As biofuel sources go, weeds and grasses are looked on with more favor than land-ravaging, food-price-raising corn and palm. But there's no such thing as a free lunch-in-your-tank, says a paper presented by green groups at a United Nations meeting Tuesday: "Some of the most commonly recommended species for biofuels production are also major invasive alien species." The quick growth and need for little maintenance that make some grasses attractive as biofuels also make them liable to spread where they're unwanted. The paper warns of the potential for both environmental and economic damage; the Global Invasive Species Program estimates that invasive species cost the world more than $1.4 trillion each year. The biofuels industry says it will be cautious, but that the risks are overstated.
Weed Wack
Biofuel-bound grasses are often invasive species 8
-
Posted 8:30 AM on 21 May 2008
-
Posted in
-
Read More About
Related Stories
E.U. pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
PermieWriter Posted 4:34 am
21 May 2008
I know one Eagle Scout who, for his big project, organized a giant reed pull along the Russian River (that river is in the news today for having killed yet another drunk tourist). He said that they all damaged their hands badly despite wearing heavy gloves. Nasty stuff.
Just say no to the biofuels insanity. We're not even re-using all of the waste oil we're producing. Why don't biofuels makers focus on getting the grease from city sewer systems, that will at least make the sewage managers happy.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 5:21 am
21 May 2008
Permalink
Jonas Posted 5:48 am
21 May 2008
Proposed biofuel crops are almost never invasive species.
And this type of reports generalises continuously. It takes a very narrow look at a few species suggested for use in the U.S., then extrapolates and says the world is at risk. It's been the same with virtually all studies critical of biofuels - they've seldom made a point because they were unscientific and quickly compiled to get a headline out.
The vast bulk of biofuels that will be produced between now and 2050 will be based on totally native species: sugarcane in sugarcaneland, eucalyptus in eucalyptusland, acacia in acacialand, sweet super sorghum in sweetsupersorghumland, etc...
But okay, the war against biofuels must continue. And the the anti-social conservative conservationists are pulling all possible strings.
Luckily the scare mongering doesn't work any longer. Just as with the food price issue. Today we know that biofuels' contribution has been extremely marginal. But the hysteria was excessive.
I almost read nothing anymore against biofuels when it comes from anti-social sources. Because, in the words of Lula, these sources are committing "crimes against humanity" by destroying the economies of the poor.
Lula: Discarding biofuel would be 'crime against humanity': Lula.
Permalink
Jonas Posted 5:51 am
21 May 2008
The vast bulk of humanity will need to drive more if it wants to crawl out of poverty. There is a strict correlation between the development of mobility and development proper.
I'm not sure if you can change this extremely strict historic correlation.
In short, humans need to drive more and complexify their lifestyles.
Unless of course you like those humans to have poor, miserable and short lives.
Permalink
catman Posted 7:07 am
21 May 2008
Now where did I leave that lamp with the genie I found?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:29 am
21 May 2008
Incidentally, Brazil is the world's largest producer of soy, chocolate, coffee, sugar, beef and chicken.
Basically what Lula de Silva is saying is that to
Destroy the Amazon Rainforest
Make the world dependent on Brazil for transportation fuel
Gigantically increase the price and local scarcity of food
Would be in the best interest of the rest of the world.
_
The duplicity of Brazil's president's statement much akin to Saudi Arabia's ministers saying that lowering demand for oil would be a crime.
And equally appalling.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 2:51 am
22 May 2008
We strongly disagree because we have mutually exclusive priorities and goals, brought on by our totally different views of life. My view is that all species have an equal right to life, everything in nature is alive, and humans have no right to kill anything except to eat it. According to this, driving is thus killing. But your view is a totally anthropocentric one in which the only thing that matters is the human race, which causes a total lack of respect for other species, ecosystems, and the Earth in general. The issue is not whether I wish that people have "poor, miserable and short lives," but is instead that I don't want more members of an already overpopulated and ecologically destructive species to cause even more harm, if that's possible.
Specifically:
First, you are obviously obsessed with material possessions. According to a recent U.N. study, the happiest people in the world are in the South Pacific island nation of Vanatu. They are very poor, though not lacking for food or water, but not being materialistic, they're nevertheless happy. Human evolution at this point in time is NOT about acquiring more material goods or technology, it's about mental and spiritual evolution. It seems these people, along with some Buddhist monks and other similar humans, have gotten it. The vast majority of humans, unfortunately, do not.
Second, people have no right to raise themselves out of poverty by killing other species, destroying their habitats or ecosystems, or polluting. The human race is already grossly overpopulated, and probably half of the people on Earth consume far too much individually (because of overpopulation, the human race as a whole also overconsumes, even if individuals did not). Promoting driving is a highly anti-environmental position, regardless of how much you think it will help people out of poverty.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 3:28 am
22 May 2008
You're confusin' adapted with native. For example, just 'cause sugarcane grows in Brazil, that doesn't mean we can slash the rainforest to grow sugarcane and still call it "native". The same goes for the other plant types ya listed.
Permalink