On Dec 1, 2:12 am, Christopher Calder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your neglecting to mention the millions of acres of rainforest that
> the Brazilians have burned down in the past few years in order to grow
> more sugarcane for ethanol. We need the rainforests because they are
> the lungs of the world, and burning them down releases so much CO2
> into the atmosphere it creates a carbon debt that will take decades or
> even centuries to repay. Ethanol production is the worst choice if
> you believe global warming is a real threat. The fact that the USA
> and Europe have pushed up the price of all grains and food products
> through biofuel production has given Brazil and other tropical
> countries a strong incentive to burn down even more acres of
> rainforest in order to grow more food, which would not be needed if we
> used our own crops to feed people instead of SUVs.
>
> The biofuel fiasco is a bandwagon to hell. It has driven up the price
> of food all over the world, and has literally starved to death
> millions of people globally. Every year the human race burns up the
> equivalent of 400 years worth of total planetary vegetation in the
> condensed form of fossil fuels. The idea that we replace all of that
> concentrated biomass energy by growing biofuel crops is not only
> ridiculous, it is the deadliest mistake of the 21st century. Biofuels
> are a disaster and a failure no matter how you look at them, and they
> are distracting us from the real energy sources: oil, natural gas, and
> the truly “green” energy sources, nuclear power and geothermal
> energy. Nuclear power is the only MAJOR way to slow global warming,
> and we can make synthetic gasoline and jet fuel using nuclear energy
> and CO2 sucked right out of the atmosphere. Nuclear power could also
> be used to make fertilizer from atmospheric CO2 and nitrogen. As
> farming and the fertilizer it requires currently causes more
> greenhouse gas release than all land, air, and sea transportation
> combined, the only way to address global warming is through nuclear
> energy as a main energy source, with geothermal energy being a smaller
> but very positive secondary source.
>
> An advanced, industrialized, heavily populated world needs highly
> concentrated energy that can be produced 24 hours a day, 365 days a
> year. Solar and wind power are inherently inefficient and expensive
> because they tap into natural energy sources that are far too diffuse
> and fluctuating to keep us all alive on this planet. How much solar
> and wind power can we generate on a still, windless night?
> Environmentalists should not use biofuels and symbolic but impotent
> energy schemes to kill off the human population through starvation,
> which is exactly what they are doing now. Human population can be
> controlled by birth control, financial incentives to have less
> children, and even mandatory limits on childbearing if all else
> fails. Intentionally starving people is not an ethical and
> compassionate way to keep global human overpopulation in check.
>
> SEE http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
>
> Christopher Calder
>
> On Nov 8, 10:08 am, Alexandre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Nowadays, due to the financial crisis and to global warming, there are
> > many people suggesting that it is the right moment to invest in the
> > development of environmentally friendly technologies. In this context,
> > investments in low-carbon solutions would be priority. I do not know
> > how realistic this idea is. New technologies usually take time to be
> > developed and the current crisis calls for investments that can
> > quickly generate new jobs and growth. However there are various
> > already existing eco-friendly technologies that can be adopted in the
> > short term. A good example of that is the successful Brazilian bio-
> > fuel model. In Brazil, nearly six million cars can use ethanol, from
> > sugar cane, as fuel. These cars are known as “flexible” because they
> > can run on a mixture of gasoline and alcohol, in any proportion (even
> > 100% alcohol). Most of the cars manufactured in Brazil nowadays are
> > flexible-fuel vehicles.
> > Besides, according to a national regulation, the Brazilian gasoline
> > has from 20% to 25% ethanol. Ethanol can be easily found in nearly 33
> > thousand gas stations in the country and accounts for more than 40% of
> > the fuel consumption of the brazilian cars.
> > The use of sugar cane to produce ethanol is also a smart choice. Sugar
> > cane produces eight times more energy per pound than corn, and even
> > its waste, the bagasse, can be used for the production of bio-based
> > materials.
> > PS: sugar cane is planted vary far away from the amazon rain forest.
> > There is no deforestation because of it, as some people argue.
> > Find a lot more information
> > at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil
> > ==========================
> > Alexandre Couto de Andrade- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The USA has a 54 cent per gallon tariff on ethanol imports and no
tariff on oil.
This cost US consumers about 10 cent per gallon at the pump, it's
estimated. But I am not sure that is a up-to-date estimate.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
