<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
John-Marc and all,<br>
<br>
We should definitely discuss all of this in both working groups,
however people that can't come to the meetings should also benefit from
this exchange.<br>
<br>
Below are my latest responses in three sections that will be a bit
easier to wade through... :)<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org">jmc@sfgreens.org</a> wrote:<br>
<pre wrap="">You can break the cellulose down into sugar, ferment the sugar, distill out the alcohol, and then recycle the leftovers back into the soil...If you're talking about inedible parts of crops we currently plant, a biofuel plant in proximity to the farm wouldn't result in any more mining than is currently taking place...
</pre>
My reply:<br>
<br>
Distilling out the alcohol takes energy -out- of the plant material in
large amounts and turns it into a liquid fuel. All of that energy is
then unable to be returned to the soil. Let's get to the heart of
physics. Energy and matter are the same thing, and energy/matter is
never lost or gained, it is simply moved from place to place, from one
state to another. So, when you take large amounts of energy from a
plant (in the form of alcohol or oil) and move that energy into the
fuel lines of millions of vehicles, that energy is lost to the soil and
transfered to the atmosphere. It has been moved to a different place
and cannot strengthen the soil and build up within it. Remember, above
and beyond nutrients, carbon itself is a key component of soil (plants
don't solely depend on -atmospheric- carbon for their life cycle). And
storing carbon in thick topsoil, keeps it -out- of the atmosphere. <br>
<br>
There is a Science Daily article that gets right to the heart of what I
am talking about <small><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">(Trapping
Carbon In Soil Key For Protecting Global Food Security, Dealing With
Climate Change)</font></small> at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/06/040614080953.htm">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/06/040614080953.htm</a><br>
<br>
This same dynamic holds true for water grown algae. The algae -must- be
fed a nutrient base, much of which will be transfered as energy into
the fuel. And even if we develop an incredibly hyper efficient algae
fuel process, think about what it is that we will be <u>doing</u>. We
will be taking carbon dioxide out of the air, turning it into fuel, and
returning it to the air, when -instead- <u><i>and this is absolutely
key</i></u>, -most- of that CO2 could be taken out of the air and
permanently stored in old growth ecosystems and their soils; and deep
permacultural farmlands and -their- soils. By restoring old growth
ecosystems and deep sustainable farmlands to the Earth in this way, we
can pull a lot of the current excess CO2 -out- of the atmosphere and
put it back down into the Earth and into cycling living systems where
it belongs; and from which we have in fact unnaturally extracted it in
the first place.<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org">jmc@sfgreens.org</a> wrote:<br>
<pre wrap="">The two main sources [for biofuel algae supports] I've seen are power plants that spew carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and sewage from pig/cow farms (which do not necessarily contain heavy metals, unless you've been feeding them to the pigs). Both are good places to build algae plants because the algae would break down the pollutants and at the same time produce usable energy. This would be economical now, while the technology is developed to the point where you could run it just off of atmospheric level carbon dioxide. I don't buy the argument that remediating a current source of pollution is somehow encouraging more of that pollution; the demand for pig meat has nothing to do with whether we might produce biofuels from pig poop. Current methods of pig farming may turn out to be unsustainable in the long run even with bioremediation, but as
long as we have them, it's better to use the waste for biofuel rather than letting it pollute the environment.</pre>
My reply:<br>
<br>
No actually it is not better, because doing so would obviously increase
the profitability and utility of both fossil fuel power plants and pig
farms, perpetuating them as a paradigm in our global economic, energy
and food system; especially when you consider that mainstream media
reports always portray such projects as a way we can have our cake and
eat it too, with both, fossil fuel burning, and incredibly destructive
meat agriculture. And of course, there are in fact massive toxic
chemical inputs into both industries that will indeed still make their
way into our air and water bodies. Far superior alternatives are, a) a
massive switch immediately to non-carbon based energy like solar and
wind, enabling the immediate -closure- of the power plants (instead of
simply mitigating their wastes and CO2), and b) a mass education
program to get people to realise the power of eating much lower on the
food chain, thereby encouraging immediate large reductions (instead of
dangerous co-dependent validations) of pig farming. Pig farming by the
way, is one of the -most- polluting of all forms of animal agriculture.<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org">jmc@sfgreens.org</a> wrote:<br>
<pre wrap="">Monsanto's current exploits have nothing to do with the argument over whether biofuels might be part of a sustainable energy solution or not...and then...
We're talking about [genetically engineered] biofuel plants on dry land (e.g., in a desert with lots of sunlight), with algae that need seawater to survive. Therefore, I'm not too worried about mutant algae escaping into the biosphere. In most cases, I'm much less worried about genetically engineering microorganisms such as bacteria than I am about genetically engineering crops; the reasons why have to do with technical reasons that are outside the scope of this discussion, but I'd be happy to explain this another time.
</pre>
My reply:<br>
<br>
First, Monsanto will be intimately involved with biofuels, because the
current gold rush is toward genetically engineered ultra-high-yield
biofuel crops. The connection then, is obvious.<br>
Second, it is actually genetically engineered microorganisms that are
the -most- dangerous. Microorganisms reproduce rapidly and therefore
mutate rapidly and so can very quickly adapt themselves to invade
exactly the ecosystems that you are so sure they will not be able to
spread out into... And this isn't even the worst danger. Bacteria and
viruses can get into/consume genetically engineered microbes -and-
plants & animals and quickly incorporate genetically engineered DNA
into their -own- genetic structure. And, -then- in an even -more-
disastrous synergy, bacteria that exchange information between
eachother -both- sexually -and- by directly joining to eachother and <u>directly</u>
exchanging genetic information, can, and <u>often do</u>, incorporate
this genetically engineered DNA flying around in the viruses and other
bacteria all over the place, and then rapidly pass it down, around and
through their neighbors, creating an explosion in the invasion of
genetically engineered DNA into both our bodies and the biosphere. This
has definitively been shown in hard research. Samples taken from people
and animals that have eaten genetically engineered foods have shown
that the engineered DNA, partly due to this very process of exchanges
of DNA between bacteria, and viruses, are winding up not being fully
broken down in the stomach and instead, are making their way all the
way into the tissue -and- DNA of the people and animals eating the
food. (This process is begun in the very tough and resourceful gut
bacteria in our stomachs and intestines.)<br>
<br>
Such microbial exchange of engineered DNA, is precisely why there is NO
SUCH THING as a safe genetically engineered organism. They are
inherently extremely dangerous, and should be abolished, because their
artificial genetic material can make its way into every single corner
of the planet and into every single living organism.<br>
<br>
and to genetically engineer very small, rapidly reproducing organisms,
is to increase this danger exponentially...<br>
<br>
And on that happy note..<br>
<br>
cheers<br>
<br>
Eric<br>
<blockquote cite="mid20070406163323.GA514@sfgreens.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I think this would benefit from an in-person discussion, possibly
at the next Transpo or Sustainability meeting. Writing all this in
email is too slow, and I can't keep up:
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 01:05:08AM -0700, Eric Brooks wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">1) On algae: It will take massive inputs of other nutrients besides
solar rays and atmospheric carbon to grow algae in sufficient quantities
to meet liquid fuel needs. (See point 6 below.)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Depends how fast you want them to grow. I'm talking about net input;
of course you need some seawater or other medium for them to grow
in. But you can then recycle most of that; if the only thing you're taking
out of the system is hydrocarbon, the only necessary inputs that you
can't recycle are carbon (from the air) and water (from seawater).
At this time, the technology is still immature, so it makes sense
to develop it under conditions that make it easier, so the resulting
oil will cost less. I'll respond to your point 6 below.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">2) On cellulosic ethanol: There is no such thing as a 'free byproduct'
in nature and agriculture. Those plant stalks need to be returned to
(composted back into) the soil from which they came.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Both you and Sue have a misconception that using the stalks to produce
cellulosic ethanol somehow prevents you from doing that. You can
break the cellulose down into sugar, ferment the sugar, distill out the
alcohol, and then recycle the leftovers back into the soil. This
is currently done with leftovers from brewers and distillers; the most
important nutrients, such as phosphate, are not destroyed in the
process.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Taking plant matter away from soil in this way is known as 'mining'
soil. Currently, through industrial agricultural practices begun in the
false 'green' revolution, this is causing such a collapse in land
quality all over the planet, that we will soon be producing less food
per capita on the Earth, than is needed for adequate nutrition. Piling
biofuel soil mining on top of this already growing catastrophe would be
insane.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
If you're talking about inedible parts of crops we currently plant,
a biofuel plant in proximity to the farm wouldn't result in any more
mining than is currently taking place. If we were to harvest crops
specifically for biofuels (e.g., switchgrass), this is a valid concern
to take into account.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">3) On the conflict between biofuels and transit: My argument is crystal
clear. If the general public is given any shred of hope to cling to,
that enables them to believe they can continue to drive their personal
automobiles, they will, hands down, choose personal automobiles over
mass transit.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Studies have shown that transit ridership rises if it's cheap and/or
convenient (e.g., in Europe, Japan, and on Spare the Air days in SF).
If you're arguing that "general public" mean everybody would have to
prefer cars, that's just a strawman. It is impractical to bring mass
transit to the current suburbs, and biofuels will not become cheap
enough for those people to sustain their lifestyle either--economics
will eventually force them to move (as in "End of Suburbia").
As I said before, the amount we're investing in mass transit, and in
biofuels, are each so small that it makes no sense to pretend spending
on one precludes the other.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">One need only look at the devastation that has been
wrought by the activities of Monsanto corporation to see the truth of
this.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Monsanto's current exploits have nothing to do with the argument over
whether biofuels might be part of a sustainable energy solution or not.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">5) On fuel density: There is enough solar, wind, wave and tidal capacity
(if built) to run a global electrified mass transit system. Under such a
scenario, the pursuit of liquid fuel density is simply unnecessary and
therefore extremely wasteful.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
You still need liquid fuel for some applications (e.g., airplanes).
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I am referring primarily to conservation of energy.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
OK, look up how much energy you get from sunlight (e.g., per square
foot), look at the conversion efficiency of algae, and the energy
density of the resulting oil. The numbers work out. See the slashdot
reference I gave you before for some calculations.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">used. A quick search on the internet showed me that the inputs being
considered for algal fuel production are fossil fuel power plant wastes
('nuff said), and sewage wastes (imagine the toxins, heavy metals, etc,
that would end up in the algae oil from this latter process, later to be
burned into the air we breathe).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
The two main sources I've seen are power plants that spew carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere and sewage from pig/cow farms (which do
not necessarily contain heavy metals, unless you've been feeding them
to the pigs). Both are good places to build algae plants because the
algae would break down the pollutants and at the same time produce
usable energy. This would be economical now, while the technology is
developed to the point where you could run it just off of atmoshperic
level carbon dioxide. I don't buy the argument that remediating a
current source of pollution is somehow encouraging more of that pollution;
the demand for pig meat has nothing to do with whether we might produce
biofuels from pig poop. Current methods of pig farming may turn out
to be unsustainable in the long run even with bioremediation, but as
long as we have them, it's better to use the waste for biofuel rather
than letting it pollute the environment.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Another ominous note that I saw sounded
out there, is that biofuel algae will be genetically engineered to
greatly increase yield. Imagine massive amounts of genetically
engineered biofuel algae released into the biosphere.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
We're talking about biofuel plants on dry land (e.g., in a desert with
lots of sunlight), with algae that need seawater to survive.
Therefore, I'm not too worried about mutant algae escaping into the
biosphere. In most cases, I'm much less worried about genetically
engineering microorganisms such as bacteria than I am about genetically
engineering crops; the reasons why have to do with technical reasons
that are outside the scope of this discussion, but I'd be happy to
explain this another time.
JMC
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>