Yet again the law of un-intended consequence...

[Larry Gude]

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18825265.400&feedId=online-news_rss20

A little more time examining cause and effect and a little less time spent on feelings. Probably not what the greenies had in mind.

Of course, to me, the good news here is unproductive land is being put to use.

 

[Llwynog]

Oh, the irony is just killing me.

 

[sleuth]

Life is all about trade-offs.

:sad: I hate to see the rainforests going though. Very few true virgin wilderness areas left in the world.

 

[truby20]

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18825265.400&feedId=online-news_rss20

A little more time examining cause and effect and a little less time spent on feelings. Probably not what the greenies had in mind.

Of course, to me, the good news here is unproductive land is being put to use.

I've never understood the fascination with bio-fuels. Congress is bent on making ethanol a major part of our energy solution since it can be "grown" here. But it can't even be sent through pipelines! You have to have tractor trailers moving it around not to mention all the resources that are used in growing the corn. Is this really a breakthrough? Oil, whether it be from corn or long dead animals still isn't clean.

 

[Ken King]

But it can't even be sent through pipelines!

Really? Just because there aren't any, or maybe very few, pipelines constructed for ethanol doesn't mean it can't be transported that way.

 

[truby20]

Really? Just because there aren't any, or maybe very few, pipelines constructed for ethanol doesn't mean it can't be transported that way.

Looks like I was wrong (but a quick google shows that I'm not the only one who was misinformed, maybe ethanol by pipline is a recent breakthrough?)

Article about bio fuels

Instead of transporting ethanol in the same pipeline, fuel terminals would have to build a separate line to hold the ethanol, then “splash” mix the ethanol and gasoline before distributing to individual stations. Currently, there is only one ethanol-dedicated pipeline in the nation. “A terminal in Long Beach, Calif., has built an ethanol pipeline to transport ethanol from the unloading facility 10 miles to the terminal,” said Duff. “That's where it will get blended into the gasoline. It would cut way down on the cost if ethanol plants were able to be located near a terminal, but that's not generally the case.”

 

[jazz lady]

The whole point of biofuels is to create a RENEWAL resource for fuels. Oil is a finite quantity that will be used up one day. The US is also very dependent on foreign oil. Biofuels are also less polluting (notice I didn't say NONpolluting) than oil.

But we can't go willy-nilly forward with this sort of technology without researching the consequences of those actions as Larry's article pointed out. Are biofuels worth it if it means destroying the remaining rainforests? I say definitely no, but it doesn't have to be this way. We shouldn't have to destroy something else to make biofuels an attractive alternative to oil.

Just like kudzu's introduction in the late 19th century and promotion in the 1920's as a forage for animals and an erosion-controlling measure, they knew not what havoc would be wreaked when unleashing it in the South. "The Vine That Ate The South" now covers over 7 million acres of land and costs millions of dollars per year to try to control, without much success, and millions in lost agriculture and forestry.

By making raising biofuel plants very lucrative in developing countries and not anticipating the consequences, they have opened up a Pandora's Box like kudzu and are now feeling the unfortunate backlash of rainforest destruction.

 

[Pete]

The whole point of biofuels is to create a RENEWAL resource for fuels. Oil is a finite quantity that will be used up one day. The US is also very dependent on foreign oil. Biofuels are also less polluting (notice I didn't say NONpolluting) than oil.

But we can't go willy-nilly forward with this sort of technology without researching the consequences of those actions as Larry's article pointed out. Are biofuels worth it if it means destroying the remaining rainforests? I say definitely no, but it doesn't have to be this way. We shouldn't have to destroy something else to make biofuels an attractive alternative to oil.

Just like kudzu's introduction in the late 19th century and promotion in the 1920's as a forage for animals and an erosion-controlling measure, they knew not what havoc would be wreaked when unleashing it in the South. "The Vine That Ate The South" now covers over 7 million acres of land and costs millions of dollars per year to try to control, without much success, and millions in lost agriculture and forestry.

By making raising biofuel plants very lucrative in developing countries and not anticipating the consequences, they have opened up a Pandora's Box like kudzu and are now feeling the unfortunate backlash of rainforest destruction.

Kudzu fuel hmmmmmmmm

 

[jazz lady]

Kudzu fuel hmmmmmmmm

If you could figure out how to do it, you'd make a fortune.

 

[ylexot]

I'm still liking the pebble bed reactor idea

 

[Lenny]

They're like lemmings....

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18825265.400&feedId=online-news_rss20

A little more time examining cause and effect and a little less time spent on feelings. Probably not what the greenies had in mind.

Of course, to me, the good news here is unproductive land is being put to use.

...they expect us to listen to their warnings of dire futures and drink their Kool Aid but ignore their own warnings of dire futures about the danger of the Kool Aid.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18332282/

 

[bohman]

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18825265.400&feedId=online-news_rss20

A little more time examining cause and effect and a little less time spent on feelings. Probably not what the greenies had in mind.

Of course, to me, the good news here is unproductive land is being put to use.

Oh but wait, if we do all the necessary research and take the time to anticipate problems like this, we'll be accused of "dragging our feet" and not getting anything done!

But I must take issue with calling forest "unproductive" land. Maybe it wasn't making money for anyone before it was used to produce palm oil, but it was doing something productive.

 

[Lenny]

Oh but wait, if we do all the necessary research and take the time to anticipate problems like this, we'll be accused of "dragging our feet" and not getting anything done!

But I must take issue with calling forest "unproductive" land. Maybe it wasn't making money for anyone before it was used to produce palm oil, but it was doing something productive.

And get this. You know those Carbon Credits former-Senator-former-Vice President-failed Presidential candidate Gore pays for his extravagant carbon wastage? The ultimate outcome of that program is to pay someone to plant trees!

 

[mAlice]

I was watching Planet Earth a few nights ago, and learned that algae in the ocean produce around 80% percent of our oxygen. I'm not as worried about the trees anymore.

 

[desertrat]

I was watching Planet Earth a few nights ago, and learned that algae in the ocean produce around 80% percent of our oxygen. I'm not as worried about the trees anymore.

So as the oceans grow due to global warming O2 production will increase and so the cycle goes.

 

[vraiblonde]

I wish the world would ignore these "environmentalists". My friend and I were talking about this yesterday - how now we have all these enviro-toilets that supposedly use less water to flush. Yet you have to flush them two or three times, which pretty much negates any value they might have had.

It's crazy.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Life is all about trade-offs.

:sad: I hate to see the rainforests going though. Very few true virgin wilderness areas left in the world.

You are kidding, right? You really don't know the implication of this? You really don't understand that the majority of the fresh water on earth comes from the rain forests?

We are trading CO2 emissions for water rationing.

What the world needs is a world wide plague or a world wide hot war. Yeah. How Christian of me. No. I don't really want these, but in the past, that is how the population was controlled. Humans are over populating the earth.

We can't even go back to an agrarian economy; too many people and not enough tillable land.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I was watching Planet Earth a few nights ago, and learned that algae in the ocean produce around 80% percent of our oxygen. I'm not as worried about the trees anymore.

It is not oxygen that is the problem; it is fresh water. Hence the name rain forest.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I wish the world would ignore these "environmentalists". My friend and I were talking about this yesterday - how now we have all these enviro-toilets that supposedly use less water to flush. Yet you have to flush them two or three times, which pretty much negates any value they might have had.

It's crazy.

Isn't that the truth.

 

[2ndAmendment]

So as the oceans grow due to global warming O2 production will increase and so the cycle goes.

Well ... not exactly. Warm water does not dissolve CO2 as readily as cold water. Taking a look at the global warming from a different perspective reveals some interesting things.

• CO2 lags warming rather than leads, so it cannot be the cause of warming
• oceans are the greatest absorber of CO2
• oceans are the greatest absorber of solar energy
• cold water absorbs more CO2 than warm water.
• As sun activity increases, oceans absorb more solar energy and rise in temperature releasing CO2
• As solar activity decreases, oceans cool and absorb more CO2
• the warming and cooling trends closely follow the increases and decreases in solar activity.
• since solar activity leads earth temperature solar activity is likely cause
• increases and decreases of CO2 concentrations are a result of solar activity

Not what the global warming activists want to believe.