<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Biofuel boom leveling rainforest, <em>Time</em> reports]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by GreyFlcn http://www.grist.org/article/the-clean-energy-scam/ Sun, 30 Mar 2008 07:34:59 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-clean-energy-scam/1 Ah ha

I see you one Amazon rainforrest destruction story, and raise you another on steroids.

http://www.celsias.com/2008/03/27/through-the-amazon-to-d ...
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0324-amazon.html

]]> Ah ha

I see you one Amazon rainforrest destruction story, and raise you another on steroids.

http://www.celsias.com/2008/03/27/through-the-amazon-to-d ...
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0324-amazon.html

]]> Comment #2 by Colin Wright http://www.grist.org/article/the-clean-energy-scam/ Sun, 30 Mar 2008 12:01:24 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-clean-energy-scam/2 Any solutions out there?

Definately a nice piece of environmental journalism. It's good to see this is in the MSM.

It makes me wonder if we couldn't get a discussion going that could come up with workable solutions, rather than just throw up our hands and say the planet is doomed.

For instance, could we all agree now that biofuels from agricultural lands are a bad thing? Could we get the enviros who supported biofuels to back up, take a fresh look at  the unforeseen consequences, and lobby to get the ethanol mandates rescinded?

Could we even agree that the underlying pressure for biofuels come from oil depletion (and the flat production over the past three years)? And that mass transit offers us a partial way out of our car dependency?

Could we agree that we need a global carbon agreement that pays developing countries to save the lungs of the planet? How about even that ultimately we have a problem of too many people wanting too many things on a finite planet? And that we have to go beyond "market solutions"? The article touches on this here:The trouble is that even if there were enough financial incentives to keep the Amazon intact, high commodity prices would encourage deforestation elsewhere. And government mandates to increase biofuel production are going to boost commodity prices, which will only attract more investment. Until someone invents that protein chip, it's going to mean the worst of everything: higher food prices, more deforestation and more emissions.

There is no "protein chip" (whatever that is) is there?

]]> Any solutions out there?

Definately a nice piece of environmental journalism. It's good to see this is in the MSM.

It makes me wonder if we couldn't get a discussion going that could come up with workable solutions, rather than just throw up our hands and say the planet is doomed.

For instance, could we all agree now that biofuels from agricultural lands are a bad thing? Could we get the enviros who supported biofuels to back up, take a fresh look at  the unforeseen consequences, and lobby to get the ethanol mandates rescinded?

Could we even agree that the underlying pressure for biofuels come from oil depletion (and the flat production over the past three years)? And that mass transit offers us a partial way out of our car dependency?

Could we agree that we need a global carbon agreement that pays developing countries to save the lungs of the planet? How about even that ultimately we have a problem of too many people wanting too many things on a finite planet? And that we have to go beyond "market solutions"? The article touches on this here:The trouble is that even if there were enough financial incentives to keep the Amazon intact, high commodity prices would encourage deforestation elsewhere. And government mandates to increase biofuel production are going to boost commodity prices, which will only attract more investment. Until someone invents that protein chip, it's going to mean the worst of everything: higher food prices, more deforestation and more emissions.

There is no "protein chip" (whatever that is) is there?

]]> Comment #3 by mongabay http://www.grist.org/article/the-clean-energy-scam/ Sun, 30 Mar 2008 14:00:06 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-clean-energy-scam/3 More from Carter and Nepstad

Carter
-------
Can cattle ranchers and soy farmers save the Amazon rainforest?
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0607-carter_interview.html

Nepstad
-------
Globalization could save the Amazon rainforest
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0604-nepstad_interview.html ...

55% of the Amazon may be lost by 2030
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0124-nepstad.html

How much would it cost to end Amazon deforestation?
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0128-brazil.html








]]> More from Carter and Nepstad

Carter
-------
Can cattle ranchers and soy farmers save the Amazon rainforest?
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0607-carter_interview.html

Nepstad
-------
Globalization could save the Amazon rainforest
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0604-nepstad_interview.html ...

55% of the Amazon may be lost by 2030
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0124-nepstad.html

How much would it cost to end Amazon deforestation?
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0128-brazil.html








]]> Comment #4 by Biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/the-clean-energy-scam/ Mon, 31 Mar 2008 01:57:18 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-clean-energy-scam/4 "It's like witnessing a rape..."

of the planet.

For those of you who were reading the Gristmill blog a few years ago, a study came out in Science headed by Alexander Farrell, that compared all of the corn ethanol studies and concluded that it was energy positive and that it reduced greenhouse gases. Here is what he has to say now:

"The situation is a lot more challenging than a lot of us thought,"

No shit.

" ...It was as if the science world assumed biofuels would be grown in parking lots ...a U.N. food expert recently called agrofuels a "crime against humanity ...Four years ago, two University of Minnesota researchers predicted the ranks of the hungry would drop to 625 million by 2025; last year, after adjusting for the inflationary effects of biofuels, they increased their prediction to 1.2 billion ...This land rush is being accelerated by an unlikely source: biofuels. An explosion in demand for farm-grown fuels has raised global crop prices to record highs, which is spurring a dramatic expansion of Brazilian agriculture, which is invading the Amazon at an increasingly alarming rate ...But several new studies show the biofuel boom is doing exactly the opposite of what its proponents intended: it's dramatically accelerating global warming, imperiling the planet in the name of saving it ..The biofuels boom, in short, is one that could haunt the planet for generations--and it's only getting started.

How many times have all of these points been hammered home here on the Gistmill over the past few years while virtually all other environmental groups were promoting biofuels?

It may seem obvious now that when biofuels increase demand for crops, prices will rise and farms will expand into nature. But biofuel technology began on a small scale, and grain surpluses were common. Any ripples were inconsequential. When the scale becomes global, the outcome is entirely different, which is causing cheerleaders for biofuels to recalibrate. "We're all looking at the numbers in an entirely new way," says the Natural Resources Defense Council's Nathanael Greene, whose optimistic "Growing Energy" report in 2004 helped galvanize support for biofuels among green groups.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world


]]> "It's like witnessing a rape..."

of the planet.

For those of you who were reading the Gristmill blog a few years ago, a study came out in Science headed by Alexander Farrell, that compared all of the corn ethanol studies and concluded that it was energy positive and that it reduced greenhouse gases. Here is what he has to say now:

"The situation is a lot more challenging than a lot of us thought,"

No shit.

" ...It was as if the science world assumed biofuels would be grown in parking lots ...a U.N. food expert recently called agrofuels a "crime against humanity ...Four years ago, two University of Minnesota researchers predicted the ranks of the hungry would drop to 625 million by 2025; last year, after adjusting for the inflationary effects of biofuels, they increased their prediction to 1.2 billion ...This land rush is being accelerated by an unlikely source: biofuels. An explosion in demand for farm-grown fuels has raised global crop prices to record highs, which is spurring a dramatic expansion of Brazilian agriculture, which is invading the Amazon at an increasingly alarming rate ...But several new studies show the biofuel boom is doing exactly the opposite of what its proponents intended: it's dramatically accelerating global warming, imperiling the planet in the name of saving it ..The biofuels boom, in short, is one that could haunt the planet for generations--and it's only getting started.

How many times have all of these points been hammered home here on the Gistmill over the past few years while virtually all other environmental groups were promoting biofuels?

It may seem obvious now that when biofuels increase demand for crops, prices will rise and farms will expand into nature. But biofuel technology began on a small scale, and grain surpluses were common. Any ripples were inconsequential. When the scale becomes global, the outcome is entirely different, which is causing cheerleaders for biofuels to recalibrate. "We're all looking at the numbers in an entirely new way," says the Natural Resources Defense Council's Nathanael Greene, whose optimistic "Growing Energy" report in 2004 helped galvanize support for biofuels among green groups.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world


]]>