A short, powerful video 6

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 11:45 am
   08 Jun 2007

   Moral arguementsMoral arguements are good.
   
   But usually they work more effectivly as icing to a larger arguement.
   Usually the last thing people say after a long list of arguements that would sway self centered people.

   Permalink

2. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 11:46 am
   08 Jun 2007

   That said"Pick the right biofuel"
   What is the "right" biofuel?

   Permalink

3. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 3:22 pm
   08 Jun 2007

   Thank GodGreenpeace is finally on board.
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

   Permalink

4. 

   caniscandida Posted 7:12 am
   09 Jun 2007

   "biofuels"First, I did not know Greenpeace was not "on board" till now.  If not, it just goes to show how confusing all these issues are, even for people of good heart.
   Secondly, BioD, please clear up a potential confusion, which popped up somewhere in one of DR's current run-downs of presidential candidates on energy-and-climate policy.  Somebody (Tommy Thompson I think, but I could easily be misremembering) referred to ethanol as a renewable energy source.  My feeling is, no biofuel should be considered renewable, truly, in the same way that solar and wind and geothermal can be considered renewable.  Am I right?
   
   Chickens are our cousins!
   
   So are other sensitive animals!
   
   Enough is enough!
   
   No more factory farms!

   Permalink

5. 

   Ron Steenblik Posted 4:36 pm
   09 Jun 2007

   On "renewable"Canis, I know your question was directed at BioD, but I thought I'd put in my two cents also:
   My feeling is, no biofuel should be considered renewable, truly, in the same way that solar and wind and geothermal can be considered renewable. Am I right?
   Basically, I agree that the term "renewable" has become ambiguous. One could, of course, set a minimum criterion, based on a life-cycle basis -- e.g., ratio of value of the energy (and any other) services delivered over the life of the elements involved in supplying the energy to the value of the consumed or degraded resources used in creating it. But ratio is sufficient to merit an energy source being labeled "renewable"? 2:1? 10:1?
   What inputs are renewable and what are not? I think many would agree that soil lost through erosion is not renewable. On the other hand, aluminium used in a structure, such as a wind turbine, can be re-used again and again once it has been produced (at high energy cost initially).
   Considering the low amount of "renewable" input involved in some agro-fuels, one could argue that any petroleum pumped out of the ground with a wind pump and transported to final customers by a sailing ship should equally qualify as "renewable".
   My suggestion is that we try to avoid greenwash-prone aggregating terms like "renewable", and stick where possible to the more-precise adjectives of solar, wind-derived, and agro- energy or fuels.

   Permalink

6. 

   caniscandida Posted 6:31 pm
   09 Jun 2007

   Thanks, Ron,I shakily think I see what you mean.  Or rather, I think you understand my question, better than I understand your answer. : )
   What I had in mind before was, the growth of plants is naturally not so dependable a thing as the shining of the sun and the blowing of the wind.  And I thought that that was what the attribute "renewable" was supposed to mean: the source is constantly giving, and we can always go back for more.
   But I see that it can also mean: the source is able to be made new again, as giving as before, but we must do something to make that happen.  You are a number of steps, a number of long blocks, ahead of me on that.
   
   
   
   Chickens are our cousins!
   
   So are other sensitive animals!
   
   Enough is enough!
   
   No more factory farms!

   Permalink