<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Worldwatch founder says stuff]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by Biodiversivist</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/chris-flavin/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:39:27 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/chris-flavin/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Sounds like a biofuel supporter to me<p>He certainly does not sound very concerned does he? The gallon of canola oil in our kitchen cabinet will last my family about a year. It would last your average American car thirty minutes.<p>
On biofuels, he said that right now the global market is not big enough to pose a true threat to rainforests<p>
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?<p>
and that several game-changing technological developments are in the works that will reduce its footprint going forward.<p>
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.<p>
He thinks the import tariffs are inevitably going to come down.<p>
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.<p>
He said if you're worried about the loss of rainforests, worry about cattle grazing and development, and pass better land-use laws.<p>
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.<p>
This probably explains the section on biofuels, which I have been thinking about commenting on. 

<p>In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: <a href="http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com</a></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Sounds like a biofuel supporter to me<p>He certainly does not sound very concerned does he? The gallon of canola oil in our kitchen cabinet will last my family about a year. It would last your average American car thirty minutes.<p>
On biofuels, he said that right now the global market is not big enough to pose a true threat to rainforests<p>
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?<p>
and that several game-changing technological developments are in the works that will reduce its footprint going forward.<p>
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.<p>
He thinks the import tariffs are inevitably going to come down.<p>
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.<p>
He said if you're worried about the loss of rainforests, worry about cattle grazing and development, and pass better land-use laws.<p>
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.<p>
This probably explains the section on biofuels, which I have been thinking about commenting on. 

<p>In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: <a href="http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com</a></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>