Re: [Sustain] [Transpo] Excellent Short Audio On The Biofuels Myth
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@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@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/ _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo
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@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@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@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/ _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo
_______________________________________________ Sustainability mailing list Sustainability@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability
I'm am so sick of the peak oil crowd using this ridiculous bogus argument that I am literally about to lose my cool over it. The reason that solar, wind, tidal and wave "account for less than one percent of the energy that is generated nationally" is that we have hardly BUILT any of it. If we we DID build it and switch to electrified mass transit, it would account for almost 100% of the energy generated nationally. And when peak oil speakers spout this nonsense they totally lose credibility with every person like myself who have followed solar, wind and other renewables long enough to know that if we just build these facilities, switch to high efficiency methods, localise as much as possible, and switch to electrified mass transit, the numbers work. We can have a smooth transition from a fossil fuel civilization to a renewable one. And whenever you put this argument out to well motivated but uniformed people you TURN THEM OFF to renewables and you need to STOP IT! Furthermore, you also turn -others- off to the very VALID peak oil arguments, like those against biofuels. People stop trusting what you are saying, because they know full well that you are completely wrong about solar and wind. I'm sorry to get angry, but this bs has got to stop. We are talking about a 25 year time frame here to completely turn around civilization and stop the planet from burning, and we -must- build massive amounts of wind, solar and other true renewables or we will fail. Period. Please people, analyze what you believe carefully and logically, before you repeat it to others. with respect, Eric Sue Vaughan wrote: =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.=
At 11:55 AM 4/5/2007, Eric Brooks wrote:
I'm am so sick of the peak oil crowd using this ridiculous bogus argument that I am literally about to lose my cool over it.
Renewables certainly need to be promoted big time; in the circles I travel in, I can't remember anybody not wanting that (and that includes an awful lot of peak oil folks). That doesn't necessary fit in with the plans people in power who intend to profit off energy have, because some of these renewables could prove to be very empowering for the people who now are their energy serfs. But when renewables are used to promise that the way of life we live now is going to continue, I certainly don't think that's very likely. We are embedded with a "progress is good" meme that needs to be highly reconsidered; or else (I believe) the definition of what is "progress" needs to be changed. I also don't know how you will change the minds of so many Americans to embrace mass transit in a 25 year time frame without a genuinely huge consciousness shift (these shift may be able to happen, but in my lifespan I've not seen any of them, especially when they require a change in what we all love because of our evolution: convenience. By the way, I'm glad to see the "peak oil crowd" seems to have a unified voice. Were that really true, at least with much of message, life would be a lot easier. :) The way we are living and consuming now is a big lie; without lifestyle changes these arguments all become moot. Education needs to go way beyond the Al Gore message of "change a lightbulb, save the world." The major oil field in Mexico is now in big decline (they're our 3rd largest supplier); the biggest field in Saudi Arabia is apparently starting the same process. The longer we wait to create renewable energy, not boondoggles for our convenience, the more these things will cost, along with everything else. It's already way beyond where it should have begun, if we operated outside of the delusional space of "the way we live now is normal." AND REALLY IMPORTANTLY, We also will not continue to inhabit the planet in the numbers of people now here. I don't see anyway it is likely to support us in 6 or 9 billion numbers with organic or permaculture used as agriculture. This is the elephant in the room that nobody in a political sphere dare touch, but talk to ecologists or environmental biologists and read their science. Just lowering birthrates so that actual numbers still increase, albeit slowly, still impacts the planet with more degradation. We desperately need to encourage very very small families immediately.
My comment below Dennis's, as it should be. I'm trying to get better about using e-mail to interact, as originally intended. On Apr 5, 2007, at 1:07 PM, Dennis Brumm wrote:
At 11:55 AM 4/5/2007, Eric Brooks wrote:
I'm am so sick of the peak oil crowd using this ridiculous bogus argument that I am literally about to lose my cool over it.
Renewables certainly need to be promoted big time; in the circles I travel in, I can't remember anybody not wanting that (and that includes an awful lot of peak oil folks). That doesn't necessary fit in with the plans people in power who intend to profit off energy have, because some of these renewables could prove to be very empowering for the people who now are their energy serfs. But when renewables are used to promise that the way of life we live now is going to continue, I certainly don't think that's very likely.
We are embedded with a "progress is good" meme that needs to be highly reconsidered; or else (I believe) the definition of what is "progress" needs to be changed.
YES. "Economic growth" is the unchallenged value spouted on every media outlet everywhere, including those we support, without challenge. Growth for what purpose? Rate of return on investment? What else? How about the growth of freedom, creativity, and above, all dignity, instead? (Enough of this parliamentary democracy baloney; bankrupt word; bankrupt institution.) But what's this "peak oil" crowd everybody keeps talking about? Seems like the oil companies never stop hitting a new gusher. I'm gonna get a "you can't post to this list" from the owner of the transpo group. If anyone can add me, just so I can be part of this discussion, that'd be nice. Energy and transpo are inextricable.
I also don't know how you will change the minds of so many Americans to embrace mass transit in a 25 year time frame without a genuinely huge consciousness shift (these shift may be able to happen, but in my lifespan I've not seen any of them, especially when they require a change in what we all love because of our evolution: convenience.
By the way, I'm glad to see the "peak oil crowd" seems to have a unified voice. Were that really true, at least with much of message, life would be a lot easier. :)
The way we are living and consuming now is a big lie; without lifestyle changes these arguments all become moot. Education needs to go way beyond the Al Gore message of "change a lightbulb, save the world."
The major oil field in Mexico is now in big decline (they're our 3rd largest supplier); the biggest field in Saudi Arabia is apparently starting the same process. The longer we wait to create renewable energy, not boondoggles for our convenience, the more these things will cost, along with everything else. It's already way beyond where it should have begun, if we operated outside of the delusional space of "the way we live now is normal."
AND REALLY IMPORTANTLY, We also will not continue to inhabit the planet in the numbers of people now here. I don't see anyway it is likely to support us in 6 or 9 billion numbers with organic or permaculture used as agriculture. This is the elephant in the room that nobody in a political sphere dare touch, but talk to ecologists or environmental biologists and read their science. Just lowering birthrates so that actual numbers still increase, albeit slowly, still impacts the planet with more degradation. We desperately need to encourage very very small families immediately.
_______________________________________________ Sustainability mailing list Sustainability@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability
At 01:19 PM 4/5/2007, you wrote:
But what's this "peak oil" crowd everybody keeps talking about? Seems like the oil companies never stop hitting a new gusher.
All the new gushers (some really aren't that new) pale in comparison in volume to the fields they used to discover in the 1960s. It's all hype. The big Gulf of Mexico find awhile back, if completed pumped, would fuel the world for maybe a month.... Oil companies want to believe they don't live in a finite world, but they do. And petroleum is by NO MEANS the only resource in decline. But it's the one that fuels most of the world's societies right now. Think of it as what it is - 300,000,000 years of solar energy stored up that we've used about half of in 150 years. It's the most dense energy (that's energy return on energy investment) gift we may ever know. Even if there were unlimited land and the degradation of the soils weren't issues (which they are), with the really low EROEI of biofuels, something like 80% of the population would need to involved in the business of producing those fuels. Wouldn't leave much room for the other ideas of "progress" you mentioned.
I'm gonna get a "you can't post to this list" from the owner of the transpo group. If anyone can add me, just so I can be part of this discussion, that'd be nice. Energy and transpo are inextricable.
I just wrote and asked to be added for the duration, too.
=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.=
Without a real paradigm shift in the thinking of the average American, any group that proposed such a tax would not stay elected for long. I don't know how to convince individuals that their respective footprints are part of the global problem. But they are.
He reminds us that there is no such thing as a "free byproduct of growing food crops,"
Sue is right on about land and soils. Presently with cheap natural gas agriculture, they have been very nearly ruined as they produced "unnatural" yields. With natural gas in decline (and oil most probably too at this juncture), we need to be restoring them big time, rather than exploiting them to grow food simply because we want to maintain personal transportation vehicles. The downside (which has been written about a lot more lately, fortunately) includes increasing food prices, creating hunger and starving the poor worldwide, and contributing to further degradation of the planet.
In keeping with his promise to go beyond compostable plastic bags to re-usables, Ross Mirkarimi just forwarded the note below in his latest newsletter. Anyone who needs canvass bags should go for it fast and furiously so we can show the Dept. of Environment how high the demand is for such bags... "Free Reusable Canvas Bags Available While supplies last the Department of the Environment is offering free reusable canvas bags for grocery shopping. Each reusable shopping bag has the potential to eliminate hundreds, if not thousands, of plastic bags over its lifetime. Bags are available at the Department of the Environment office located at 11 Grove Street. For more information call 355-3700."
John McCain tried to sell me one of these canvas bags, in exchange for signing up with the Environmental Defense Fund. That was before Obama turned the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act into the McCain-Lieberman-Obama Climate Stewardship Act. I'm really getting confused by some of these groups that seem kinda half right, like the Environmental Defense Fund. At first I thought McCain was just pretending to represent the Environmental Defense Fund, when his cyborg sent me that fundraising letter, 'cause the outfit he was pushing, endorsed by Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward, was called the Environmental Defense Action Alert. But then I poked around the Net till I was pretty sure they were the same thing. The Sierra Club, the NRDC, and even----!!!!----the Apollo Alliance, are the only non-native groups working with the native Black Mesa Water Coalition in the Four Corners. The Sierra Club seems sorta kinda OK there, in the native Four Corners, but here, Mary R. says they promoted Lennar's development in the shipyard. And, in Obama's Illinois, around the Great Lakes, some local Sierra Club chose "clean coal" as their greenhouse gas limiting solution. But the Environmental Defense Fund seems to do some good stuff, especially with the Western Shoshone Defense Project, if I'm not mistaken. So, anybody in the SF Greens know what to make of the Environmental Defense Fund? I got so pissed off about that Apollo Alliance using the Diné Navajo Dooda! Desert Rock Committee, which is fighting the Sithe Global Industries' attempt to build a 60-acre coal-fired power plant at Desert Rock, on the northwestern Navajo Rez, that I left a message on one of their "It's getting hot in here" websites telling them to quit using these folks and their just-as-justice-ever-gets battle to promote the Apollo Alliance's crappy pro-nuclear, pro-bio-fuels, pro- ethanol message. I think that youth leader of theirs, Billy Paul, on leave from Yale for the past four years to promote the Apollo Alliance, is a a member of Skull and Bones in training, probably in training for the CIA as well. R&R for one and all---Annie On Apr 6, 2007, at 3:19 AM, Eric Brooks wrote:
In keeping with his promise to go beyond compostable plastic bags to re-usables, Ross Mirkarimi just forwarded the note below in his latest newsletter. Anyone who needs canvass bags should go for it fast and furiously so we can show the Dept. of Environment how high the demand is for such bags...
"Free Reusable Canvas Bags Available
While supplies last the Department of the Environment is offering free reusable canvas bags for grocery shopping. Each reusable shopping bag has the potential to eliminate hundreds, if not thousands, of plastic bags over its lifetime. Bags are available at the Department of the Environment office located at 11 Grove Street. For more information call 355-3700." _______________________________________________ San Francisco Green Party Active Members List To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here: https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active
NRDC is BAD news. The Black Mesa coalition should kick them out now, or they may end up getting screwed. EDF and Apollo Alliance are potential middle-of-the-road trouble makers as well. Here are some details on NRDC from http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/apr97tokar.html Others began examining the boards of directors of the leading environmental groups. /The Multinational Monitor/ found that 23 directors and council members from Audubon, NRDC, the Wilderness Society, the World Resources Institute, and World Wildlife Fund were associated with 19 corporations cited in a recent survey of the 500 worst industrial polluters. These companies included such recognized environmental offenders as Union Carbide, Exxon, Monsanto, Weyerhaeuser, DuPont, and Waste Management, Inc. Furthermore, some 67 individuals associated with just 7 environmental groups served as CEOs, chairpersons, presidents, consultants or directors for 92 major corporations. ... In 1994, the Center for the Study of American Business at Washington University in St. Louis examined the established environmental groups' stock portfolios, ostensibly developed as a hedge against fluctuating memberships, and found that the Wilderness Society, for example, held stock in Dow Chemical, Kerr McGee, and General Motors, and the NRDC in Dow, Westinghouse, and General Electric. For organizations committed to protecting the environment and combating pollution to become financially dependent on the stock values of major polluters may represent the ultimate corruption of ecological values. The same study confirmed that membership dues represented an ever declining share of the income of groups like the Wilderness Society and National Audubon. But while the political influence wielded by these groups has fallen considerably since the early 1900s, income and membership levels have in most cases only leveled off, or continued to rise at a slower rate. NRDC was founded by corporate elites, and Bob Fisher (one of the Fisher family, which owns the GAP, Mendocino Redwood Company, and have been part owners in Edison Schools) is on NRDC's board of directors. Eric B anniegarrison@mac.com wrote:
John McCain tried to sell me one of these canvas bags, in exchange for signing up with the Environmental Defense Fund.
That was before Obama turned the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act into the McCain-Lieberman-Obama Climate Stewardship Act.
I'm really getting confused by some of these groups that seem kinda half right, like the Environmental Defense Fund. At first I thought McCain was just pretending to represent the Environmental Defense Fund, when his cyborg sent me that fundraising letter, 'cause the outfit he was pushing, endorsed by Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward, was called the Environmental Defense Action Alert.
But then I poked around the Net till I was pretty sure they were the same thing.
The Sierra Club, the NRDC, and even----!!!!----the Apollo Alliance, are the only non-native groups working with the native Black Mesa Water Coalition in the Four Corners. The Sierra Club seems sorta kinda OK there, in the native Four Corners, but here, Mary R. says they promoted Lennar's development in the shipyard. And, in Obama's Illinois, around the Great Lakes, some local Sierra Club chose "clean coal" as their greenhouse gas limiting solution.
But the Environmental Defense Fund seems to do some good stuff, especially with the Western Shoshone Defense Project, if I'm not mistaken. /* So, *//*anybody in the SF Greens know what to make of the Environmental Defense Fund? */
I got so pissed off about that Apollo Alliance using the Diné Navajo Dooda! Desert Rock Committee, which is fighting the Sithe Global Industries' attempt to build a 60-acre coal-fired power plant at Desert Rock, on the northwestern Navajo Rez, that I left a message on one of their "It's getting hot in here" websites telling them to quit using these folks and their just-as-justice-ever-gets battle to promote the Apollo Alliance's crappy pro-nuclear, pro-bio-fuels, pro-ethanol message.
I think that youth leader of theirs, Billy Paul, on leave from Yale for the past four years to promote the Apollo Alliance, is a a member of Skull and Bones in training, probably in training for the CIA as well. R&R for one and all---Annie
On Apr 6, 2007, at 3:19 AM, Eric Brooks wrote:
In keeping with his promise to go beyond compostable plastic bags to re-usables, Ross Mirkarimi just forwarded the note below in his latest newsletter. Anyone who needs canvass bags should go for it fast and furiously so we can show the Dept. of Environment how high the demand is for such bags...
"Free Reusable Canvas Bags Available
While supplies last the Department of the Environment is offering free reusable canvas bags for grocery shopping. Each reusable shopping bag has the potential to eliminate hundreds, if not thousands, of plastic bags over its lifetime. Bags are available at the Department of the Environment office located at 11 Grove Street. For more information call 355-3700." _______________________________________________ San Francisco Green Party Active Members List To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here: https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active
=
participants (4)
-
Ann Garrison -
Dennis Brumm -
Eric Brooks -
susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com