Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UN Expert:Biofuels Now A Crime Against Humanity  
User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1970 times:

Somedays you just can't win. Try and help stop supposed man made global warming, get lumped in with with some evil people.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071027/...;_ylt=ApDyQrcYQQr6NaxO51W09ZvQOrgF


The world price of wheat doubled in one year and the price of corn quadrupled, leaving poor countries, especially in Africa, unable to pay for the imported food needed to feed their people, he said. And poor people in those countries are unable to pay the soaring prices for the food that does come in, he added.

"So it's a crime against humanity" to devote agricultural land to biofuel production, Ziegler said a news conference. "What has to be stopped is ... the growing catastrophe of the massacre (by) hunger in the world," he said.


Where the heck is Nobel Peace prize winner Al Gore? He ought to be able to solve this in nothing flat.

 laughing 

46 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1969 times:

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter):
Somedays you just can't win. Try and help stop supposed man made global warming, get lumped in with with some evil people.

Intensive farming under massive primary energy input and even more massive consumption of water for so-called "bio fuel" is simply idiotic and makes no sense for the environment whatsoever anyway - it is purely smoke and mirrors for political ends. And this deception attempt is crashing and burning here.

The only "bio fuel" that can deserve the name is the one generated from biological waste products which would be dumped otherwise. Such projects exist and are indeed promising, but they will never be able to substitute fossil fuels on their own. Especially not it they are used as inefficently as they are now.


User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1950 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 1):
And this deception attempt is crashing and burning here.

I didn't make the claim, your vaunted UN did. You know, the one that was dead on about global warming? You want to shoot someone, shoot the guy at the UN.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1944 times:

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 2):
I didn't make the claim, your vaunted UN did.

"The UN" recommended intensive farming for fuel? Where and when?


User currently offlineJamincan From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 776 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1932 times:

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 2):
I didn't make the claim, your vaunted UN did. You know, the one that was dead on about global warming? You want to shoot someone, shoot the guy at the UN.

I think you misunderstood Klaus. Ziegler's argument is hardly new; although calling biofuels a crime against humanity is maybe a tad dramatic. I've been hearing this criticism regarding fuel v. food for years now. Personally I think (or hope) that developments with regard to cellulose-based ethanol will largely replace corn- or sugar-based. Not only does it use waste material, it is far more effective at reducing GHG emissions over corn-based ethanol.


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1907 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 1):

Intensive farming under massive primary energy input and even more massive consumption of water for so-called "bio fuel" is simply idiotic and makes no sense for the environment whatsoever anyway - it is purely smoke and mirrors for political ends. And this deception attempt is crashing and burning here.

The only "bio fuel" that can deserve the name is the one generated from biological waste products which would be dumped otherwise. Such projects exist and are indeed promising, but they will never be able to substitute fossil fuels on their own. Especially not it they are used as inefficently as they are now.

Althought you often go on about stuff like this, I've never seen you make any reasonable suggestion of how we're meant to power the future. You don't support large-scale biofuels, you don't support nuclear power. In fact, the only thing you've ever suggested is that we should improve energy efficiency, which is fine but will never reduce the nett demand.

So what are your thoughts?


User currently offlineAirTranTUS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1885 times:

Use hydrogen and nuclear power.

User currently offlineWingnut767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1874 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 3):
Quoting RJdxer (Reply 2):
I didn't make the claim, your vaunted UN did.

"The UN" recommended intensive farming for fuel? Where and when?

The IPCC also recommend the expansion of large-scale agroforestry monoculture plantations. These plantations, which will include GM trees, are similarly linked to ecosystem destruction. Monoculture expansion is a major threat to the livelihoods and food sovereignty of communities many of which are already bearing the brunt of climate change disasters caused largely by the fossil fuel emissions of industrialised countries.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0504-11.htm

But a statement from one coalition of largely environmental groups largely based in Europe, including the Global Forest Coalition, Biofuel Watch, and the Gaia Foundation, roundly condemns the IPCC's biofuels option as "a climate disaster in the making." Expanding the use of biofuels, they argue, could threaten rain forests as countries replace large tracts with plantations of biofuel crops, such as palms and soybeans.

http://www.chesapeakeclimate.org/news/news_detail.cfm?id=343

“IPCC Assessment report: Environmental Groups Condemn IPCC Call For Large Scale Biofuels as a Climate Disaster In The Making”

reads

“The IPCC Assessment Report Four has made a compelling case on what global warming means to the planet this century. It is the IPCC´s strongest warning yet that drastic cuts in carbon emissions are vital if we are to avoid a catastrophic acceleration of climate change. Environmental groups are, however, deeply concerned that the IPCC’s Summary for Policy Makers on climate mitigation, released earlier today, includes a recommendation for large- scale expansion of biofuels from monocultures, including from GM crops, even though monoculture expansion is a driving force behind the destruction of rainforests and other carbon sinks and reservoirs, thus accelerating climate change. The IPCC also recommend the expansion of large-scale agroforestry monoculture plantations. These plantations, which will include GM trees, are similarly linked to ecosystem destruction. Monoculture expansion is a major threat to the livelihoods and food sovereignty of communities many of which are already bearing the brunt of climate change disasters caused largely by the fossil fuel emissions of industrialised countries.

Almuth Ernsting of Biofuelwatch stated: “It is already clear that the burgeoning demand for biofuels that has been created to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is actually increasing them by deforestation in the tropics and accelerating climate change. So far, only 1% of global transport fuel comes from biofuels, yet already biofuels cause steep rises in grain and vegetable oil prices, threatening the food security of poor people and spurring agricultural expansion into forests and grasslands, on which we depend for a stable climate”.

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/.../what-hydra-has-the-ipcc-unleased/


User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1724 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1832 times:

Rather they use sugarcane-based fuel instead of corn, if they really must use food. If corns' massive farming for the purpose of fuel moves foward, the prices will skyrocket even more and who knows what effect will that have in poor countries that don't/can't produce corn. More famines around the globe, etc.

Quoting AirTranTUS (Reply 6):
Use hydrogen

Until your car goes Hindenburg on your butt. Big grin


User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1824 times:

Quoting Acheron (Reply 8):
Until your car goes Hindenburg on your butt.

Oh, the humanity !


User currently offlineWingnut767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1811 times:

Quoting Acheron (Reply 8):
Rather they use sugarcane-based fuel instead of corn, if they really must use food. If corns' massive farming for the purpose of fuel moves foward, the prices will skyrocket even more and who knows what effect will that have in poor countries that don't/can't produce corn. More famines around the globe, etc.

In Florida the sugarcane lobby is pushing that. The problem is that they are eating up more of the everglades to plant it. They also require more water which is already in short supply due to the overbuilding. The everglades is being assaulted on all fronts and the last thing we need is more sugarcane just to make a biofuel.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14139 posts, RR: 63
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1785 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 1):
Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter):
Somedays you just can't win. Try and help stop supposed man made global warming, get lumped in with with some evil people.

Intensive farming under massive primary energy input and even more massive consumption of water for so-called "bio fuel" is simply idiotic and makes no sense for the environment whatsoever anyway - it is purely smoke and mirrors for political ends. And this deception attempt is crashing and burning here.

The only "bio fuel" that can deserve the name is the one generated from biological waste products which would be dumped otherwise. Such projects exist and are indeed promising, but they will never be able to substitute fossil fuels on their own. Especially not it they are used as inefficently as they are now.

Funny, so far complaints have been that the subsidised overproducton of agrarian products from the US, Canada and the EU caused these countries to dump their excess at below cost prices in third world countries, making it economically impossible for local farmers to compete with those subsidised imports and driving them into poverty, with the resulting migration to cities to look for a job and the development of slums for those who don't find work. Now farmers in Europe and North America are moving away from food crops to produce biofuel plants. This causes the prices for food crops to rise in third world countries, making it, at least theoretically , possible for farmers in third world countries to grow crops with a profit they can live off and there are complaints.

One thing though I have a beef about is "Bio Diesel". Bio Diesel is an attempt to convert a renewable material (raw vegetable oil) into a fuel modern high precision diesel engines can digest. Bio Diesel is a vegetable oil / methanol ester. To produce bio diesel you don't only need the vegetable oil (in Germany mostly rape seed oil) , but also methanol, which is produced either as a byproduct of the petrochemical industry or, also highly energy consuming, from wood waste. Then the methanol and the vegetable oil have to react, again using energy (by being boiled with sulphuric acid being present).
IMO it would make more sense to build low tech diesel engines, which can use the raw vegetable oil instead off having to use the converted bio diesel.
This was one reason I was looking for an older Land Rover diesel engine, not the modern, FADEC controlled ones.
The old, mechanical engine can run on pure raw vegetable oil if it is preheated (a simple heat exchanger in the coolant system will do the job, for the first 10 km needed to warm up the engine after starting you'll need a second tank with conventional diesel and a transfer valve, also you'll need to run the engine on normal diesel for the last 5 or so km to wash the vwegetable oil out of the injector pump before shutting it down), or you can mix vegetable oil with diesel at a 50-50% ratio.

Jan


User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1785 times:

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 10):
In Florida the sugarcane lobby is pushing that.

Here's a radical notion - there's a very large island not 90 miles from Florida covered quite literally from end to end in sugar cane - how about buying that to make fuel with ?


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1784 times:

Quoting AirTranTUS (Reply 6):
Use hydrogen and nuclear power.

Nuclear power, fine. But where do you get the hydrogen from? Electrolyse water, using nuclear power? Or maybe solar/wind/


User currently offlineWingnut767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1754 times:

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 12):
Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 10):
In Florida the sugarcane lobby is pushing that.

Here's a radical notion - there's a very large island not 90 miles from Florida covered quite literally from end to end in sugar cane - how about buying that to make fuel with ?

As usual you are missing the point of the thread. Bio fuel sucks.


User currently offlineBofredrik From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1742 times:

Biofuel is one of the most strong selling points
that companies like SAAB, Volvo etc use today
here in Sweden. The all say that with a biofuel
car are you doing us "all" a favour for the climate.

http://www.duemotori.com/news/eco_ca...osition_in_environmental_class.php


User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1718 times:

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 14):
As usual you are missing the point of the thread. Bio fuel sucks.

I disagree. Since the United States is Addicted to Oil, and American's don't want to reduce their oil consumption (which funds terrorism, and I thought we were fighting a "war on terrorism"), the next best thing to do is to make biofuels-and burn our own stuff.

I agree with purpose-growing crops for biofuels as crap, however, biofuels made from waste are probably an answer to the United States oil addiction problem. All of that agriculture waste, old candy, and even grass clippings from your lawn, are the way to go.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 11):
subsidised overproduction of agrarian products from the US

 checkmark  Its amazing that this is so overlooked and forgotten about. The United States subsidizes farmers to plant as much corn and soybeans as they can, in order to artificially set prices higher. With a real demand, farmers can grow as much as they want, and in addition to donating large portions of it to 3rd world countries, so the prices can be kept higher with the elimination of these subsidies (meaning lower taxes...or money used for other things).

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter):
Biofuels Now A Crime Against Humanity  

So is the USA's oil addition that funds terrorism and blood-baths in Nigeria not a crime against humanity?


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14139 posts, RR: 63
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1693 times:

Current biofuel crops only use part of the plant to create biofuel, like the oil from the seeds. Future technologies can use the whole plant. E.g. a German university (IIRC it was Potsdam university) devloped a procedure to break up any organic matter (plant residues, meat etc.) in an exothermic process (means, you only heat the mix for starting the reaction, once it runs, it produces excess heat, more than enough to sustain the reaction) using a watery solution of citric acid as a catalist.
Basically the organic material is placed in an autoclave together with water and citric acid and then heated. At pressures of about 200 atmospheres and about 300 centigrades, the organic matter breaks down. Depending on the conditions you'll either get oily hydrcarbons or, as a final product, coal dust.

Another process currently tried out is growing algea in huge glass tanks using the CO2 emitted by power stations.
The algea are later filtered out and processed for bio fuels.

Then, during and right after WW2, oil was rare in Europe. Many cars had retorts mounted on them, where wood was pyrolised to produce a gas, which could be used to run a petrol engine.

Jan


User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1694 times:

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 14):
Bio fuel sucks.

Why does it suck ? If it works, and doesn't require more energy to produce, and doesn't drive food prices sky-high, why not use bio-fuel ?


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1669 times:

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 18):
Why does it suck ? If it works, and doesn't require more energy to produce, and doesn't drive food prices sky-high, why not use bio-fuel ?

One of the main problems is that intensive farming for "bio fuel" requires large amounts of primary energy and even larger amounts of fresh water. It just doesn't make environmental sense, except for a superficial political diversion - pacifying the subsidy-hungry agrarian industry is a welcome side effect, on both sides of the Atlantic.

Waste processing is another issue, of course. And that is where it makes sense.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14139 posts, RR: 63
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1651 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 19):
One of the main problems is that intensive farming for "bio fuel" requires large amounts of primary energy and even larger amounts of fresh water.

This is not so much of a problem if farmers use the traditional method of crop rotation (e.g. in a four year cycle, first rape seed for fuel, then wheat, then potatoes, then let the field lie fallow for a year or e.g. plant some leguminose plants , which get plowed under to recreate the soil). This will reduced the need of artificial fertilizers and pesticides.
Also, the crops need to be adapted to the climate. In central and northern Eurpoe, e.g. water is not a problem, rainfall brings more than enough.

Jan


User currently offlineWingnut767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1647 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 19):
One of the main problems is that intensive farming for "bio fuel" requires large amounts of primary energy and even larger amounts of fresh water. It just doesn't make environmental sense, except for a superficial political diversion - pacifying the subsidy-hungry agrarian industry is a welcome side effect, on both sides of the Atlantic.

Also the effects of farmers cutting down more forrest area to plant crops. The amount of tropical rain forrest that has been cut down to grow crops for Bio fuel in S America has been steadily growing.


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1629 times:

Bio-fuels work, when derived from WASTE products. Unfortunately, most ethanol in the US is not.

User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14139 posts, RR: 63
Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1623 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 22):
Unfortunately, most ethanol in the US is not.

Converting corn to ethanol is a very energy consuming task anyway. First the starch of the grain has to be broken down to sugar, then the sugar solution is being fermented. The ethanol water mix has then to be distilled to produce the pure ethanol, which requires a lot of heat again.
And then, the ethanol process only uses the grains, not the stalks etc..

Jan


User currently offlineWingnut767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1620 times:

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 18):
Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 14):
Bio fuel sucks.

Why does it suck ? If it works, and doesn't require more energy to produce, and doesn't drive food prices sky-high, why not use bio-fuel ?

Most studies that I have seen on ethanol say that it is energy negative at best. With the primary energy going in and worse mileage coming out in your car we might as well drill until a better alternative to ethanol comes along. Why waste the money and give it to the corn lobbies. Everyone worries about "big oil" but you also need to keep your eye on the big corn lobby and the subsidies that they receive for ethanol. And also more studies have come out recently citing Ethanol as producing more pollution than Gas.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 20):
This is not so much of a problem if farmers use the traditional method of crop rotation (e.g. in a four year cycle, first rape seed for fuel, then wheat, then potatoes, then let the field lie fallow for a year or e.g. plant some leguminose plants , which get plowed under to recreate the soil). This will reduced the need of artificial fertilizers and pesticides.
Also, the crops need to be adapted to the climate

Part of the problem in the states is that they are not rotating but going with the flow of subsidies for the corn. And as I stated earlier the growing sugarcane crops here in Florida are an ever larger drain on a already stretched water supply. Not to mention the pressure being put on the wetlands of the everglades.

Also I should be more specific when it comes to saying bio fuels are a waste. I am mostly talking about the ethanol that we use in the US.


25 Klaus : It's a similar picture with the "bio diesel" subsidized over here. Cutting down the subsidies for it is the correct way to go (which is happening rig
26 Post contains images Wingnut767 : See we actually do agree on somethings If we are going for alternative fuels the money needs to be well spent instead of feeding the lobbyist. Compan
27 Post contains images Klaus : Disturbing, I know! Indeed.
28 MD11Engineer : On the other hand, if our farmers start growing more biofuel crops (of course observing the sensible rules of farming, which evolved over centuries, l
29 Bagpiper : We use oil, and we are called pigs for using up resources. We use ethanol, but we are committing genocide for wiping out hungry people. We kill animal
30 Post contains images Baroque : This is a highly disturbing development, signs of peace breaking out. Sell munitions stocks immediately. It all comes back to the disturbing reality
31 Post contains images AndesSMF : STOP LIVING!!! It all has to be worked into a comprehensive plan to get the most of out every power source available, with the minimum of harm.
32 Acheron : Well, we have to consider that oil has been around for a little over 100 years and you just can't beat 100 years of development, cost reduction and "
33 Post contains links AndesSMF : He is discussing the 'energy content' of specific fuels. This section explains well why ethanol should NOT be used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel
34 Post contains links Wingnut767 : In an important new paper published on 1 August 2007 in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions, Crutzen et al. (2007) From Co2science.org we de
35 Post contains images DL021 : There's a thought. Well, I think his irony may be a little subtle for you. I've said that for years. There must be a reason we're not doing that. I h
36 AndesSMF : Is it me, or do others feel the same way I do: Some people are just not interested in solving problems, but are interested in ways to keep themselves
37 MD11Engineer : A big problem in many of these countries is that the cheap, donated agrarian products grown in the US and Europe by using subsidies have killed the l
38 Post contains images Klaus : Which incidentally is one of the main problems in Afghanistan: The local farmers were basically driven out of business through well-meant but destruc
39 MD11Engineer : Well, in the end traditional breeding and even natural selection are gene manpulation too. The problem here lies mostly with the existing intellectua
40 AndesSMF : As I heard a farmer from Kenya say once: 'All we need is for the West to open their markets to our products, and we will be fine.'
41 Post contains images EA CO AS : We just need to start mass-producing these: After all, if they can power a DeLorean through time...
42 Zkpilot : Maybe those countries in Africa should grow enough food for their population or trade amoungst themselves for it. If they can't do this because of a)
43 Baroque : A subject that for some strange reason never get much of a run these days. One of the curious side effects of the spread of democracy is that there i
44 MD11Engineer : Of course. Empoverished, uneducated masses are the backbone of any religion. Jan
45 MD11Engineer : They don't do it for several reasons: 1) flooding of their markets with overtly cheap, subsidized (or "donated") foods and clothes from the EU or Nor
46 Klaus : No, the differences are too great. Genetic manipulation makes much more severe changes than you could by breeding, and much more isolated ones out of
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Amnesty: The PA Constitute Crimes Against Humanity posted Fri Jul 12 2002 16:38:54 by Avi
Crime Against Humanity posted Wed Sep 19 2001 03:37:50 by Heavymetal
Almost All UN Votes Go Against Israel posted Sat Jan 27 2007 06:55:13 by Derico
UN Passes Sanctions Against Iran posted Sat Dec 23 2006 21:43:18 by RJpieces
French UN Troops Prepare Guns Against Israeli Jets posted Fri Nov 17 2006 18:38:54 by Frequentflyer
Mexico Mulling UN Action Against U.S. Fence posted Tue Oct 10 2006 00:04:51 by AerospaceFan
Time For UN Sanctions Against Israel? posted Wed May 19 2004 23:41:36 by Ryanb741
Now, The UN Does What? posted Tue Apr 22 2003 19:02:48 by Apathoid
Iraqi Opposition Against Post War UN Involvement posted Sat Mar 29 2003 02:21:47 by Ryanb741
UN To Relax Sanctions Against Iraq posted Fri May 10 2002 11:17:59 by SAS23