If you don't mind, I
would like to try. The following rebuttal was given on another list, with
slight changes. /Ernie
********************
Monbiot is clearly a very smart man, but he lacks imagination, the essential
ingredient for solving the impending energy crisis. Notice that he offered no
alternative solution.
About imagination-- The world seems to be deficient here, more inclined
to just list what's wrong with a particular idea. Most of our renewable
technologies are still very young and can be made much better, so of
course at this
point they are easy to fault.
Monbiot appears to subscribe to simple calculations involving "givens" like
the amount of fuel that can be produced per acre and the amount of
arable acres
on earth. From this, you are then able to conclude that the earth will not
sustain the current population. The conclusions do follow from the
assumptions. Maybe looking back can help us to understand the
future, if we will look
far enough--
I would contend that there are abundant evidences that the earth has been
overpopulated at times since at least 10,000 BC:
1. Large-scale species extinctions caused by man
2. Widespread hunger and famine
3. Complete exhaustion of energy supplies (trees were the first)
These overpopulation horizons have been pushed back repeatedly by
technological change--you could call that "imagination." (I confess
that the earth has
changed, often for the worse.) Some of the technological advances were:
1. Movement from nomadic hunter-gatherer to husbandry of land and
animals, starting around 10,000 BC (with some loss of natural
values)
2. Exploitation of new energy sources: coal, then oil, etc.
(with various forms of natural destruction)
3. Introduction of irrigation and soil maintenance (e.g., fertilizer)
(with further environmental destruction)
The book, "Ishmael," gives a compelling account of man's history of
exploitation. I think Ishmael's message was that man can only
survive if he learns
to become part of nature, living according to its laws. I think we
can satisfy
these laws without dying. Self-control is the fundamental answer, and after
that innovation.
As to the simple calculations in Monbiot's paper, they are based on current
/past practices of husbandry and energy use, and so are fatally flawed. For
example, did you notice that the calculation that was presented only
applied to
less than 5% of the area of the earth? (His reference to arable land.) The
other 95% of the earth's surface is still in a hunter-gatherer mode, or not
managed at all. (Seventy-five percent of the earth's surface is
under water and
in a desperate state due to mismanagement [e.g., hunter-gatherer], with about
90% of former sea life now destroyed.)
A logical next step is husbandry of the seas. Many environmentalists would
say we aren't smart enough for this, but I disagree with that negative view.
That is the situation on the "source" side of the renewable energy equation.
The consumption side of the equation holds equal opportunity for applying some
imagination.
Renewable energy was all man used for most of history, and you know we did
manage to get by. Further, we really don't need energy to heat our
homes. The
knowledge is available today to change to zero energy for heating. (I live in
a Utah house with no need for heat--other than sunshine.) Our free market
approach to energy use won't allow us to do better until most of the energy is
gone! We need to change that. Or, Nature will force a solution.
It is easy to see that we are just beginning to understand how to lower
energy use in transportation. Think about this-- if cars (weighing
2 tons) were as
efficient as heavy-duty trucks (weighing 30 tons) which presently get 7 miles
per gallon, then cars would be getting over 100 miles per gallon! And trains
are at least ten times more energy-efficient than trucks. If you think I am
exaggerating the potential, not so! I am currently driving a car (1.5 tons)
that gets 65 miles per gallon (highway, at 63 mph). I think I know how to
improve the efficiency of my current powerplant by nearly 50%--I
will build this
new engine if I can, but a lot of teamwork will be required.
My new engine will run best on biofuels such as biodiesel. How unfortunate
it would be if the helpers I need for the engine were to believe Monbiot and
not be willing to help.
If we would just move our scientists and best engineers that work on weapons
and space exploration to finding better ways to handle basic needs on earth,
the problems could be solved in short order.
There is much more to be said, but maybe I could save that for a later time.
Ernie Rogers
********************
Greg Clare said,
>
> hi hi
> George monbiot is a highly respected environmentalist and I don't think a
> rant like this is particularly constructive. Doesn't do the list much good
> really.
> More reason less aggression, you did make relevant comments in there
> somewhere.
> cheers Greg clare
> recycling chip oil in the deepest darkest marches of England
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 12:04 AM
> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...?
>
<Skipped this part>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Myles Arnott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 9:00 PM
> > Subject: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...?
> >
>
<Skipped this part>
>
> > >
> > > "Fuel for nought"
> > >
> > > The adoption of biofuels would be a humanitarian and
> > > environmental disaster
> > >
> > > George Monbiot
> > > Tuesday November 23, 2004
> > > The Guardian
> > >
> > > If human beings were without sin, we would still live
> > > in an imperfect world. Adam Smith's notion that by
> > > pursuing his own interest, a man "frequently promotes
> > > that of ... society more effectually than when he
> > > really intends to promote it", and Karl Marx's picture
> > > of a society in which "the free development of each is
> > > the condition for the free development of all" are
> > > both mocked by one obvious constraint. The world is
> > > finite. This means that when one group of people
> > > pursues its own interests, it damages the interests of
> > > others.
> > > It is hard to think of a better example than the
> > > current enthusiasm for biofuels. These are made from
> > > plant oils or crop wastes or wood, and can be used to
> > > run cars and buses and lorries. Burning them simply
> > > returns to the atmosphere the carbon that the plants
> > > extracted while they were growing. So switching from
> > > fossil fuels to biodiesel and bioalcohol is now being
> > > promoted as the solution to climate change.
> > >
> > > Next month, the British government will have to set a
> > > target for the amount of transport fuel that will come
> > > from crops. The European Union wants 2% of the oil we
> > > use to be biodiesel by the end of next year, rising to
> > > 6% by 2010 and 20% by 2020. To try to meet these
> > > targets, the government has reduced the tax on
> > > biofuels by 20p a litre, while the EU is paying
> > > farmers an extra ?45 a hectare to grow them.
> > >
> > > Everyone seems happy about this. The farmers and the
> > > chemicals industry can develop new markets, the
> > > government can meet its commitments to cut carbon
> > > emissions, and environmentalists can celebrate the
> > > fact that plant fuels reduce local pollution as well
> > > as global warming. Unlike hydrogen fuel cells,
> > > biofuels can be deployed straightaway. This, in fact,
> > > was how Rudolf Diesel expected his invention to be
> > > used. When he demonstrated his engine at the World
> > > Exhibition in 1900, he ran it on peanut oil. "The use
> > > of vegetable oils for engine fuels may seem
> > > insignificant today," he predicted. "But such oils may
> > > become in course of time as important as petroleum."
> > > Some enthusiasts are predicting that if fossil fuel
> > > prices continue to rise, he will soon be proved right.
> > >
> > >
> > > I hope not. Those who have been promoting these fuels
> > > are well-intentioned, but wrong. They are wrong
> > > because the world is finite. If biofuels take off,
> > > they will cause a global humanitarian disaster.
> > >
> > > Used as they are today, on a very small scale, they do
> > > no harm. A few thousand greens in the United Kingdom
> > > are running their cars on used chip fat. But recycled
> > > cooking oils could supply only 100,000 tonnes of
> > > diesel a year in this country, equivalent to one 380th
> > > of our road transport fuel.
> > >
> > > It might also be possible to turn crop wastes such as
> > > wheat stubble into alcohol for use in cars - the
> > > Observer ran an article about this on Sunday. I'd like
> > > to see the figures, but I find it hard to believe that
> > > we will be able to extract more energy than we use in
> > > transporting and processing straw. But the EU's plans,
> > > like those of all the enthusiasts for biolocomotion,
> > > depend on growing crops specifically for fuel. As soon
> > > as you examine the implications, you discover that the
> > > cure is as bad as the disease.
> > >
> > > Road transport in the UK consumes 37.6m tonnes of
> > > petroleum products a year. The most productive oil
> > > crop that can be grown in this country is rape. The
> > > average yield is 3-3.5 tonnes per hectare. One tonne
> > > of rapeseed produces 415kg of biodiesel. So every
> > > hectare of arable land could provide 1.45 tonnes of
> > > transport fuel.
> > >
> > > To run our cars and buses and lorries on biodiesel, in
> > > other words, would require 25.9m hectares. There are
> > > 5.7m in the UK. Even the EU's more modest target of
> > > 20% by 2020 would consume almost all our cropland.
> > >
> > > If the same thing is to happen all over Europe, the
> > > impact on global food supply will be catastrophic: big
> > > enough to tip the global balance from net surplus to
> > > net deficit. If, as some environmentalists demand, it
> > > is to happen worldwide, then most of the arable
> > > surface of the planet will be deployed to produce food
> > > for cars, not people.
> > >
> > > This prospect sounds, at first, ridiculous. Surely if
> > > there were unmet demand for food, the market would
> > > ensure that crops were used to feed people rather than
> > > vehicles? There is no basis for this assumption. The
> > > market responds to money, not need. People who own
> > > cars have more money than people at risk of
> > > starvation. In a contest between their demand for fuel
> > > and poor people's demand for food, the car-owners win
> > > every time. Something very much like this is happening
> > > already. Though 800 million people are permanently
> > > malnourished, the global increase in crop production
> > > is being used to feed animals: the number of livestock
> > > on earth has quintupled since 1950. The reason is that
> > > those who buy meat and dairy products have more
> > > purchasing power than those who buy only subsistence
> > > crops.
> > >
> > > Green fuel is not just a humanitarian disaster; it is
> > > also an environmental disaster. Those who worry about
> > > the scale and intensity of today's agriculture should
> > > consider what farming will look like when it is run by
> > > the oil industry. Moreover, if we try to develop a
> > > market for rapeseed biodiesel in Europe, it will
> > > immediately develop into a market for palm oil and
> > > soya oil. Oilpalm can produce four times as much
> > > biodiesel per hectare as rape, and it is grown in
> > > places where labour is cheap. Planting it is already
> > > one of the world's major causes of tropical forest
> > > destruction. Soya has a lower oil yield than rape, but
> > > the oil is a by-product of the manufacture of animal
> > > feed. A new market for it will stimulate an industry
> > > that has already destroyed most of Brazil's cerrado
> > > (one of the world's most biodiverse environments) and
> > > much of its rainforest.
> > >
> > > It is shocking to see how narrow the focus of some
> > > environmentalists can be. At a meeting in Paris last
> > > month, a group of scientists and greens studying
> > > abrupt climate change decided that Tony Blair's two
> > > big ideas - tackling global warming and helping Africa
> > > - could both be met by turning Africa into a biofuel
> > > production zone. This strategy, according to its
> > > convenor, "provides a sustainable development path for
> > > the many African countries that can produce biofuels
> > > cheaply". I know the definition of sustainable
> > > development has been changing, but I wasn't aware that
> > > it now encompasses mass starvation and the eradication
> > > of tropical forests. Last year, the British
> > > parliamentary committee on environment, food and rural
> > > affairs, which is supposed to specialise in joined-up
> > > thinking, examined every possible consequence of
> > > biofuel production - from rural incomes to skylark
> > > numbers - except the impact on food supply.
> > >
> > > We need a solution to the global warming caused by
> > > cars, but this isn't it. If the production of biofuels
> > > is big enough to affect climate change, it will be big
> > > enough to cause global starvation.
> > >
> > > End
