Hello all, sincerely Swedish I have never heard of this article. Neither have I heard any of the conclusions in the article. The truth is that people driving flexible fuel cars fill with gasoline if the gasoline is cheaper than the E85 (15% gasoline, 85% ethanol). It is also true that the diesel car sector has been growing rapidly during the past years. But that was from a very low level, seen from European standards. How that can increase the CO2 is a riddle. The big CO2 cut is however in heat production. The heat power plants producing hot water for houses and flats are nowadays almost exclusively burring CO2 neutral fuels, such as waste vegetable oils. I do not think that the article has been published in Sweden, even though there are, even here, strong forces aiming to turn the energy consumption back to only fossil fuels and - in worst case- nuclear power. I suppose they are fighting that battle in other countries too.
Jan W ----- Original Message ----- From: "Darryl McMahon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 3:20 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Green Revolution Backfires: Sweden's Lesson for Real Sustainability > Something is rotten in the state of Sweden. Or not. But I do smell a > dead rat in here somewhere. > > We have studies from the U.S. that switching from petro-fuel to > electricity for transportation reduces emissions, including greenhouse > gases, even when the electricity comes entirely from coal-fired plants. > > However, in Sweden, the primary energy sources are hydro and nuclear > (over 90% of the generation from those two sources). Fossil sources > produce considerably less than 10% of the electricity mix. (This > document is a bit dated, but presents the information nicely in a graph > on page 2. > http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/doc/factsheets/mix/mix_se_en.pdf) > > So, Sweden is switching from conventional gasoline and diesel vehicles > to electric and plug-in hybrids, charging from a grid that is over 90% > supplied from essentially zero-GHG sources, but the emissions are going > up? And, the actual market penetration is still trivially small - I'm > guessing well below 1% of the total road-going fleet in the country. > Doesn't pass the smell test. Unfortunately, the article doesn't bother > to cite the evidence used to support it's conclusion. My suspicion: > the Swedish 'transportation sector' includes something other than > private cars that might be driving the numbers up (e.g., ships burning > bunker C crude). > > Actually, after a very limited Web search, I could not find anything > credible that looked like the 'evidence' for the article - just lots of > copy-cat items that also did not provide citations for the desired data. > > I did find this, dated January 2011: > http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/change-in-total-ghg-emissions, > which shows Sweden's transportation GHG emissions going up 9% from 1990 > to 2008. The catch is that Sweden did not get serious about EV > incentives until about 2008-2009, a time period not covered by the data > for this report. > > Here's someone else's response (found while searching for the 'evidence'). > > http://dagblog.com/link/what-if-green-products-make-us-pollute-more-10581 > (check > the comments by "quinn") > > Darryl > > On 11/06/2011 1:10 PM, Keith Addison wrote: >> http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/06/10-3 >> >> Published on Friday, June 10, 2011 by CommonDreams.org >> >> The Green Revolution Backfires: Sweden's Lesson for Real Sustainability >> >> by Firmin DeBrabander >> >> What if electric cars made pollution worse, not better? What if they >> increased greenhouse gas emissions instead of decreasing them? >> Preposterous you say? Well, consider what's happened in Sweden. >> >> Through generous subsidies, Sweden aggressively pushed its citizens >> to trade in their cars for energy efficient replacements (hybrids, >> clean diesel vehicles, cars that run on ethanol). Sweden has been so >> successful in this initiative that it leads the world in per capita >> sales of 'green cars.' To everyone's surprise, however, greenhouse >> gas emissions from Sweden's transportation sector are up. >> >> Or perhaps we should not be so surprised after all. What do you >> expect when you put people in cars they feel good about driving (or >> at least less guilty), which are also cheap to buy and run? >> Naturally, they drive them more. So much more, in fact, that they >> obliterate energy gains made by increased fuel efficiency. >> >> We need to pay attention to this as GM and Nissan roll out their new >> green cars to great fanfare. The Chevy Volt, a hybrid with a >> lithium-ion battery, can go 35 miles on electric power alone (after >> charging over night, for example), and GM brags on its website that >> if you limit your daily driving to that distance, you can "commute >> gas-free for an average of $1.50 a day." The Volt's price is listed >> at a very reasonable $33K (if you qualify for the maximum $7500 in >> tax credits). The fully electric Nissan Leaf is advertized for an >> even more reasonable $26K (with qualifying tax credits, naturally). >> What a deal-and it's good for you, too, the carmakers want you to >> know. As GM helpfully points out on its website, "Electricity is a >> cleaner source of power." >> >> Sweden is a model of sustainability innovation, while the US is the >> most voracious consumer on the planet. Based on Sweden's experience >> with green cars, it's daunting to imagine their possible impact here. >> Who can doubt that they'll likely inspire Americans to make longer >> commutes to work, live even further out in the exurbs, bringing >> development, blacktop and increased emissions with them? >> >> In its current state, the green revolution is largely devoted to the >> effort to provide consumers with the products they have always loved, >> but now in affordable energy efficient versions. The thinking seems >> to be that through this gradual exchange, we can reduce our >> collective carbon footprint. Clearly, however, this approach is >> doomed if we don't reform our absurd consumption habits, which are so >> out-of-whack that they risk undoing any environmental gains we might >> make. Indeed, we are such ardent, addicted consumers that we take >> efficiency gains as license to consume even more! >> >> We need to address consumption fast because-news alert-the current >> consumer class on earth barely amounts to 1 billion people (if that), >> but 2 billion and counting eagerly wait in the wings. >> >> American industry hungrily targets the rising Chinese consumer class. >> For the sake of the planet, we better hope it doesn't get its way. >> Consider: China currently has a car ownership rate approximately >> one-sixth that of the US. If China achieves car ownership rates >> comparable to the US, that would put an additional 800 million cars >> on the road. And that's just China. Even if we somehow succeeded in >> making China's fleet super efficient, it would still be more than the >> planet can handle. >> >> Of course, cars are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to >> Chinese consumer dreams. They will also want more electronics, >> clothes, meat, processed foods-bigger houses. In short, we can bet >> that the rising Chinese middle class will want something close to >> what we have. And why shouldn't they? We have been showcasing our >> middle class comfort worldwide for years through our vast media >> exports. Everyone is betting, hoping-assuming?-that technology will >> eventually help us deliver the American dream worldwide with no >> environmental impact. But clearly, we may run out of planet by the >> time that day comes. Even the American dream in an 'energy efficient >> format' is likely too much for the earth to handle. >> >> If this is chilling-and it should be-you might wonder, what are our >> options? Justice demands that we cannot prevent, much less discourage >> the growing global consumer class from having the consumer goods we >> currently enjoy. Real change starts with us then, and I'm afraid to >> say, radical change is in order. We must figure out a way to consume >> less, which means driving less, shopping less, eating less meat >> (which the UN estimates is responsible for a fifth of all greenhouse >> gases), and conserving food and energy. This means essentially >> rethinking our suburban-sprawling, fast-food-gorging, shopaholic >> society. We must model for the world the changes we hope everyone >> will make to ensure a sustainable future. >> >> It's time to be courageous and think big about altering our >> lifestyle, values and future. The powers that be are reluctant to >> rock the boat with consumers, and have decided that leaving >> consumption habits intact as much as possible is the preferable >> option. They'd rather get us into electric cars, rather than out of >> our cars altogether. Well, we need more than half measures at this >> point. As Sweden proves, unless other more fundamental changes are >> made to our engrained consumption habits, half measures only dig us >> deeper in the hole. >> >> Firmin DeBrabander is Chair of Humanistic Studies and Associate >> Professor of Philosophy at the Maryland Institute College of Art. >> > > > -- > Darryl McMahon > Project Manager, > Common Assessment and Referral for Enhanced Support Services (CARESS) > > _______________________________________________ > Biofuel mailing list > Biofuel@sustainablelists.org > http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 > messages): > http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
