Biofuels a Crime against Humanity?

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by madanthonywayne, Apr 15, 2008.

  1. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    As food prices continue to rise all over the world, causing shortages and riots in some areas, many are questioning the wisdom of diverting food crops to produce fuel. I, personally, would strongly question the wisdom of subsidizing corn ethanol in the US and mandating its use.
    Environmentalists always act as if there is no opportunity cost imposed by their recommendations As we see here, there is a huge cost imposed. Just this one little part of "fighting global warming" already has people starving and rioting in the streets.

    Most of these biofuels are a complete waste of money and don't even really benefit the enviroment in any way. It's utterly absurd.

    Personally, I'm more concerned about the world being destroyed by an asteroid than global warming. I mean, global warming is on the list. It's just down there below asteroid impact. It's also way below feeding everyone. Way, way, way below that.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    mad i suggest you come to adelaide if you dont belive in global warming. Not only have we recently come out of a world record heat wave but have a look at the salinity levels in the murry river which are climing all the way back to where we take out our drinking water. Its getting to the point where i dont have to add much salt to make sea water because of it

    If you like i can give you a hydromiter reading to prove the point
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    I didn't say I don't believe it, I just don't think it's something we can do anything about at a reasonable cost. We have limited resources. As this biofuel situation illustrates nicely. When you dedicate resources towards one problem, something else goes wanting. You know, like the ability to feed everyone.

    Yes, the average global temperature MIGHT increase a degree or so over the next hundred years. This MIGHT disrupt the global climate in good ways or bad ways. It's pretty damned hard to tell. Previous periods of warming, like the Medieval Optimum, have been very good for humans with increased growing seasons and an expansion of the fertile zone. Greenland was actually green back then!

    So, we have this potential problem that might not even really be a problem even if the mechanism is correct. And in dealing with this far away and uncertain threat, we ignore immediate and certain threats. Poverty, starvation, unclean water, disease, the list goes on.

    Even a space monitoring system and the means to stop incoming asteroids would be, in my opinion, a better use of our resources than blowing our wad on global warming.

    Do sensible things, sure. Conserve energy as much as practical. That's a no brainer. The rising cost of oil is enough of an incentive to do that with zero government intervention. Research alternative energy sources. Of course.

    But don't subsidize inefficient sources of energy or mandate their use to the point that it actually causes us to use more energy, emit more CO2, and drives up the price of food so much that we have riots all over the world!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    oh good

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    a light hearted debate on the fate of the world

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    (no im not being sarcastic, i have been "debating" child sexual abuse up to this point)

    Your right that global warming wont be the end of life on earth, though it MAY well be the end of life AS WE KNOW IT. It could also mean the end of US which maybe concidered a good thing by biologists for instance but i guess that view depends on how much you like your life

    There IS however evidence of mass exstintions happerning NOW, already the great barrier reef is bleaching and so are other reef's around australia (to the point that the trade in australian anenomies (and there clown fish) has been stopped because there arnt enough left to breed

    So i guess it depends on wether you wish the earth habitable for us and the other creatures living here currently or for whatever branch of evolution pops up next
     
  8. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Are you claiming that these things are the result of global warming, or just human activities in general? I'm pretty sure I've recently read that the oceans are not heating up as expected under global warming theory.
     
  9. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    some of it relates to polutants in the water especially build ups of phosphates (which not only encorages algal growth but damages corals) but also tempriture

    I will give you an example from my own experiance growing corals. corals are very tempremental, they require EXACTLY 24C water, any change in that tempriture causes stress on the corals (fish can get away with some movement and can relocate in the ocean). Now you could say ok fine the corals will just start growing further down the coast but they cant because the water conditions arnt the same. For starters the light isnt the same as you move away from the equator and corals require REALLY strong lighting.

    Acording to some marine biologists the effects of global warming COULD be averted in the case of corals IF we can limit the other stressors on the corals so yes its a combination of factors. HOWEVER this is only if the change is a small one, if the water temp rises about 30C we are going to lose the reef i would guess as i dont think they could adapt fast enough to survive that sort of change
     
  10. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Did you see this? It's from NPR. If you read the whole article, it's hilarious how they consider every possibility EXCEPT that the earth may not be warming after all. Even when mentioning that his robots have actually showed the ocean temperature has dropped, he hastens to say, "but not really significant!!!!!!!!"
     
  11. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    mad the evidence is quite compelling. It could well be a case of the increased ice melt is FOR THE MOMENT stablising ocean temps in general (although i have herd from CSIRO that the waters around the barrier reef ARE warming). If this is the case then what happens when all the ice is gone?
     
  12. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    What about the thread topic? What's your opinion on biofuels? Especially when they're mandated and subsidized.
     
  13. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    i would like to see algie farms used to produce them rather than food crops, also rubish dumps cause also be used as land to produce them because soil contaminates wouldnt be a problem when the crops are to be used as fuel rather than food
     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I don't think you can blame government subsidies of agribusiness and expansion of industrial row crop GMO agriculture on "the environmentalists".

    If you try to cancel the agribusiness subsidies, maintain the CRP programs that idle marginal acreage, oppose the draining of wetlands and expansion of soybean plantings into the Dakota steppe, repeal the favorable water-use regulations, enforce prudent measures against overfertilization and erosion, cancel the tax breaks and incentives for abusive agribusiness practices, prevent the dumping of US crops in foreign countries and other destructions of local agriculture world wide, and so forth,

    you'll find the Sierra Club and similar folks on your side.
     
  15. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Really? Talk about strange bedfellows.

    Reminds me of something I heard on the radio today. Senator Lieberman was giving a speech at some meeting and Rush Limbaugh was in attendence.

    Lieberman commented that he never thought he'd see the day when he'd be kicked out of the Democratic party and be at a meeting trying to convince Rush Limbaugh to support the Republican nominee for president!
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Not so strange. Government support and subsidy for abusive corporate practices has been a pet cause of environmentalists since there have been environmentalists.
     
  17. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Corporations exist only because government created them, to fill the role of the aristocracy as democratic capitalism replaced feudalism. It can be argued that the very existence of corporations facilitates "abusive practices."
     
  18. Piyamaradu Registered Member

    Messages:
    5
    Its no secret that the huge amounts of money the U.S. sets aside to subsidize corn farming is not quite economical, and that the sugar-based ethanol produced by other countries is both more environmentally friendly and more economical than American corn ethanol - Not just ethanol, but in many products.

    Ever find it strange that there is corn syrup in so many American food products while in other countries it is consistently sugar instead (e.g. coca cola)?

    "The ethanol industry is like few others. It is sustained, just as it was nurtured, almost entirely by public spending. The corn ethanol industry wouldn't exist without billions of dollars in federal subsidies and artificial markets shaped by federal production mandates."
     
  19. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Everyone knows 1st gen biofuels like corn are very limited, we need 2nd gen cellulosic biomass and microalgea.
     
  20. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    Exactly, ElectricFetus. The production of ethanol from corn kernals themselves was never intended to be the final process. It is only a first step in setting up the expensive infrastructure, the alcohol refineries themselves. The plan is to use the waste biomass, such as the corn stalks, soybean stalks, etc. for future production of ethanol. The land will have a dual use, the corn and soybeans for food and the waste products for fuel production.

    In the short term, opposition and finger-pointing will arise if there is a severe shortgage of food in the world. Nations with starving populations could become angry with those countries that plant land with crops devoted exclusively for alcohol production. "My children are starving and you are wasting land that could grow food to put fuel in your SUV!" SUV has become a four-letter word and ethanol could also if world hunger increases greatly. It won't matter if the land is growing corn, sugarcane or sugarbeets, the land could have been used for food production and the finger of blame will be pointed at the most convienent target. Some will fail to understand that west must have fuel to get to work, power our workplaces and move our products so we can earn an income to feed our children. As China and India industralize, so will their dependence on fuel. Did anyone notice that China increased their imports of diesel fuel by 49% in March?
     
  21. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Why start production with a food product rather than a waste product? Wouldn't the cost be much lower if your raw material was stuff that presently had no good use? Or is the production process much more expensive when using waste biomass?

    I'd support funding for research (if it's needed) for the use of waste biomass, but I absolutely do not support subsidies.
     
  22. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    why yes, inky
    indeed i did notice

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Pilot cellulosic conversion factors are a new technology, subsidies are needed in order to get them build. If you don't support subsidies then stop subsiding the oil companies.
     

Share This Page