Biofuel Destroys the Rainforest

[RMURRAY 1]

Quote

>Well, that should make the environmentalists schizophrenic.

Why? I'm an enviromentalist; it doesn't bother me. Makes sense when you think about it. Slash-and-burn agriculture for any reason has the same effects.

Two coal fired power plants in Massachusetts alone kill about 150 people a year in nearby towns. Does that make you schizophrenic?

Ontario is closing all coal fired power plants in 2007 as part of the "plan" to meet Kyoto. I wish the NE states would do the same since most of the crap comes from there. Land should be used for food not fuel. The answer is hydrogen generated from renewables (with some help from nuclear).

[rushmc 23]

Again, you are putting words in my mouth.
I only stated that I had seen the claims before but
I had seen no data.

Common sense would have one think that some of
the claims have some merit but I have found that in most cases environmentalist can make claims that the media will just parot.

Also, I did not make any claims did I? I only stated that I am skeptical of claims make by others.

Pefect example Global Warming
I skimed over the Duke study showing that increased sun output may be a greater impact to the global warming claims. The study also states that green house gasses may be partialy to blame too. But they also say that the suns impact needs to be included in the model.

Does that study turn the world opinion up side down? No, but it is one more perspective (and maybe a large impact) on the claims made.

Conclusion, none directly but it is one more piece of info that makes me even less likely to believe the man is effecting major climate change.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

info that makes me even less likely to believe the man is effecting major climate change

Would you believe it if Bush said it was so?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g8/story/0,13365,1522499,00.html

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>I have seen these studies. They are statistical conclusions.

Yes. They are the same sorts of studies that made us realize that smoking is bad for you, and shielding on nuclear reactors is pretty important.

>The action reaction thing but to throw a number out there is not
>much better than a guess.

For you, true. There are other people who spend their lives studying such things; their guesses are much, much better. You trust your life to these people whenever you drink water from a tap, or get a vaccination, or fly on an airliner. They do a pretty good job in general.

>You reference London. The US plants are much much cleaner . . .

Right. London is a data point because we know that very bad pollution kills a lot of people quickly.

>I do want responcibe solutions from the debate though, not
>extreem ones . . .

Responsible solutions to the problem of coal power plant pollution? Here are a few:

Every power plant in the US meets EPA standards, period. No more political exceptions. No New Source Review loopholes.

EPA standards are updated to BACT standards every five years, and power plants have to meet those within the next five years. Again, no exceptions.

Solutions for the problems with biofuels? Again, pretty straightforward. Farms meet EPA and Department of Agriculture requirements for watershed protection, water usage and the like.

I won't go into all the points you made but I do want to address the last two or three.

You say that we should follow to this rule and this law. I would agree with that if I thought all the rules were not extreem (however, I do agree strongly with your point that if a rule is in place today, whether I agree with it or not, it should be followed and enforced. The only other tactic would be to get it changed) And some of the rules today are extreem (I think)

My biggest problem it that we can not have an honest debate

If any group questions a rule or proposed rule they are attacked as greedy corp sponsors and they want to polute the water and make us all breath dirty air. Then, the right wing media just parots those claims and acusations and the groups or people shut up because they don't want to be labeled.
Do you really think that most of those that argue for common sense rules want to destroy the planet and poison our kids? I don't think so.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

info that makes me even less likely to believe the man is effecting major climate change

Would you believe it if Bush said it was so?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g8/story/0,13365,1522499,00.html

No......

...and your post is a little misleading........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

and your post is a little misleading

Not really. I was just pointing out that for the first time Bush has actually achnowledged that mankind is influencing climate change.

[rushmc 23]

And that effect my opinion how?
He is dealing in a political world. If he wants to say this or if he even believes it fine.

Doesn't change what I think though.

Or did you think I would change my mind because I just follow GWB blindly?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Or did you think I would change my mind because I just follow GWB blindly?

You're not the only one who's gonna read my post.

[rushmc 23]

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Does that make you schizophrenic?

Yup.

Me too.

Not me.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[freethefly 6]

Your header is bogus. Biofuel does not destroy the rainforest. It is the humans who cannot manage a grow operation. It is their greed to fill their pockets. There is plenty of open range to fill the need, worlwide. Their are plenty of impoverished nations that could benefit from biofuel grow operations. Blame all destruction on the greedy not the fuel.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Your header is bogus. Biofuel does not destroy the rainforest. It is the humans who cannot manage a grow operation. It is their greed to fill their pockets. There is plenty of open range to fill the need, worlwide. Their are plenty of impoverished nations that could benefit from biofuel grow operations. Blame all destruction on the greedy not the fuel.

Isn't that post applicable to ALL energy sources? (not just biofuel).

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[shropshire 0]

good point.

A few years ago people were blaming McDonald (et al.) because farmers were clearing forests to create habitat for cows....

.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[billvon 3,132]

>You say that we should follow to this rule and this law. I would agree
> with that if I thought all the rules were not extreem . . .

That's a matter of opinion, of course. And a matter of what the alternative is.

Look at CARB, the California Air Resources Board. In the 1970's, people in LA were dying of smog on a pretty regular basis; estimates put them at hundreds a year. My wife was born in LA. At that time the smog was so bad that their doctor recommended moving, to prevent damage to her lungs.

To deal with this, CARB was formed. (It was originally called California Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board.) It required new emissions controls on vehicles. At first people screamed bloody murder. "You're going to require catalytic converters? They have PLATINUM in them! Cars will cost millions of dollars! And to work right you have to put a computer in every car! An absurd, extreme solution!"

But it worked. Today lead pollution is down 99%. Ozone 66%. Sulfur dioxide 72%. Carbon monoxide 66%. NOx 42%. And not only did it work, but once manufacturers figured out how to do it cheaply in California, they applied the same technology to the rest of the country. And today every car sold has fuel injection, a computer to control mixture and ignition, and a catalytic converter. Turns out that even the "really extreme" solution turned out to be quite doable - and paid off in human lives.

Now, there is still more to do, of course. Studies show kids who grow up in LA start their adult life with lungs that look like they've been smoking for a few years, with all the additional risks for asthma, emphysema, and lung cancer that entails. Fortunately progress is being made. Cars that carry the SULEV or PZEV ratings take in dirty air and release water, nitrogen and CO2 with fewer pollutants than were in the original air, which is pretty amazing when you think about it.

So how do you balance the two, the human cost vs the cost to industry? A fair way, one that the EPA has largely adopted, is called BACT - best available commercial technology. Every X years they review the available technology, look at what works and what doesn't, and then they upgrade their rules accordingly. That way power plants aren't hit with some impossible to meet standard. Will it be expensive to upgrade them to the new technology? Yep. But a) it will save lives and b) it will make the company providing the new system lots of money.

[rushmc 23]

Great post!

And for the most part what you described I agree with. Extreem solutions are needed for extreem problems as they had in California. The location and weather played an important part with the situation. Good things came from that.

But, for coal fired plants what may be called needed changes are a bit over the top in my opinion. But, if BACT is used fairly and with good science then giddy up. I will go with you on that one!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Channman 2]

I'll have to add this was a very good post, very informitive, and something I could support.

Cheers to ya.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>A fair way, one that the EPA has largely adopted, is called BACT - best available commercial technology. Every X years they review the available technology, look at what works and what doesn't, and then they upgrade their rules accordingly. That way power plants aren't hit with some impossible to meet standard. Will it be expensive to upgrade them to the new technology? Yep. But a) it will save lives and b) it will make the company providing the new system lots of money.

So legislate what would happen normally in a market driven "survival of the fittest" environment? Seems redundant, but if we tie strings (legislation) around energy companies that keep them from developing forward under a profit motive, then I guess more strings are needed to fix the first problem.

At least here, it seems to be a situation where 2 wrongs do improve the situation compared to one wrong.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Cars that carry the SULEV or PZEV ratings take in dirty air and release water, nitrogen and CO2 with fewer pollutants than were in the original air, which is pretty amazing when you think about it.

Does this mean people can't kill themselves by running the car in the garage anymore?

[billvon 3,132]

>So legislate what would happen normally in a market driven "survival of
>the fittest" environment?

No. In a free market there is a strong financial incentive to put out a lot of SOx, because the technologies to reduce it are expensive. So the power company that pollutes the most does the best economically, and the more responsible ones go out of business because they cannot compete.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>So legislate what would happen normally in a market driven "survival of
>the fittest" environment?

No. In a free market there is a strong financial incentive to put out a lot of SOx, because the technologies to reduce it are expensive. So the power company that pollutes the most does the best economically, and the more responsible ones go out of business because they cannot compete.

That is not entirely true. Putting out more polutants cost a company because they have to buy (I can't remember what they are called) a certificate that is traded. Plants and/or companies get a max amount they can discharge. The EPA issues these certs based on some formula or criteria I do not understand. If a company discharges more they are alowed to they have to buy those certs to cover it. In the mean time those with newer cleaner plants get to sell thier certs. This helps to cap the max output and levelize the field when it comes to emissions. SOx and NOx are covered by this if I remember correctly.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,132]

> Putting out more polutants cost a company because they have to
>buy (I can't remember what they are called) a certificate that is traded.

Right. But that's a regulatory 'trick' if you will - it is an attempt to add some free-market incentives into a regulatory framework. It's not what would happen in a completely free market though.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

> Putting out more polutants cost a company because they have to
>buy (I can't remember what they are called) a certificate that is traded.

Right. But that's a regulatory 'trick' if you will - it is an attempt to add some free-market incentives into a regulatory framework. It's not what would happen in a completely free market though.

Yep, I agree.

The company I work for had a team that developed a scruber to remove SOx from gas fired turbines. It comes from the unregulated side so I don't hear to much but I think they are selling the technolegy.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Quote

>A fair way, one that the EPA has largely adopted, is called BACT - best available commercial technology. Every X years they review the available technology, look at what works and what doesn't, and then they upgrade their rules accordingly. That way power plants aren't hit with some impossible to meet standard. Will it be expensive to upgrade them to the new technology? Yep. But a) it will save lives and b) it will make the company providing the new system lots of money.

So legislate what would happen normally in a market driven "survival of the fittest" environment? Seems redundant, but if we tie strings (legislation) around energy companies that keep them from developing forward under a profit motive, then I guess more strings are needed to fix the first problem.

At least here, it seems to be a situation where 2 wrongs do improve the situation compared to one wrong.

If the cost of cleaning up the mess you make is not included, then it's not really market driven because you are relying on someone else paying that cost through their taxes or philanthropy, or indirectly through increased health costs.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[crozby 0]

Am I the only person who thinks its a bit creepy that JohnRich has posted a non-gun related thread in SC?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Was the point of this to educate or to irk?[/url]

Neither. To stir debate about the law of unintended consequences.

But since some people (like kallend) have already turned this into yet another bush/iraq war bashing, I don't care to hang around and participate.

• Quote