fiasole’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  you've just made the point...

  you've hit it on the head:  the reality is that airlines don't control fossil supplies, oilcos do. if lower carbon options don't exist, this gives more impetus to higher carbon options like liquid coal and tar sands to get into the existing supply chain for EVERYONE, not just airlines.

  the whole point here, if you'd take an honest, real look at things is to develop options that help obviate the need for liquid coal and tar sands as a marginal source for new demand. Yes, demand needs to be minimized, of course, but thats not enough.  marginal growth will happen and it then become a matter of "where do you want your liquid fuel to come from?"

  real time: the liquid coal and tar sands folks are fighting for massive subsidies.  more coal folks than tar sands.  the arguement the coal guys are making is lower carbon options arent going to be real, ever, so just give us (liquid coal people) all the $$ for subsidies. This isn't an abstraction, its quite real

  aviation, nrdc, others are in the middle of this and realizing there is in fact a window to encourage the development of lower carbon, more sustainable fuels (yes, its hard, yes requires innovation, no it can't be farmer crop fuel), and that is exactly what you describe:  simultaneously undercutting the case for liquid coal and tar sands, whilst encouraging innovation on lower carbon, more sustainable options. Why on earth can you not GET THIS?  

  so, keep up what you are saying, for the net net of that line: you help the liquid coal and tar sands folks make their case. Seriously.

  So, if you cross plot where the liquid coal plants are slated to be located, you find a very interesting situation: they are all in the soy, corn, rice, and some wheat belts.  amongst the many problems with liquid coal is its immense water use.  There are already real and looming, chronic shortages of irrigation water for crops in these places.  Add massive liquid coal and tar sands water use and you quickly get into situation where its fuel versus water, which as you well know, becomes fuel versus food, which then gets right back to driving land use change

  So, you all have a choice:  continue myopically knee jerking against aviation on this and however minutely helping the liquid coal and tar sands people, or get fully aware of the situation and look at this holistically, fly less if you choose and use your time and energy to help pull for more sustainable options.

  Its about personal responsibility:  do none of you get on planes?  if not, great, good for you.  I suspect the answer is you do get on planes. So, take responsibility for that and help solve the supply side of the challenge.  Recognize that you are part of the demand, so own up to it and be honest with yourselves, unlike the Bishop of London. On Corporate foot soldiers fired up to kick environmental butt posted 1 year, 1 month ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  please read link, then reconsider your comments...

  http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/lizbb/charting_a_greene ...

  please read, it articulates quite clearly where aviation is headed.

  Its all about transparent, independant, auditable supply chains that meet these criteria.  Via the RSB process, clear, actionable sustainability practices can and will be in place.  RSB is slow and painful, but it will result in solid standards.

  Its unlikely that canola, soy, palm will make the cut owing to the type of land needed, but you miss the point.  EPA will shortly come out with a ruling that soy biodiesel won't qualify for the RFS, owing to land use change--just one for instance of how things are going. Feedstocks aren't the problem, its really quite specific to where and how a feedstock is grown and that can and will be determined by end users demanding sustainability.

  are there never going to be downsides?  Of course not. Its about bringing smart, knowledgeable people, who don't have an interest in biofuels per se, into the process for setting up these supply chains.

  The current missing link is end users enforcing sustainable supply chains using independant auditors.

  this is what corn ethanol, palm and soy folks paid no attention to. They got it wrong, and now its time to do it right.

  And counter to your assertion, in fact there are many attractive terrestrial options that will work well on non food crop land where there is low biodiversity value.  Algae will be great if/when the technical hurdles are solved, but its not all about algae either.

  you are probably not plugged in, and thats fine, you will become aware in time...On Corporate foot soldiers fired up to kick environmental butt posted 1 year, 1 month ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Bishop of London

  Question to previous, so how many flights have you taken?  If you say one or none, I am hard pressed to believe you...

  you say "people" should...again, have you taken more than your one flight?

  Bishop of London was quoted last year as saying something to the effect that flying is a sin...then it was uncovered that said Bishop travels extensively by air.

  Do what I say, not what I do....On Corporate foot soldiers fired up to kick environmental butt posted 1 year, 1 month ago 17 Responses