top Post Dawg
I must admit to not reading these types of articles any more. Unless those who write them include the destructiveness of Petroleum Madness and offer real alternatives, there is really no need to waste my time.
lupin..the..3rd
Veteran Member
Conservation is pointless. There are 300 million people in the US. Whether we drive gas guzzling Expeditions or all ride bikes isn't going to make a bit of difference once India and China ramp up. There's 2.1 Billion people in those two countries combined and they're all chomping at the bit to get cars. There's talk of a $2500 car being sold for the Indian market. Their oil consumption will make the US's look like a drop in the bucket in just a few short years.
Lug_Nut
TDIClub Enthusiast, Pre-Forum Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 1998
- Location
- Sterling, Massachusetts. USA
- TDI
- idi: 1988 Bolens DGT1700H, the other oil burner: 1967 Saab Sonett II two stroke
Now that's a goal for which we should be striving!lupin..the..3rd said:
If the USA can't be the #1 world energy consumer, we can be #1 in energy consumption reduction.
It's half time. Now we're going to go towards the other goal post.
Sorry, I just can't agree that conservation in the world's largest user of energy is pointless. So what if we become #2 or #3 some day? Would you argure that conservation in today's #2 or #3 user of energy is pointless?lupin..the..3rd said:
Sheesh. Talk about "hey... preserve the status quo at all costs, even the suspension of reason".
If Americans would adopt wide spread car pooling for their commutes, we could drop the amount of oil we import (65%) by over half almost over night. Do you honestly think that if we suddenly dropped our trips to the filling station by half that it would have no effect on the price of gasoline? Or the amount of pollution from cars? Or the congestion on the roads? Or the time spent waiting in traffic?
What is pointless is to pretend that things can be the way they've always been; wasteful use of cheap and easy to get petroleum.
"destructiveness of Petroleum Madness and offer real alternatives, there is really no need to waste my time."
CLAP-CLAP-CLAP.
No need to follow the media that failed to acknowledge the 935 Lies that led to the Iraq war. The same media aided the lies by not questioning them.
And that denies to this day, that we're in Iraq for their oil.
What does the author believe the Indonesians are SUPPOSED to do?
Invade a weak oil rich nation to meet their energy needs?
That seems acceptable to our media.
Ignore them
Ignore them
Ignore them.
They're just selling newspapers. They don't care whats in it, as long as you buy it.
CLAP-CLAP-CLAP.
No need to follow the media that failed to acknowledge the 935 Lies that led to the Iraq war. The same media aided the lies by not questioning them.
And that denies to this day, that we're in Iraq for their oil.
What does the author believe the Indonesians are SUPPOSED to do?
Invade a weak oil rich nation to meet their energy needs?
That seems acceptable to our media.
Ignore them
Ignore them
Ignore them.
They're just selling newspapers. They don't care whats in it, as long as you buy it.
Last edited:
Lug_Nut
TDIClub Enthusiast, Pre-Forum Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 1998
- Location
- Sterling, Massachusetts. USA
- TDI
- idi: 1988 Bolens DGT1700H, the other oil burner: 1967 Saab Sonett II two stroke
East Timor? Oh, that's right. We didn't intervene when Indonesia invaded East Timor because the East Timorese have no oil fields, but Kuwait, about as far from a democracy as was tolerated, for them we intervened when Iraq reclaimed their 19th province. You know, the one that was separated off by the British for oil reasons.BioDiesel said: