Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Health & Wellness

Biofuels Could Kill More People Than the Iraq War

By George Monbiot, Monbiot.com. Posted November 10, 2007.


If the governments promoting biofuels do not reverse their policies, the humanitarian impact will be greater than that of the Iraq war.
Advertisement

It doesn't get madder than this. Swaziland is in the grip of a famine and receiving emergency food aid. Forty per cent of its people are facing acute food shortages. So what has the government decided to export? Biofuel made from one of its staple crops, cassava. The government has allocated several thousand hectares of farmland to ethanol production in the county of Lavumisa, which happens to be the place worst hit by drought. It would surely be quicker and more humane to refine the Swazi people and put them in our tanks. Doubtless a team of development consultants is already doing the sums.

This is one of many examples of a trade described last month by Jean Ziegler, the UN's special rapporteur, as "a crime against humanity." Ziegler took up the call first made by this column for a five-year moratorium on all government targets and incentives for biofuel: the trade should be frozen until second-generation fuels -- made from wood or straw or waste -- become commercially available. Otherwise the superior purchasing power of drivers in the rich world means that they will snatch food from people's mouths. Run your car on virgin biofuel and other people will starve.

Even the International Monetary Fund, always ready to immolate the poor on the altar of business, now warns that using food to produce biofuels "might further strain already tight supplies of arable land and water all over the world, thereby pushing food prices up even further." This week the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation will announce the lowest global food reserves in 25 years, threatening what it calls "a very serious crisis." Even when the price of food was low, 850 million people went hungry because they could not afford to buy it. With every increment in the price of flour or grain, several million more are pushed below the breadline.

The cost of rice has risen by 20% over the past year, maize by 50%, wheat by 100%. Biofuels aren't entirely to blame -- by taking land out of food production they exacerbate the effects of bad harvests and rising demand -- but almost all the major agencies are now warning against expansion. And almost all the major governments are ignoring them.

They turn away because biofuels offer a means of avoiding hard political choices. They create the impression that governments can cut carbon emissions and -- as Ruth Kelly, the British transport secretary, announced last week -- keep expanding the transport networks. New figures show that British drivers puttered past the 500 billion kilometer mark for the first time last year. But it doesn't matter: we just have to change the fuel we use. No one has to be confronted. The demands of the motoring lobby and the business groups clamouring for new infrastructure can be met. The people being pushed off their land remain unheard.

In principle, burning biofuels merely releases the carbon they accumulated when they were growing. Even when you take into account the energy costs of harvesting, refining and transporting the fuel, they produce less net carbon than petroleum products. The law the British government passed a fortnight ago -- by 2010, 5% of our road transport fuel must come from crops -- will, it claims, save between 700,000 and 800,000 tonnes of carbon a year. It derives this figure by framing the question carefully. If you count only the immediate carbon costs of planting and processing biofuels, they appear to reduce greenhouse gases. When you look at the total impacts, you find that they cause more warming than petroleum.

A recent study by the Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen shows that the official estimates have ignored the contribution of nitrogen fertilisers. They generate a greenhouse gas -- nitrous oxide -- which is 296 times as powerful as CO2. These emissions alone ensure that ethanol from maize causes between 0.9 and 1.5 times as much warming as petrol, while rapeseed oil (the source of over 80% of the world's biodiesel) generates 1-1.7 times the impact of diesel. This is before you account for the changes in land use.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: humanitarian issues, biofuels

George Monbiot is the author of 'Poisoned Arrows' and 'No Man's Land' (Green Books). Read more of his writings at Monbiot.com. This article originally appeared in the Guardian.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
This article is not factually correct
Posted by: Pojer on Nov 10, 2007 1:01 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are spouting many biofuel myths with these words.

All early cars ran on alcohol fuel, and Brazil is currently getting 8:1 energy returns and are going oil-free.

Oil Shale uses 99% more water to process than making moonshine, baby. We can have food and fuel - hell, there are 70 million acres of mesquite in the southwest US. Those pods are FULL of sugar - corn is hardly the only crop that can be used.

We could plant kelp farms and get the oceans working again while creating a harvestable fuel crop.

These aren't all the solutions, but to slam alcohol fuel is to cut your own options short when you aren't historically educated.

Unless you are and are ignorant of information. I suggest you take a look at www.alcoholcanbeagas.com and see what Dave Blume has to say about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» '...and get the oceans working again...' Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle
» This article is factually correct. Posted by: abbadon2007
Biofuels are a cruel hoax , as is hydrogen ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Nov 10, 2007 1:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Biofuels have been touted to increase subsidies to agribusiness and fool the public, there no scalable answers to the end of cheap oil.

The hydrogen economy is another myth promoted by the powers that be. There is no viable method for the production or transportation of cheap hydrogen OR the vehicles that would use it.

Energy will become ever more expensive each and every year until economies start to sputter then fail. Even a depression will only curb the appetite for the energy that will be ever more scarce and expensive.

The banking system will fail as loans are not repaid. Goods, especially food and gas prices will outrun salary increases for years maybe decades.

Our politicians have known for some time this was about to happen and they did nothing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

GREEN with food in your 4x4
Posted by: richholland on Nov 10, 2007 2:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Europe the SHELL oil company in collaboration with the Europarliament investigates in producing biodiesel from NONFOOD material; i.e. wood and HEMP.
Only fascists and creepy monsters will spoil food in their cars,

The target is 15% bio, 85%Diesel for everyone around 2030.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Once again the point is missed...
Posted by: djnoll on Nov 10, 2007 3:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I read this article, and then the posts, I realized that either I am getting the wrong message from the article or the other posters were. It is not about ethanol as another fuel (which still requires some oil for effective use today, by the way), but rather the environmental impacts (more greenhouse gases), and the humanitarian impact of this kind of blind conversion.

Sustainability does not mean displacing people or leaving people to starve as you switch from food production to fuel production, it means finding a way to make it possible to feed people and create a healthy environment in which to live. The article is not stressing that the type of product to be grown for fuel, but rather the fact that people are being displaced from their homes by industrial ag groups who want to cash in on biofuels, or people who are being left to starve as their governments subsidize biofuel product production.

We will not solve the problem of global warming by going to new technologies or starving people or leaving them homeless or by cutting down forests to meet ag industry demands for more land. We will solve it by cutting down the use of our cars by demanding new rail systems; new energy plants for solar and wind; redesigning our priorities to encourage food production locally, not new residential developments; recreating neighborhoods and communities where we can walk or bike to our jobs, our schools, our stores; and by saying "NO" in loud voices to practices that leave people to starve or homeless to satisfy company bottom lines or our lust for our cars.

http://www.standanddeliveramerica.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Once again the point is missed... Posted by: SatanicJamboree
If we're going to use ethanol...
Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle on Nov 10, 2007 5:10 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...the first to be converted should be all the booze and beer. Let it fuel cars, not car crashes.

Sole exception: champagne for New Year's Eve and wedding receptions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Mad mother? Posted by: colinmeister
» Nope. Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle
» RE: If we're going to use ethanol... Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle
» I was trying to think of that name. Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle
Here is a better alternative --
Posted by: TarryFaster on Nov 10, 2007 6:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
International Energy Launches 'Algae to Oil' Initiatives
9:15a ET November 5, 2007 (Business Wire)
Pursuant to a recently signed collaborative research agreement, International Energy, Inc. (OTCBB: IENI) is pleased to announce that it has launched its "algae to oil" research and development initiatives.

International Energy is working to develop advanced biotechnology protocols for enhanced growth and biofuel productivity based entirely on the photosynthesis of algae, which have the unique capability of taking a waste (zero-energy) form of carbon (CO(2)) and converting it into a high-density liquid form of energy (natural oil). As a result, algae have emerged as one of the most promising sources for biofuel production.

In contrast to food crops or cellulosic materials, certain algae produce and accumulate oil naturally and can, in the process, clean up waste by absorbing and utilizing nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide, aiding in carbon sequestration and the mitigation of climate change.


International Energy employs proprietary microalgae that naturally photosynthesize carbon dioxide (CO(2)) and water (H(2)O) to liquid hydrocarbons, and accumulate up to 30% of their biomass in the form of biofuels, the renewable equivalent of petroleum.

Hydrocarbons produced from the photosynthesis of unicellular algae offer advantages in the production, storage, and utilization of renewable biofuels, as they can be harvested easily, stored in liquid form and do not require special containment systems. Additionally, the process of industrial scale algae growth in photo-bioreactors is non-toxic, non-polluting, can be scaled up and offers a renewable energy supply.

"With the capacity to produce oil naturally and needing little more than sunlight and carbon dioxide to flourish, algae may well be the antidote to depleting fossil oil reserves and growing concerns about increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide," states Mr. Harmel S. Rayat, a director of International Energy.

Mr. Rayat continues, "Algal biofuel production may also be what's needed to meet President Bush's goal of replacing 20 percent of US gasoline consumption by 2017, mostly by producing 35 billion gallons of renewable fuels. Compared to an acre of corn, which can generate around 300 gallons of ethanol each year, an acre of algae has been estimated to produce upwards of 5,000 gallons of biofuel annually."

Click here for additional information.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree with djnoll
Posted by: sausage on Nov 10, 2007 7:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The point of George Monbiot's essay is this:" Biofuels aren't entirely to blame ..." but governments in Developed Nations are using them to sidestep other measures to ameliorate the worst effects of global warming. In fact I feel that the earth has gone past the point that global warming can be halted and the best we, as a global community, can hope for is mitigating the worst effects.

I live in what is purported as one of the world's breadbaskets. However for the last sixty years farming childern leave the farms, go to college and settle in the cities; their parents age, retire and the kids sell the farm to corporate agriculturist. End of story. We in the Midwest like to maintain the myth that a corporate agriculturist is a "family farmer." Moreover urban sprawl is most pronounced in the United States' Midwest because it's easier to build crackerbox houses on once productive corn and soybean fields located close to our urban areas than rehabiliate the inner city. Every time I drive by housing developments that just ten short years ago had been corn fields I think, "I can't eat that." For even though the Farm Bureau, the land grant ag-schools, state and federal agriculture departments say that farm productivity is up, there's fewer acres under production and more under foundations.

The reality is that there are too few people actually involved in agriculture in the Developed World, I'd say especially the United States. When it comes to growing food crops I'd daresay a vast majority of Americans wouldn't know where to stick a radish seed if their life depended upon it.

Conversely it seems that many "Third" World nations have too many people living on too little arable land. The sorry irony is that in some of the world's hungriest nations religious fanatics are encouraging starving farmers to f*ck for Jesus or Allah. At least the Chinese government has had the foresight to not abandon its one child policy. American "pro-life" fanatics, they of the f*ck for Jesus crowd, may denounce the Chinese policy for its dependence on abortion, but I think the Chinese know what's best for them.

Anyone who has read Jared Diamond's 2005 book Collapse comes away with the message that saving a society from enviroment collapse occurs from either the top down or the bottom up. And right now, at this time in world history, the top apprears to be brain dead. However the sad fact of global warming is that it is so monsterous that individuals, no matter what they do, can have very little impact. It will take the concerted will and effort of truly deomcratic, people's governments to moderate the coming global disaster.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HEMP !!!!!!!!
Posted by: garry minor on Nov 10, 2007 7:44 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
HEMP is the answer. If you don't believe me check it out for yourselves! Everything made from oil, coal, cotton, or timber can be made better and ecologically friendly with kaneh bosm, cannabis, haoma, hemp!
FOOD, FUEL, SHELTER, MEDICINE, PLEASURE, SPIRITUALITY, UNITY!
THE TREE OF LIFE!!!
www.thc.ministry.org
http://time4hemp.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: HEMP !!!!!!!! Posted by: vasumurti
» RE: HEMP !!!!!!!! Posted by: MyLeftFoot
Hungry in the abstract
Posted by: zeofredo on Nov 10, 2007 9:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can believe the concerns about the different harm biofuels will cause. We're simply trading one set of troubles for another.

If we take a wider look at this situation, it's a great illustration of how we are estranged from vital, important things in our lives. It seems that our ambition to escape farm work and necessary toil (understandable given the conditions in pre-industrial times) has outrun the point where we even acknowledge the significance of having a decent supply of nutritious, naturally derived food. Now the lure of incessant movement has trumped the importance of sustenance, at least so long as it can be deferred to far-off countries and peoples.

I don't hear too many business class travelers expressing concern, nor are the sun-seeking Northerners who travel 6+ times a year about to call it a day. As long as we subsidize such patterns of living, the pressure brought to bear on equatorial climes will not relent.

I still get on my bicycle regularly (just waiting now for the public transit to improve so I can enjoy the night life like regular people do!); I prefer that bio fuels be processed by me, in my belly, whose great appetite is still nothing like a 4 cylinder engine...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why is this article placing all the food shortage blame on bio-fuels?
Posted by: justic2776 on Nov 10, 2007 9:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't understand this narrow view. Why is the bio-fuels front and center, to the cause of starvation and food shortages.
The number one cause to the massive food shortages that will be leaving up to 2 billion people starving is over-population.
In a Iceland report(forget the name of the soil organization) it is soil degradation and desertification (the true silent crisis) because of unsustainable farming practices, which include the above mentioned article but is not limited to it as the cause. The green revolution has contributed a great deal to the elimination of soil diversity needed in order to keep crops growing, using petroluem and pestisides has killed off those nitrogen fixers, helpful bacteria, local wildlife and vegatation, and contaminating water. Also poor irragation practices has over saturated soils making them salty and incapable of growing crops. What about droughts caused by global warming? Floods? can't grow food crops where there is no water or to much! There is alot to still be said in way of bio-fuels as every country tries to find a quick fix until something more sustainable comes around but, it is not the end all of evil. The corporations certainly are very guilty of bad farming practices that "contribute" to the whole problem and it is not limited to bio-fuels.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oddly enough, the article draws logical conclusions. Flawed analysis, but good conclusions.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Nov 10, 2007 10:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Primarily, that if the bio-fuel industry was such a good idea, it wouldn't need massive taxpayer-funded subsidies to remain a viable business model. Oh, and also that we the taxpayers shouldn't be in the business of propping up bio-fuel initiatives and other such jobs programs.

But the author misses the larger point: Western (and to some extent Far Eastern) agricultural subsidies do more to harm agriculture--PEOPLE--in the third world than bio-fuels could ever do. And then the author goes to Pluto re: economics, because converting every hectare of arable land in the U.S. (which would offset a whopping 12% of our thirst for gasoline) would increase the price of food crops, which would help, rather than hurt the price of people who grow food for a living. Namely, the majority of folks in developing nations that the author would have us believe he is interested in helping out (ostensibly by FURTHER flooding the market with our dirt cheap grains and food crops grown at taxpayers expense).

Not that I'd ever advocate such a silly thing, but I just felt like injecting some terrestrial economics into this discussion. The conclusions, however, are very sound. They just need to be expanded: subsidizing the Agri-Piggies at the taxpayer's government trough doesn't really help anybody but the Agri-Piggies. That not only applies to bio-fools, but also readily applies to the grown commodities we put down our gullets, or flood the world market with.

In short, Ziegler took up the call first made by this column for a five-year moratorium on all government targets and incentives for biofuel... an absolutely great idea (which I suggest should be expanded in perpetuity and to agri-business as a whole, rather than offering a mere break of 5 years for such targeted jobs programs), but it would behoove the author to find reasons based on objective analysis rather than ideological flights of fantasy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cannabis monoterpenes vs. "global broiling" and food insecurity
Posted by: P.E.A.C.E. on Nov 10, 2007 10:48 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please Google: "global broiling" to understand why this article is meaningless, narrowminded and factually incorrect (i.e. In fact we are at the lowest food reserves since people started keeping records). Expanding the arable base to include desertified lands and making fresh water from salt water is the priority, once prohibition of Cannabis ends, this spring.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We need trash-to-fuel technology.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Nov 10, 2007 11:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Starving the desperately poor in order to power our SUV's with biofuel is part of – and exacerbated by – an overarching problem that is at the heart of many, if not all, of our modern woes: overpopulation. This was a problem to which visionaries like Paul Erlich and The Club of Rome ("The Limits to Growth") tried to alert the public and our so-called "leaders" more than 30 years ago. Yet we stiil argue over birth control, even today.

The world's population is predicted to rise to more than nine billion by the end of this century. Judging by the strains on the planet we are experiencing already, we are destined for The Mother of All Catastrophes, i.e., worldwide environmental collapse. I believe it is just that serious. We need to act decisively, NOW, to change our lifestyle and reuse the vast amounts of Earth-damaging trash we have produced in the last 200 years.

There is nothing in God's or Nature's plan that guarantees our existance on this planet. Nature has wiped out more successful and long-lived species than us – and we are helping it along by our folly; in effect, signing our own death warrant.

There are alternatives to turning food crops into fuel, and here is one of them: Next to one of Butterball's turkey processing plants is a test refinery that can turn anything with a carbon chain – turkey guts and feathers and beaks, garbage, plastic, etc. – into fuel. Garbage-to-gas. . .has a nice ring to it, huh? We certainly have no shortage of THAT raw material, do we? Regardless, this technology has been chronically underfunded. (I guess the garbage lobby is not a big as the Big Agriculture lobby in Washington...). This is the sort of thing we need today, not giveaways to domestic corn farmers or taking food out of the mouths of the poor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nature makes the best partner
Posted by: P.E.A.C.E. on Nov 10, 2007 12:57 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On a planet governed by the rules of the Natural Order, it just makes sene to partner with the most abiding, dominant force. Mankind has lost respect for that which keeps our world together, basing our economics and the political system it buys, on production of toxic, unevenly distributed, finite chemicals. It is inevitable that we would eventually wind up where we have.

To repair what's been broken we must shift our values and our "free" market economy, to include the world's most nutritious, useful, potentially abundant and globally distributed agricutural resource. To heal the Earth's environment, human economics, and resume positive social evolution, before synergisic collapse between thre three occurs, then we better start valuing time.

Time is the limiting factor in the equation of survival. Every spring planting season that passes is gone forever. How bad do conditions have to get before all solutions are considered?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Missing the Point
Posted by: macdon1 on Nov 10, 2007 1:09 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most people seem to get very agitated when they read Mr. Monbiot's writing. All they see is the controversial issue ie: biofuels can cause starvation, which shocks those who comfort themselves with the thought that the US is putting a pile of money into ethanol production and everything is rosy. Ethanol has been around a long time in the Midwest where I grew up. The farmers have been using it for their machinery for quite some time because there used to be an excess of corn, which was grown right on the spot. It's a quick and easy "out" for politicians. Monbiot is absolutely correct when he says that use of "virgin" biofuels like ethanol to replace oil takes the food right out of peoples' mouths. It takes so many acres of food producing land specifically dedicated to biofuel production that foodstuffs would become prohibitively expensive for all but the very rich. Already there has been a huge increase in meat and dairy product costs here in the US due to escalating feed corn prices and it is filtering down to other foods. Using second generation waste products may not have the political appeal but it makes much more sense and certainly is a far more humanitarian solution than starving people to keep the SUVs running. Wake up to reality folks!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Starving people and SUVs Posted by: Cathyc
Crimes are always perpetrated by cowards
Posted by: Cathyc on Nov 10, 2007 1:29 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
George Monbiot: Like all such crimes it is perpetrated by cowards, attacking the weak to avoid confronting the strong.

But isn't that the underlying philosophy of American-style socio-political system? Of course it is!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We have to try to get people out of their cars
Posted by: lrrysgl on Nov 10, 2007 10:55 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) study on mobility notes that in the larger U.S. urban communities, time spent sitting in traffic jams increased from 11 hours per person in 1982 to 36 hours in 1999.TTI calculates the congestion bill for the 68 areas analyzed in 1999 at $78 billion a year – nearly $300 for every American. This includes the value of 4.5 billion hours wasted in traffic and nearly 7 billion gallons of excessive gasoline consumption. It does not, however, include any of the costs associated with the worsening air pollution from the millions of idling engines or the effects of additional carbon emissions on the earth’s climate.

In addition to the smog, the endless waste and costs associated with sprawl and traffic, American Farmland Trust reports that we are losing a million acres a year to suburban sprawl.

NOT TO MENTION THE 42,000 AMERICANS WHO DIED FROM CAR ACCIDENTS THIS YEAR WHICH IS WHY WE NEED BETTER MASS TRANSIT AND CARFREE CITIES SO THAT PEOPLE CAN LIVE, WORK AND ENJOY THEIR LEISURE TIME WITHOUT NEEDING A CAR AND WASTING THEIR LIVES SITTING IN TRAFFIC JAMS.

I don't suffer under any illusion as to how difficult it is to end sprawl and get people out of their cars, but to the extent that we can pursue that as public policy we should.

This URL has a lot of interesting information on the subject:

http://www.carfree.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you, George Monbiot
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 11, 2007 1:21 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you, George Monbiot, for a fine article. Regardless of the details, you
made it very clear where biofuels stand. "The law the British government passed
... 5% of our road transport fuel must come from crops -- will ... save between
700,000 and 800,000 tonnes of carbon a year." A huge and highly uncertain effort
will supposedly save a microscopic 800,000 tons of carbon a year. This is
political magicianship at its finest, misdirecting you from the fact that such a paltry
quantity is irrelevant. The public may be lulled into thinking that something is
being done and that all will be well. The Political magicians have fooled the
innumerate public but they cannot fool nature. Such a tiny change makes not the
least dent in our path to the extinction of so-called humans. Compare the 800,000
tons per year to the 4,000,000 tons per year saved by converting ONE 1000
megawatt coal fired power plant to nuclear. If the British government were
sincere about cutting carbon emissions, they would start with converting coal fired
power plants to nuclear. EACH conversion of a coal fired power plant would save
4000000/800000 = 40/8 = 5 times as much carbon as this biofuel law.

Now don't try to tell me that nuclear power is too dangerous. In the first place, the
comparison has to be with extinction. Do you understand what the word "extinct"
means? It means that, if we keep burning FOSSIL fuels containing CARBON,
EVERY PERSON will be DEAD. THERE WILL BE ZERO SURVIVORS.
EXTINCTION means NO MORE HOMO SAPIENS, EVER. Not even the
worst possible nuclear war, a "general exchange" between the United States and
the old Soviet Union could achieve the extinction of Homo Sapiens. In fact the
simultaneous deaths of 6,400,000,000 people would not even be noticed in the
geologic record. Human population would rebound too fast for the rocks to
notice. But extinction would clearly be noticed by some future space alien
geologist. He would find no more humans after the extinction event.

In the second place your paranoid fears of nuclear power are just that, paranoid,
irrational, crazy, the product of mental illness, ignorance and coal industry
propaganda. And yes, I know something about things nuclear. I am a physicist
with experience in the Army's lead lab for nuclear weapons effects. So, do I need
to post 10 more posts to prove it or will you read my posts on past articles before
making a fool of yourself?

Please also read my past posts on the subject of the extinction we are headed for in
something like 200 years if we don't stop burning carbon. And yes, I like wind,
solar, hydro and geothermal energy. Is there a need to repeat once again that they
are inadequate to meet our needs with current technology and current prices?

PS: To be a "fossil" fuel it has to contain fossils if it is a solid. Coal contains
many fossils, mostly of plants. Oil is a liquid, but oil shale should contain fossils.
Uranium is NOT a fossil fuel. There is no guarantee of finding fossils
anywhere near a uranium mine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Death is good.
Posted by: matti on Nov 11, 2007 4:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where did people get this strange Idea that death is bad?

Monotheistic religion?

Maybe.

This is not to refute the basic idea that to starve people so I can drive my car is morally reprehensible.

But I notice an underlying notion, here, and in our wider culture that -simply on its face- Death Is Bad.

Especially the Death of Humans.

Death is a requirement for the cyclical renewal of life that we call "nature".

Right now, leaves are falling and rotting all over the Northern Hemisphere.

The Solar Year is Dying and making accommodation for the Birth of a new Year that will "Spring" forth from the "corpse" of the Old one.

Perhaps if some of the people here would back up their professed concern for the "natural environment" by giving some tiny indication that they are aware of and respect its Cycles, they would be better prepared to confront their Internets Opponents and the problem of survival in Tumultuous Times.


-matti

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Elephant In Living Room
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Nov 11, 2007 6:22 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The biggest environmental issue about biofuels is not even discussed in either the article or the comments. The main thing ecologically wrong with biofuels is that if the source is live plants instead of things like waste oil, natural areas will be destroyed to make biofuels. Malaysia is already destroying its rainforests to make palm oil, primarily for biofuel.

The only real solution to the problems caused by driving is to cease driving, or at least to drive a lot less. Unfortunately, people don't want to sacrifice their comfortable lifestyles, even when they're clearly destroying our planet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: lephant In Living Room Posted by: organik
What am I bid for one "spent" fuel rod? A princely sum.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 11, 2007 7:48 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What am I bid for all the "waste" in Yucca Mountain? On an
open market, an emperor's ransom. How does Israel fuel their
nuclear power plants and obtain plutonium for their bombs? By
stealing fuel from the reprocessing cycles of other countries that
tried to keep Israel from having a nuclear program. How many
other countries would be willing to bid if they could? All of
those that don't have nuclear power now. What would Iran be
willing to pay for the contents of Yucca Mountain? Yucca
Mountain must be guarded carefully or it will be stolen from. If
Americans do not understand the value of the so-called "waste"
there are 6 billion other people who do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The value of "spent" fuel is very high. Only fools waste it.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 11, 2007 7:53 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't believe that terrorists groups will be able to steal uranium. The place it
goes that it isn't supposed to go is Israel. This happened in a small town near
Pittsburgh, PA circa 1970. A company called Numec was in the business of
reprocessing nuclear fuel. Numec did NOT have a reactor. Numec "lost" half a
ton of enriched uranium. It wound up in Israel. Numec is no longer in business.
Terrorists can't compete with Mossad and Israeli dual citizens who are CEOs of
companies like Numec. Israeli nuclear weapons are exact duplicates of
American nuclear weapons. All persons who were "born of Jewish mothers" are
citizens of Israel regardless of any other fact. Since the US can't and shouldn't
discriminate, the reprocessing of nuclear fuel in the US stopped. That was the
only politically possible solution at that time, given that private corporations did
the reprocessing. My solution would be to reprocess the fuel at a Government
Owned Government Operated [GOGO] facility. At a GOGO plant, bureaucracy
and the multiplicity of ethnicity and religion would disable the transportation of
uranium to Israel or to any unauthorized place. Nothing heavier than a secret
would get out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do you understand the word "extinct"?
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 11, 2007 8:06 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did you know that enough URANIUM goes up the
smokestack or into the cinders of a coal-fired power plant
to Fully fuel a nuclear power plant with the same output?
See:
http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-
34/text/coalmain.html
If breeding of thorium into uranium and using plutonium as
fuel are allowed, enough uranium and thorium go up the
smokestack of one coal-fired power plant to fully fuel 500
nuclear power plants of the same size. That isn't all that
goes up the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants.
Arsenic and lead are also among the 73 elements in coal
smoke, and the quantities are worthy of commercial
production. Did you know that you get 100 times as much
radiation from a coal-fired power plant as from a nuclear
power plant?
Have you ever heard of background radiation? The natural
background radiation that has been there since the
beginning of time is 1000 times what you get from a
nuclear power plant or 10 times what you get from a coal-
fired power plant. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
or http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_1.html
If the safety level of nuclear power plants were
LOWERED to the same level as coal-fired power plants,
the resulting [nuclear] electricity would be very cheap
indeed and nuclear power would be very efficient.
I have NO connection with the nuclear power industry.
It is just that I would rather not go extinct because of global
warming. The Existential Risk that is virtually certain to
happen is the same as the End Permian mass extinction:
Hydrogen Sulfide. It is possible to avoid it, but the power
of wealth must be overcome. Coal is a $100 Billion [US]
industry in the US alone.
download from:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00037A5D-
A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000&sc=I100322
from the October 2006 issue of Scientific American
Article: "Impact from the Deep"
"Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and
sea, not asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass
extinctions. Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions
build once again? "
By Peter D. Ward
The last paragraph of the article says:
"The so-called thermal extinction at the end of the
Paleocene began when atmospheric CO2 was just under
1,000 parts per million (ppm). At the end of the Triassic,
CO2 was just above 1,000 ppm. Today with CO2 around
385 ppm, it seems we are still safe. But with atmospheric
carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm and expected to
accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900 ppm by the
end of the next century, and conditions that bring about the
beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon
after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That
is something our society should never find out."
The hydrogen sulfide will finally put an end to the mining of
coal. Nuclear power is the safest available.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Extinction of Homo Sapiens in something like 200 years
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 11, 2007 8:11 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
5 groups of scientists have published this same conclusion now. The most recent:
Downloaded from: http://www.astrobio.net/news/article2509.html
The greatest mass extinction in Earth’s history also may have been one of the
slowest, according to a study that casts further doubt on the extinction-by-meteor
theory. Creeping environmental stress fueled by volcanic eruptions and global
warming was the likely cause of the Great Dying, or Permian-Triassic Extinction,
250 million years ago, said University of Southern California doctoral student
Catherine Powers. The research sheds light on how past life interacted with our
planet's changing environment during one of the most important events in the
evolution of life on Earth.
Writing in the November issue of the journal Geology, Powers and her adviser
David Bottjer, professor of earth sciences at USC College, describe a slow decline
in the diversity of some common marine organisms.
The decline began millions of years before the disappearance of 90 percent of
Earth’s species at the end of the Permian era, Powers shows in her study.
More damaging to the meteor theory, the study finds that organisms in the deep
ocean started dying first, followed by those on ocean shelves and reefs, and finally
those living near shore.
“Something has to be coming from the deep ocean,” Powers said. “Something has
to be coming up the water column and killing these organisms.”
That something probably was hydrogen sulfide, according to Powers, who cited
studies from the University of Washington, Pennsylvania State University, the
University of Arizona and the Bottjer laboratory at USC.
Those studies, combined with the new data from Powers and Bottjer, support a
model that attributes the extinction to enormous volcanic eruptions that released
carbon dioxide and methane, triggering rapid global warming.
The warmer ocean water would have lost some of its ability to retain oxygen,
allowing water rich in hydrogen sulfide to well up from the deep (the gas comes
from anaerobic bacteria at the bottom of the ocean).
If large amounts of hydrogen sulfide escaped into the atmosphere, the gas would
have killed most forms of life and also damaged the ozone shield, increasing the
level of harmful ultraviolet radiation reaching the planet’s surface.
Powers and others believe that the same deadly sequence repeated itself for
another major extinction 200 million years ago, at the end of the Triassic era.
“There are very few people that hang on to the idea that it was a meteorite
impact,” she said. Even if an impact did occur, she added, it could not have been
the primary cause of an extinction already in progress.
In her study, Powers analyzed the distribution and diversity of bryozoans, a
family of marine invertebrates.
Based on the types of rocks in which the fossils were found, Powers was able to
classify the organisms according to age and approximate depth of their habitat.
She found that bryozoan diversity in the deep ocean started to decrease about 270
million years ago and fell sharply in the 10 million years before the mass
extinction that marked the end of the Permian era.
But diversity at middle depths and near shore fell off later and gradually, with
shoreline bryozoans being affected last, Powers said.
She observed the same pattern before the end-Triassic extinction, 50 million years
after the end-Permian.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

34% of CO2 comes from coal burning power plants, the biggest slice
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 11, 2007 8:16 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How do coal fired power plants get ahead of transportation [cars
and other vehicles] in carbon emissions? Gasoline, diesel fuel,
etc. are half hydrogen. For example, octane is C8H18. To figure
out what fraction of the energy is from burning the carbon, you
have to look up the heat of formation of carbon dioxide and the
heat of formation of water. It takes 1 carbon to make one CO2,
but it takes 2 hydrogens to make 1 H2O. You can do the
arithmetic and apportion the energy between the carbon and the
hydrogen. You have to subtract the energy required to break
down the octane into atoms. It is easier to remove the hydrogens
than it is to separate the carbons, so the energy subtracted gets
apportioned too.
Coal is almost pure carbon, except for the URANIUM,
ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel,
Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron,
Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Calcium,
Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium,
Molybdenum and Zinc that are coal's impurities. Even though
transportation uses more energy, coal fired power plants put more
CO2 into the air.

Transportation isn't even the second largest CO2 emitter.
Industrial processes are. The largest CO2 emitter of the industrial
processes is concrete making even though the energy used is less.
The first step in concrete making is heating limestone [calcium
carbonate] to drive off the carbon dioxide to make calcium oxide.
Coal is burned to make the heat, but the limestone is the greater
source of CO2. Other industrial processes include steel making,
metal casting, etc.

The easiest way to make the biggest reduction in CO2 emissions
is to convert all coal fired power plants to nuclear. So get over
your paranoid fears of all things nuclear and get it done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What are you going to die of? NOT nuclear power.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 11, 2007 8:22 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Odds of Dying from X according to the 2003 National Safety council report.

1 heart disease 1 in 5
2 cancer 1 in 7
3 stroke 1 in 24
4 motor vehicle accident 1 in 84
5 suicide 1 in 119
6 falling 1 in 218
7 firearm assault 1 in 314
8 pedestrian accident 1 in 626
9 drowning 1 in 1008
10 motorcycle accident 1 in 1020
11 fire or smoke 1 in 1113
12 bicycle accident 1 in 4919
13 air/space accident 1 in 5051
14 accidental firearm 1 in 5134
15 accidental electrocution 1 in 9969
16 alcohol poisoning 1 in 10048
17 hot weather 1 in 13729
18 hornet, wasp or bee sting 1 in 56789
19 legal execution 1 in 62468
20 lightning 1 in 79746
21 earthquake 1 in 117127
22 flood 1 in 144156
23 fireworks 1 in 340733

Causes that are missing from the above:
nuclear power plant accident
medical mistake
meteor impact
cold weather
starvation
dehydration
smallpox
war
terrorist strike
boredom

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Radioactive carbon dating of ancient mummies
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 11, 2007 8:29 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Background radiation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation

Background radiation is the ionizing radiation from several natural radiation
sources: sources in the Earth and from those sources that are incorporated in our
food and water, which are incorporated in our body, and in building materials and
other products that incorporate those radioactive sources; radiation sources from
space (in the form of cosmic rays); and sources in the atmosphere which primarily
come from both the radon gas that is released from the earth's surface and
subsequently decays to radioactive atoms that become attached to airborne dust
and particulates, and the production of radioactive atoms from the bombardment
of atoms in the upper atmosphere by high-energy cosmic rays. Since 1945 it also
comes from low levels of global radioactive contamination due to nuclear testing.

............shortened.............

Natural background radiation

Natural background radiation comes from three primary sources: cosmic radiation,
terrestrial sources, and radon. The worldwide average background dose for a
human being is about 2.4 mSv per year. This exposure is mostly from cosmic
radiation and natural isotopes in the Earth.

Cosmic radiation

The Earth, and all living things on it, are constantly bombarded by radiation from
outside our solar system of positively charged ions from protons to iron nuclei.
This radiation interacts in the atmosphere to create secondary radiation that rains
down, including X-rays, muons, protons, alpha particles, pions, electrons, and
neutrons. The dose from cosmic radiation is largely from muons, neutrons, and
electrons.

The dose rate from cosmic radiation varies in different parts of the world based
largely on the geomagnetic field and altitude.

Terrestrial sources

Radioactive material is found throughout nature. It occurs naturally in the soil,
rocks, water, air, and vegetation. The major radionuclides of concern for terrestrial
radiation are potassium, uranium and thorium. Each of these sources has been
decreasing in activity since the birth of the Earth so that our present dose from
potassium-40 is about 1⁄2 what it would have been at the dawn of life on Earth.
Some of the elements that make up the human body have radioactive isotopes,
such as potassium-40, so there is also a very small amount of internal radiation.

Radon

Radon gas seeps out of uranium-containing soils found across most of the world
and may concentrate in well-sealed homes. It is often the single largest contributor
to an individual's background radiation dose and is certainly the most variable in
the United States. Many areas of the world, including Cornwall and Aberdeenshire
in the United Kingdom have high enough natural radiation levels that nuclear
licensed sites cannot be built there—the sites would already exceed legal radiation
limits before they opened, and the natural topsoil and rock would all have to be
disposed of as low-level nuclear waste.

............shortened.............

The exposure for an average person is about 360 millirems/year, 80 percent of
which comes from natural sources of radiation. The remaining 20 percent results
from exposure to artificial radiation sources, such as medical X-rays and a small
fraction from nuclear weapons tests.

............shortened.............

Reference:
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_1.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How Myopic
Posted by: newtype_alpha on Nov 11, 2007 10:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do you suppose that in this grand experiment in global capitalism imposed on the entire world by the American Empire it makes any sense whatsoever to try and save your country from starvation strictly by relying on sustenance farming? That seems not to be sufficient, or even particularly wise; it's rather like trying to make it in the American job market as a high school dropout living paycheck to paycheck.

Apparently, somebody in Swaziland has figured out that with oil prices being at an all-time high, those crops are more valuable--monetary wise--as source of fuel than a source of food. The intention here is to literally spin straw into gold, creating practically ex nihilio a valuable natural resource that an already impoverished country can sell and, hopefully, channel those funds into social programs, food and medicine instead of mere corporate profit. In short, the high school dropout has decided to take some of his already pathetic paycheck and invest in a GED.

The cold hard logic is those crops are worth more as fuel than as food. Selling biofuel as a competitor to fossil fuel gets them a greater return on their investment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How Myopic Posted by: richholland
another misleading article
Posted by: organik on Nov 12, 2007 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The real problem nobody wants to talk about is ANIMAL AGRICULTURE. Remember that. Food crops fed to animals, animals belching methane. The single largest contributor to global warming is without a doubt animal agriculture. And that's where a large majority of our food crops go as well, to feed animals. The solution is to go vegan. I did it - 15 years ago. Best decision I ever made. More impact on the environment that not driving a car. It's true. Also converting my car to run on recycled waste vegetable oil. Carbon neutral - the oil has already served it's use in the restaurant. Soon it will be algae oil. 10,000 gallons per acre. There are very easy solutions to these environmental problems, and they benefit your health, the environment, and the animals all at once. Go Vegan!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Finding truth on the web
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 12, 2007 11:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reference: "Web Dragons" by Witten, Gori and Numerico 2007.

The search engines do not understand the web pages they find for you. They are
just machines. They have no idea of whether or not the web pages they find tell
the truth. In the US, we have "freedom of speech," which means that nobody has
to prove that anything is true before publishing it. We also have a coal industry
that has a gross income of $100 BILLION per year. That $100 BILLION per year
could be easily sunk by the nuclear industry unless you can be persuaded that
nuclear power is dangerous. [The truth is that a coal fired power plant puts 100
times as much radiation into your environment as the nuclear power plant. The
truth is also that natural background radiation is 10 times what you get from a coal
fired power plant.] Do the coal companies have an incentive to lead you astray?
Yes. Is $100 BILLION per year enough incentive? Yes. Can the coal industry
afford to hire doctors, economists, environmentalists, website designers, computer
scientists, psychologists, advertising agencies, and lots of other people on $100
BILLION per year? Of course. Can the coal industry afford to set up hundreds
of web pages on hundreds of computers in hundreds of locations and "game" the
search engines on $100 BILLION per year? Yes. And they do.

How hard is it to find the truth on the web? Very hard. Most web sites have a
monetary reason for existing. People who know the truth and are willing to tell
you the truth don't have much economic reason to do so. It is hard to make money
by telling the truth. Nobody ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence
or overestimating the gullibility of the average person. So how are you going to
find out the truth for sure? There is only one way. You have to become a
scientist. You will have to spend a minimum of 4 years in college to get the
minimum deg