The tide turns against biofuels

[mphello]

How will biofuels grown from algae in ANY way hurt food supply?

Do millions of people eat algae?

I have ZERO tolerance for the hypocrisy of those who object to biofuels hurting food supply but who EAT MEAT and saying nothing about half our crops destroyed to feed livestock, and who say NOTHING about world overpopulation and stand in the way of anti-natalists who fight to reduce population humanely with birth control.

[mphello]

anoniab is just a paid propagandist by the Koch brothers.

What a TOTAL lie that he's "examined both sides". What a load of BULLSHIT.

The proof of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is stronger now than it was a year ago. Go to climatecrocks (dot) com or skepticalscience (dot) com to get educated.

[mphello]

The REAL evil is MEAT! Murdering BILLIONS of animals each year unnecessarily because selfish crybabies won't go vegan.

Meat is the BIGGEST waste and destroyer of crops. Half our crops are fed to livestock. Those crops could feed people DIRECTLY much more efficiently.

[anoniab]

You've not addressed one single concern I've raised, like the latex paint, nor the misplacement of the surface stations, nor the fact that it's been hotter in the past with lower CO2. If you want to discuss this further, then start addressing the problems with the theory of AGW. Until then I've no mor to say to you.

[anoniab]

Whether you believe the Bible or not is irrelevant, the Tower of Babel is an appropriate analogy to what's going on here.

[anoniab]

It is you that doesn't recognize the lack of consensus on the global warming issue; it is you that is being selective and are ignoring those that disagree. As per the IPCC, I prefer to examine evidence, not follow the high priests that are following one - I repeat, 1 set of data that has been grossly manipulated to mean whatever they want it to mean. I used to be a believer in AGW; I'm not any more. I've examined both sides; there's evidence enough to refute it.

[anoniab]

"The current consensus"

What "concensus"?

[anoniab]

"the only switch we're actually touching right now is the CO2 (and maybe methane from our cattle"

I don't think we have any more cattle than there were buffalo when the US was first settled. What about the herds of wildebeast, zebra, etc in Africa? Is their methane any different?

[anoniab]

It's not a switch because we don't have enough of an effect when 96-97% is created by something else. Trying to control the climate is man's new "Tower of Babel". Climate models don't work. You want to know what the climate is doing, read the Iowa report on the last 10 years - and if I recall correctly, there are other states with similar studies that show they are also cooling.

[anoniab]

We will not have a "runaway greenhouse effect". You fail to see how well balanced the planet is.

The glaciers were melting faster in the 40's. Where you hiked won't be all rock for long if the ice stays gone. Take a look at the Muir glacier before and after. Glaciers advance and recede; always have. It's far from a catastrophe (unless you're living in the way of one that's advancing.)

[anoniab]

CO2 is not the "switch" - the sun is. And there is good reason to doubt we are warming - at all. Fix the surface stations - only use the ones that haven't changed specs in 30 yrs. Figure in the Siberian stations that went missing after '89. Then we'll talk.

About the water temp: it won't be uniform; it must get warmer than 0 for the ice to melt. We don't control the climate-it controls us - it determines what I set my thermostat on.

[anoniab]

"CO2 is the small thermostat switch that regulates the greenhouse effect on this planet. Man made or not, this warming must be countered by using the CO2 switch to the best of our ability"

It's only a small part of the equation, and it's not enough to make any difference.

[anoniab]

The whole thing is based on the idea that we are causing it. The problem is that it's NOT warmer than it was in the past, even though the CO2 is higher. Did you miss that? High CO2 amounts preceeded cooling in the past.

I never said natural meant good - but it does mean we have no control over it. The system is just too big. Anyone who thinks they can control the climate needs two signatures and a bed.

[anoniab]

"Like it or not, we have to start controlling the temperature on this planet"

No, we haven't. The .6 degrees is within the plus or minus range of error - Not to mention the other things like the latex paint, misplacement of the surface stations, etc. Warming is NOT uniform; it's NOT global. Some places, like Iowa, are getting cooler (and I'm not refering to the season or weather) A "global average of 59 does not melt ice where it's below freezing. More on that in the next reply.

[anoniab]

"we both grew feeding on the same materials and gases. It's very likely that the early atmospheres were similar"

No hobatu, you don't get it-You are making illogical assumptions that cannot be substantiated and not scientific. You cannot compare Mars and Venus to Earth - you have no case for "global warming" at all, because neither of those planets is inhabited, and both of them are warming just like earth allegedly is. There is absolutely no case for anthropogenic global warming.

[anoniab]

@hobatu I'm sorry, I should have been clearer: We don't know there wasn't that much CO2 on Venus to start with.

"What we know is that the CO2 levels are now higher by 38% then they've been in the warm periods of the past 2.1 million years" Hmmm - then why isn't it warmer than it was during the warm periods of the past 2.1 million years?

[anoniab]

@hobatu The thing is you don't know there wasn't that much CO2 there to start with.

[anoniab]

@hobatu - Would you look at what you're saying? "Our twin planet got caught in a runaway greenhouse effect" Caused by all the Venusians, I presume??? LOL!!!

[SPAGHETTIMONSTER1]

some guy was running a piston off the sun&, water, build them in the desert?

[cag66]

No one technology is going to be enought to solve this problem. Fusion if the technology is developed will only be affordable for rich countries, hemp still needs land to grow, solar and wind suffer from unpredictability, geothermal areas don't exist all over the world. The point is is that the technology already exists we just need to come up with a system that can utilise as many of them as possible.

[cag66]

The fact that biofuels increase food prices is a reality of trying to wean us off oil. Our lives are substidised by oil, i can't see how the cost of living will not increase as we wean ourselves off it.

[anoniab]

It is doubtful that humans which produce only approx 3% of the CO2, and that CO2 only makes up 3.8% of the atmosphere, are causing global warming (the number is .003) This has been going on long before the industrial age and as long as we are burning anything, we will be producing CO2. It's not what drives climate.

[withoutmercyuk]

Grow HEMP! Ethanol can be derived from cannabis, the trees are saved, the air is clean, the soil is perfect, the wildlife is cared for, it needs NO pesticides. It replaces OIL. Go on, run from the solution...and while your at it, run from the cure. I can think of 75,ooo reasons to use a herb that has a 10000 year GOOD, GLOBAL history. All most can think of is smoking it causes axe murderers. Who told you that??? Oh ya, dupont. Whos among those behind all this bio-fuel, wood burning, no food BS??

[kungfupat]

Amen!!

[cinetrope]

Check out a video called "Carbon Based Error" for an entertaining take on the issue of biofuel and it's impact on food supplies.

[mickeysears]

There is truly only one fuel that will supply the world with unlimited clean energy. It will never run out. It will be powerful enough to run everything forever. When we finally wake up and stop screwing around with all this stupid sun, wind, and bio crap, maybe we'll realize that the real future in energy is nuclear fusion.

[PhilMacD13]

Nuclear fusion isn't possible yet though, whereas Solar, Wind and Wave energy are. Fusion would be nice, but we can't rely on it for our current energy needs.

[mickeysears]

At the rate we're going, Fusion will never be possible. Federal funding has been all but wiped out. The Tocamack Fusion reactor funding has been shut off. France is building a Fusion Prototype at a cost of $25 Billion. But as for the country that uses the most energy in the world by far, we seem to know nothing about it and would rather give taxpayer subsidy to the oil companies for more drilling. For the cost of The Iraq War over oil we could have built 30 fusion reactors prototypes by now.

[tomgroenland]

we may not have fusion under control yet but we most certainly do have fission undercontrol. I still think that Fission is currently the best posible way produce Electical energy. Its clean, safe, and there is still more than enought fuil to get us to the point where we fully get fusion under control. Also the whole global warming/ carbon dioxide is going to be the end of the world thing is simply a crock of shit. Oil is still the best fuil for most other aplications. plus there is lots of it.

[1xfoo]

nuclear plants are giant make-work programs that aren't clean or safe. If you factor in mining the fuel (w/fossil fuel powered vehicles) and storing the waste (for hundreds of years in a refrigerated pool) it barely replaces the amount of energy put into producing it. All you've really produced is empty mines and radioactive waste. G.E. or whoever won't make them unless the government agrees to heavily subsidize it, cause its' not profitable to build the plant otherwise.

[RodrigueMoore]

Eu gostaria ver o dia que os estados unidos deixa importar o alcool brasileiro aos Estados Unidos. Os brasileiros tem um bom sistema de utilizar azucar em lugar de petroleo. Pra nos, a gente da Louisiana ê Texas, temos uma industria agricultura de azucar. Gostariamos de recever as subvençãos federais pela nossa industria tambêm como os do maiz. No tempo de esperar, precisamos ter um mercado aberto o "fuel" do Brasil. Precisamos tambêm importar a tecnologia brasileira do flexi-fuel.

[RodrigueMoore]

The entire world has most recently ganged up on the US, due to American dependence on oil, then America's war in the middle east, supposedly for oil, the US didn't sign Kyoto protocols on global warming and the world shouted with righteous indignation. But when the US starts using biofuels, which helps curb the very real phenomenon of global warming, this causes the world to gang up on the US yet again. Why should the workd be shocked that the US doesn't care if the world starves?

[RodrigueMoore]

Biofuels, such as corn ethanol, sugar ethanol, bio-diesel are all ways to help curb global warming, end US dependence on middle eastern oil, and stimulate the economy in places like Iowa and Louisiana. Of course, the US should end the import ban on sugar ethanol from Latin America, increase fuel efficiency standards on vehicles. Biofuels need to continue to be an option, and the US needs to mandate new flexifuel technology for new car models. ---

[RodrigueMoore]

I am very concerned about food prices and shortages. But alot of those issues completely independent of biofuels, and are in fact caused by global warming and drought. American farmers would be more than happy for markets to be opened up for food, but people expect the US to pay the farmers, pay for shipping the food and then essentially give it to the people all the while not displacing the local farmers. This is impossible. Farmers, like anyone have to make a living. ---

[justicenoapart]

I respectfully ask Mr Ben Wikler go to the white house and educate the man encharge of the US. He really needs a lot of help. By the way in going to US dont forget to stop in Brasil and educate also Lula with his ignorance and discasting decition to destroy the Amazon in pursuing biofuel.

[Edinaldo08]

The popularization of the Amazon is a necessity for Brazil. To understand this you have to go back to 1973 and 1979 oil crisis. At that time Brazil like most of developing countries were making loans to build infrastructure projects. Then, suddenly we had to make more debts to just buy oil otherwise the country would stop. Due to this or not the fact is that the interests rates arise tremendously and we, and a lot of other countries,

(cont.)

[Edinaldo08]

were in a situation that most of the world don't know since the 30's. For twenty years. Now the people that are used to work with in the agricultural sector wants land and they will get it one way or another. The cities are bigger than it should and it is good that they want to live in the country side. Let then go and develop the Amazon I say. They are growing food for the world not only for Brazil and this talk about lung of the world is pure bulshit.

[Edinaldo08]

"The lung of the world" are the oceans. Old trees don't grow and so they don't take much Carbon from the atmosphere. For each ton of CO2 took from the atmosphere there must be a ton of solid stuff. Where is the new solid mass of an old forest?

[Edinaldo08]

I think that in the imagination of the people of the richer countries the Amazon is like "The Island", the paradise untouched territory. Some place that they will never go to but they like to know that it is there.

well, in the real world it has been used to grow coke in the other side of the border and it will come to Brazil if we don't develop the region. Is that what you want? More idiots sniffing powder, stealing and making all kinds of stupid things?

[lastnymleft]

"Where is the new solid mass of an old forest? "

On the floor.

[Edinaldo08]

I can't decide if this NGO people are naive or insincere. First of all, the main reason for the rise of food prices is the price of oil (fertilizers and transportation), so, anything that diminishes the demand for oil should help.

Secondly, the rain forest has been replaced by soy crops and cows, not by ethanol culture. This soy is, in grand part, used to feed animals not humans.

[Edinaldo08]

There is more than 6 billion cows and another billions of chickens and pork. Stupid animals that consumes 100 or more food than they produce.

[justicenoapart]

I understand you defend your country decition to destroy the amazon, but I have news for you, you will also be affected by this; further destruction of the forest that produce oxygen for all to live. Other means should be seek such as alternative energy production just take a look to the northen countries in Europe. The increase price in oil is due to the purposed devaluation of the dollar by the US. They intended to pay their debt with devalauted dollars.

[blunt1984]

I knew this biofuel/ethanol thing was the biggest sham ever. Food is fuel for humans, NOT CARS!

[Rle8752]

The future lies in nuclear/solar power.

[ManilaRyceTLM]

minus nuclear

[hypnofan35]

If we need to use a ton of energy, it seems like we should strart using sunlight, wind, and wave capture. If we needed the big engine sound, we could digitally generate it and pipe it directly into the ears of anyone who wanted to hear it. We could put a sub woofer or vibration generator under the seat, and thus emulate a big ass gas guzzler without wasting a drop of gas. We have a system where waste tends to mean status or sense of purpose. How convoluted is that? President needs reeming!

[Visfen]

fuel cells is the future, hydrogen.