Europe's move to biofuels threatens rainforest

[Seta-San]

Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may create other problems
"In a bid to solve one problem, we risk creating another, and making things worse. Rainforest destruction is a major contributory factor in global warming and it would be ludicrous to promote this loss to slake our thirst for fuel," said Chris Davies.

Europe's dash for biofuels could accelerate the destruction of tropical rainforests, the European Commission admitted on Thursday.

The EU's executive arm said that the 27-member bloc's decision to increase tenfold its consumption of vehicle fuel made from crops by 2020 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would increase the pressure on virgin land, especially in Asia.

However, it said it was working on laying down minimum standards for sustainable fuels.

Chris Davies, a British Liberal Member of Parliament whose question elicited the response, cast doubt on the effectiveness of such a policy.

He said: "In a bid to solve one problem, we risk creating another, and making things worse. Rainforest destruction is a major contributory factor in global warming and it would be ludicrous to promote this loss to slake our thirst for fuel.

"Any certification scheme would have to be treated with the greatest suspicion. We haven't been able to halt the supply from rainforests of illegally felled timber so how can we have confidence that sustainability certificates would be worth the paper on which they are written?" There are no mandatory certification programs today.

As well as cutting consumption, Davies favors waiting until new technologies exist that would permit the use of plant waste such as corn husks. Researchers believe these are still a few years away.

The Commission said that it would accompany its biofuel legislation, expected next year, with binding measures to deter the clearing of forest or peat bogs for fuel crops such as palm oil and methods that are energy intensive. Though rape seed and other vegetable oils were more efficient, they would remain scarce, it said.

It said the huge spread of palm oil plantations – global production grew by more than 10 metric tons, 41 percent, in the last four years – was not driven by biofuel demand. That was just 30,000 tons in 2005, it said. However, the EU alone will require 30 metric tons in 2020, much of which will be imported.

Sustainable measures for biofuels will not prevent the slashing of forests for food production, said the commission. "Growth in demand for food and household uses as well as for energy can be expected to continue," it said.

Stavros Dimas, the environment commissioner, has warned of the dangers of the "wrong kind" of biofuels. Some use almost as much energy to produce as they save in burning. However, EU leaders last month made a firm commitment that biofuels should account for 20 percent of vehicle fuels by 2020.

global warming fear mongers need to just shut up. they will never be happy with anything less than a perfect solution which doesn't exist.

[shafeen]

Originally Posted by Seta-San

global warming fear mongers need to just shut up. they will never be happy with anything less than a perfect solution which doesn't exist.

they are right in one way because
1.forest clearance could occur as more and more people try to produce fuels
2.more farmers would be opting for biofuel production while sidelining food production which means food shortage

[Player-X]

Originally Posted by Seta-San

global warming fear mongers need to just shut up. they will never be happy with anything less than a perfect solution which doesn't exist.

Global warming fear mongers?

I think solving one crisis at a time would work, the most serious one right now is global warming, if they don't get that under control first there will be crop failures which would cause a food shortage anyway.

[Seta-San]

yes it's fear mongering when yuo overexhagerate the consequences of global warming. al gore is by far the worst fear mongerer in recent decades. not to mention he's a hypocrit since he asks everyone else to lower their carbon output by doing things like using $5 light bulbs but one of his mansions uses several times what a normal persons house uses. besides, omaha has nuclear power. the only carbon footprint i have is my car which is a 1993 Ford Escort which gets good miles/gallon anyway. Global warming has reached the heights of fear mongering and religous histeria. If anyone rejects global warming those people are treating like the people who claimed the earth wasn't the center of the universe. Live stock has a greater impact on global warming than anything and i'm not giving up my steaks anytime soon.

Originally Posted by Player-X

Global warming fear mongers?

I think solving one crisis at a time would work, the most serious one right now is global warming, if they don't get that under control first there will be crop failures which would cause a food shortage anyway.

[Player-X]

Originally Posted by Seta-San

yes it's fear mongering when yuo overexhagerate the consequences of global warming. al gore is by far the worst fear mongerer in recent decades.

Seriously you really think scientific papers are fear mongering, as soon as you show me evidence in the form of a peer reviewed scientific paper that global warming is not going to be bad for us I might give you some credibility.

Originally Posted by Seta-San

not to mention he's a hypocrit since he asks everyone else to lower their carbon output by doing things like using $5 light bulbs but one of his mansions uses several times what a normal persons house uses.

Just because someone's a hypocrite it doesn't mean that his ideas are always bad.

For one thing these "$5 light bulbs" are CCFL lights, if they carry the Energy Star logo it means that they are supposed to save around $35 only in energy savings over their lifetimes compared to regular light bulbs, they last up to ten times longer and by buying them you are support high-tech industry in the US.

Just to show you the math
A Regular light bulb is around $1 at Wal-Mart
CCFLs cost around $5 at Wal-Mart

You would need to replace regular light bulbs 10 times which means around $10 in the time before needing to replace a CCFL which is $5 you get the added bonus of not having a hot bulb in summer and you don't have to replace them as often.

When you pile that up with the electric bill you can see why I only use florescent lights in my house where possible it's more about money than the environment.

Originally Posted by Seta-San

besides, omaha has nuclear power.

Which only accounts for only 5% of the power in the US and that's not relevant, besides where are you going to store the radioactive nuclear reactor core parts after they are too old to be operational?

Originally Posted by Seta-San

the only carbon footprint i have is my car which is a 1993 Ford Escort which gets good miles/gallon anyway.

Anything you purchase will add to your carbon footprint due to transportation from the factory or farm to the store, there is a thing called the national power grid which means that the actual percentage of power that comes from nuclear reactors accounts for only 5% of your total power usage.

Originally Posted by Seta-San

Global warming has reached the heights of fear mongering and religous histeria.

Are you sure it's not the churches and Religious Right that is arguing against it despite the years of research?

Originally Posted by Seta-San

If anyone rejects global warming those people are treating like the people who claimed the earth wasn't the center of the universe.

Are you sure it's not the people who thinks global warming is real are treated as fools and lunatics by the people in the US such as yourself?

Originally Posted by Seta-San

Live stock has a greater impact on global warming than anything and i'm not giving up my steaks anytime soon.

Not exactly, while cow farts may be a source of methane but that carbon in those farts come from the biosphere so it does not greatly exceed the amount already present in the biosphere which means the actual impact is relatively small, burning fossil fuels is releasing carbon than has been locked underground for millions of years, that means that it is actuaily adding alot of "new" carbon into the atmosphere.

Not just the carbon involved there is also the issue of acid rain, even you can't argue that sulfur dioxide released by the burning of fossil fuels doesn't react with the water in the clouds and form sulfuric acid that comes back down as acid rain.

You are pro industry right?
Energy saved will mean more energy for industry and following the rules of supply and demand that would mean that there will be a larger supply of cheap energy which will drive industry forward.

The earth's atmosphere as a whole is not an open system.
Since you claim to be an atheist I assume that you believe that there will be no divine beings that are going to keep the environment in equilibrium forever, what do you think will keep it?

[Seta-San]

no; i think that movies like "the day after tomorrow" and "an inconvient truth" are fear mongering. not to mention your post proves my point when you whined about nuclear power. environmentalists and liberals will never be happy with using new technology unless it's a perfect solution... which there never will be. Until then the liberals are using this debate in order to help push a social and ideological view about our way of life.. it reeks of communism... it infact reminds me of a completely retarded bumper sticker i saw today that said "live simply so that others may simply live". If everyone were to "live simply" like that sticker says then it just means that you arn't buying as much, meaning factory workers arn't needed as much, meaning retailers arn't needed as much.. The world's economy relies on our extravagent lifestyle. If it weren't for it even more people would die and starve.. besides "reducing carbon emmissions" would only slow global warming, not stop it and in the mean time forcing dumb laws like the kyoto protocol would devistate economies.

[jonc2006]

Originally Posted by Seta-San

no; i think that movies like "the day after tomorrow" and "an inconvient truth" are fear mongering. not to mention your post proves my point when you whined about nuclear power. environmentalists and liberals will never be happy with using new technology unless it's a perfect solution... which there never will be. Until then the liberals are using this debate in order to help push a social and ideological view about our way of life.. it reeks of communism... it infact reminds me of a completely retarded bumper sticker i saw today that said "live simply so that others may simply live". If everyone were to "live simply" like that sticker says then it just means that you arn't buying as much, meaning factory workers arn't needed as much, meaning retailers arn't needed as much.. The world's economy relies on our extravagent lifestyle. If it weren't for it even more people would die and starve.. besides "reducing carbon emmissions" would only slow global warming, not stop it and in the mean time forcing dumb laws like the kyoto protocol would devistate economies.

its a conspiracy i tell you.

[Player-X]

I am seriously curious about where you get your information about the world.

Originally Posted by Seta-San

no; i think that movies like "the day after tomorrow" and "an inconvient truth" are fear mongering.

That's Hollywood making money, I find the idea of taking these movies "tin-foil hat grade" retarded, same goes for movies that uses terrorism as a theme.

Originally Posted by Seta-San

not to mention your post proves my point when you whined about nuclear power.

I am not whining as much as pointing out the flaws in your argument.

Originally Posted by Seta-San

environmentalists and liberals will never be happy with using new technology unless it's a perfect solution... which there never will be.

It's about the solution not being worse than the problem, nuclear power might be good but you will have the problem of nuclear waste and no one wants to put away that much radioactive concrete and hope that terrorists do not steal some and use it to make a dirty bomb.

Originally Posted by Seta-San

Until then the liberals are using this debate in order to help push a social and ideological view about our way of life..

[sarcasm]And we all know that conservatives never push agendas.[/sarcasm]

I am more concerned about it's long term economic impact.

Originally Posted by Seta-San

it reeks of communism...

Do you even know what is communism is?

Liberalism favors civil liberties while communism opposes it.

Originally Posted by Seta-San

it infact reminds me of a completely retarded bumper sticker i saw today that said "live simply so that others may simply live".

You do know that that's a libertarian idea and not a liberal idea right?

Originally Posted by Seta-San

If everyone were to "live simply" like that sticker says then it just means that you arn't buying as much, meaning factory workers arn't needed as much, meaning retailers arn't needed as much..

You put too much meaning into things, in this case it's just another version of "do onto others".

Originally Posted by Seta-San

The world's economy relies on our extravagent lifestyle. If it weren't for it even more people would die and starve..

Are you sure that is the case?

The countries where people starve are either under economic embargoes from the US or have been involved in the cold war like Afghanistan and the US didn't stabilize them after the war.

Originally Posted by Seta-San

besides "reducing carbon emmissions" would only slow global warming, not stop it and in the mean time forcing dumb laws like the kyoto protocol would devistate economies.

And now you admit that there is global warming and humans influence it, you might want to rethink what you just said, it's more about buying time than stopping it, besides I don't see places like California being "devastated" by environmental laws if anything it would create new high-tech industries based on following those standards and force existing industry to adopt a more efficient approach to manufacturing which would mean you will need more people to do the research into it and so therefore create more high-tech jobs.

[kinzuagolfer]

Originally Posted by Player-X

...burning fossil fuels is releasing carbon than has been locked underground for millions of years, that means that it is actuaily adding alot of "new" carbon into the atmosphere.

OK so these carbons have been trapped underground and what not...So by burning them brings them back to be released to the atmosphere...Won't they eventually make their way back to the earth to again become some sort of fuel? I would imagine that would be a slow process, but would occure over time.

[Player-X]

Originally Posted by kinzuagolfer

OK so these carbons have been trapped underground and what not...So by burning them brings them back to be released to the atmosphere...Won't they eventually make their way back to the earth to again become some sort of fuel? I would imagine that would be a slow process, but would occure over time.

Yes they would but the rate of release is much faster than the current state of the biosphere can handle and besides time required will be so long that even on the scale of a few generations the amount that is put back into the ground is too small to be significant.

[Fadingz]

Just look at the graph...I really doubt the CO2 escape into the space, the CO2 dissolve into water, and the CO2 turning into organic materials and fossils combined together can balance the CO2 produced from artificial combustions.
Plus, almost all of the rain forests are gone, which were the major factors on Earth to control CO2 concentration.
In addition, it's in exponential growth...which is even worse (though the 2005 to 2007 data, not in this graph, seems to be a bit more linear...good sign? )

[kinzuagolfer]

Well I came to the realization a long time ago that the human race will wipe itself and others out of existence.

[Fadingz]

Originally Posted by kinzuagolfer

Well I came to the realization a long time ago that the human race will wipe itself and others out of existence.

While some people are afraid that aliens or comet will hit/kill us...
I think your realization will come true before that happens

[Player-X]

Originally Posted by Fadingz

Just look at the graph...I really doubt the CO2 escape into the space, the CO2 dissolve into water, and the CO2 turning into organic materials and fossils combined together can balance the CO2 produced from artificial combustions.
Plus, almost all of the rain forests are gone, which were the major factors on Earth to control CO2 concentration.
In addition, it's in exponential growth...which is even worse (though the 2005 to 2007 data, not in this graph, seems to be a bit more linear...good sign? )

Natural non biological CO2 removal methods such as dissolving the CO2 in water only works if the water wasn't already carrying CO2, as far as fossilization goes you will need lifeforms such as trees and animals to absorb the carbon and then bury them somewhere like deep underground where the carbon stored in their bodies will not just be re-released into the atmosphere by them rotting.

Contrary to popular belief planting more trees will not affect total Carbon levels in the biosphere in any meaningful way, however that is only because we cannot plant enough trees to act as a large enough carbon sinks with current technology unless we have a coordinated global effort to do so, I plant trees because they make my house nicer and help cool it down in summer and acts as a windbreak in winter as well as raising my property value.

Originally Posted by kinzuagolfer

Well I came to the realization a long time ago that the human race will wipe itself and others out of existence.

That would depend of weather it will spread out and make colonies on other planets or not, right now it's pretty easy to cause human extinction via nuclear war.

Despite what Seta think what I think it's more likely that global warming will just cause mass crop failure and famine that would lead to inflation due to elevated prices of food and threaten the US's position as a economic superpower, I don't want that to happen because I live there.

Originally Posted by Fadingz

While some people are afraid that aliens or comet will hit/kill us...
I think your realization will come true before that happens

At this point it's not vary likely that that will happen unless another superpower emerges and the US decides to be an enemy rather than a major trading partner.