[Sustain] [Transpo] Excellent Short Audio On The Biofuels Myth

[Ann Garrison]

I don't have the juice to jump into this big time, but I'd like to  
see these idiotic pollution trading schemes central to AB32 and the  
governor's plans, which KPFA keeps spouting at us right off some  
idiot press releases, thoroughly trashed.  I'm sure I told you what  
the first outcome of sulphur emission trading credits is looking  
like---a doubling of sulphur emissions.

I'm with Sue on the carbon tax in that it's the only "market-based  
incentive" that even remotely makes sense to me.   And even that  
seems unfair to people stuck in remote suburbs, with no choice but to  
commute to work in cars.  The Lennars of the world, who created all  
this sprawl and should pay all these carbon taxes, are long gone with  
all the money, just like all the uranium mining corporate miscreants  
on the Navajo Rez.

So I'm for carbon taxes, opposed to pollution trading credits, but  
are we gonna carbon tax people stuck inbetween the huge mess of  
freeways and malls in Phoenix-Mesa-Tempe?   ---A.G.

On Apr 5, 2007, at 10:05 AM, susan_e_vaughan at juno.com wrote:

> I have seen that Eric has responded to this, but I'm putting my  
> replies
> below John-Marc's responses, between the =...=
>
> Sue
>
> -- John-Marc Chandonia <jmc at sfgreens.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 02:01:58AM -0700, Eric Brooks wrote:
>> We can't get around conservation of energy here. The algae has to  
>> be fed
>> with something. The carbon has to come from somewhere. There is no  
>> free
>> lunch. Hence anything that will give us massive amounts of burnable
>> fuels, will have massive amounts of impact on the planetary  
>> ecosystem.
>
> The energy is solar, and the carbon comes from carbon dioxide.
>
> The cellulosic ethanol by itself won't be sufficient to replace our
> current oil needs, but every little bit might make the difference
> between a gradual "powerdown" in a peak oil scenario and total
> collapse.  Cellulose (stalks) is essentially a free byproduct of
> growing food crops, and the energy we put into growing them already
> (for the food) is currently wasted.  It's like the difference between
> letting the sunlight heat up your roof or putting on some solar panels
> to take advantage of it.
>
> =David Fridley is giving his presentation on the myth of biofuels
> Tuesday during our CC meeting.  I'm very familiar with what he says.
> He reminds us that there is no such thing as a "free byproduct of
> growing food crops," as the detritus of food crops is essential for  
> the
> renewal of the soil, especially in a system that of necessity is going
> to have to rely less and less on artificial fertilizer inputs.=
>
>> And as my previous post noted, the players that are getting into this
>> biofuels game are some of the most evil people on the planet.
>
> In a total collapse of civilization, even evil folks wouldn't be able
> to enjoy their current lifestyle.
>
>> They mentioned algae. They dovetailed it and all of the other  
>> crops with
>> genetic engineering. This stuff is all bad news that must be stopped
>> before it distracts us from taking real action to end the climate
>> crisis, while we instead wait a precious, deadly, decade or two  
>> for some
>> magic bullet that will allow us all to drive cars.
>
> This is a false dichotomy; there's no reason we can't both build
> mass transit and also develop biofuels.  The amount of money necessary
> for either project is tiny compared to the cost of the war.  Biofuels
> aren't a "distraction" from building mass transit when the public
> barely knows about them.  I think in a poll, the public would prefer
> mass transit.
>
>> Why are we talking about convoluted esoteric ways to get liquid  
>> carbon
>> fuels out of algae, when we could meet our energy and transportation
>> needs with solar, wind, tidal, wave, etc. and electrified mass  
>> transit?
>
> Liquid carbon fuels are convenient, and more technologically practical
> to develop than other high density fuel storage options such as
> hydrogen or high density batteries.  Almost all our existing
> infrastructure is built on them, so the transition would be much
> cheaper.
>
> =Eric, I think you are very unrealistic about the potential of solar,
> wind, tidal, and wave.  Currently, all those "alternative" forms of
> energy generation account for less than one percent of the energy that
> is generated nationally.  I think you need to start working the term
> "carbon tax" into your discussions, as we need to drastically reduce
> the amount of energy that we are using.=
>
>> These are off the shelf, affordable technologies, that can be  
>> employed
>> now; not speculative scientific processes which seek some sleight of
>> hand with which to defy the basic laws of physics.
>
> Which basic laws of physics are you referring to?  Biofuels don't
> violate any of them any more than other energy sources that are
> ultimately solar powered.
>
> =Again, solar and wind and all those others account for less than one
> percent of our current energy generation.=
>
> JMC
> -- 
> John-Marc Chandonia (jmc at sfgreens.org)
> http://sfgreens.org/
> _______________________________________________
> Transpo mailing list
> Transpo at sfgreens.org
> https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sustainability mailing list
> Sustainability at sfgreens.org
> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability