I (w/ Lisa) had coffee this morning with Chris Flavin, president of Worldwatch Institute. He's a sharp guy, and I was thinking, hm, I wish I had my recorder, I'd interview this dude.
But look: Worldchanging already did, just yesterday. So read that.
We mostly chit-chatted about our respective organizations, but he said a couple of intriguing things.
On biofuels, he said that right now the global market is not big enough to pose a true threat to rainforests, etc., and that several game-changing technological developments are in the works that will reduce its footprint going forward. He thinks the import tariffs are inevitably going to come down. He said if you're worried about the loss of rainforests, worry about cattle grazing and development, and pass better land-use laws.
On nuclear, he said during the time he's been working in energy, about 10 "nuclear revivals" have come and gone with no effect. "I've never lost money betting against nuclear power."
He also said the recent report on renewable energy (PDF) from Worldwatch and CAP is an attempt to get the energy/climate issue framed correctly, away from gloom and doom and technospeak and toward the notion of a national revival.
By the way, I finally got around to reading the report, and it's fantastic -- breezy, easy to read, and almost heartening enough to cause me to feel some ... what do they call it? ... hope.
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 11:39 am
27 Sep 2006
On biofuels, he said that right now the global market is not big enough to pose a true threat to rainforests
What is the difference between a "true" threat and a regular old threat? What is the threshold that crosses a garden variety threat into a true one?
and that several game-changing technological developments are in the works that will reduce its footprint going forward.
Well, at least in a round about way he is acknowledging that if new technology does not come on line soon, this threat will come "true." To be more accurate, he "hopes" the developments in the works will reduce its footprint from going forward. We are all familiar by now with cellulosic ethanol research and development and an awful lot of carbon sinks are counting on it becoming an economic reality and soon. Hopefully it will get here ahead of fusion and the electric car.
He thinks the import tariffs are inevitably going to come down.
I think so also, and with it, the land in other countries put to the plow to feed our cars will go up. One of us will be eating our words in the next few years. I hope it is me. I have been debating this topic for a year now and to date, my predictions have all fallen in line. I would like to see an end to my winning streak.
He said if you're worried about the loss of rainforests, worry about cattle grazing and development, and pass better land-use laws.
I think he needs to worry a little more about biofuels... along with all of those other things we all worry about. A biodiesel car running on Amazonian soy will usurp fifty times more acerage than a brazilian beef cow. I have a feeling he is not well versed on the negatives yet and is still being sucked along by the positive images pesented in the lay press.
This probably explains the section on biofuels, which I have been thinking about commenting on.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink