| Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption |
| JB |
30 million dragged into poverty by biofuelsBiofuel use 'increasing poverty' |
||||||||||||
| orangepippin |
There is no evidence in that article that the growth in biofuels is increasing poverty - or that it is doing any good to counter global warming for that matter. The UN and Oxfam may have a point, but they will need to be more convincing than this. Statements like "biofuels are a crime against humanity" simply belittle real crimes against humanity of which there are many going on right now. | ||||||||||||
| Gervase |
Mexico already seems to be suffering from the reduction of grain production north of the border, while worldwide fertiliser prices are soaring, with our supplier saying (admittedly anecdotally) that part of that is down to the US switching to biofuel production and needing to boost soil fertility. | ||||||||||||
| JB |
Unfortunately that article, while it refers to a paper containing the evidence and allegations, doesn't actually poin to the article. After a bit of hunting around the paper to which they refer appears to be this which does contain more substantive evidence (but as you suggest regardless of how much evidence you present someone will still say it isn't adequate evidence to warrant doing anything) |
||||||||||||
| orangepippin |
Governments are subsidising biofuels because, at least for a period, scientists seemed to be saying that biofuels were a sustainable and environmentally friendly replacement for fossil fuels. On the surface, running your car on corn oil does sound more sustainable than running it on diesel.
One of the unintended consequences of this, now emerging, seems to be that biofuel production is replacing food production. That does not make growing biofuels a "crime against humanity", it just means that a well-intentioned effort to reduce global warming has a serious downside that was not foreseen at the time. Also, current high food and fertiliser prices are being caused at least in part by ongoing bad harvests in major food production areas such as Australia, and increasing demand for "western" food from China and India. Shifting land use from food to biofuel productiong (or clearing more rain forest) is only part of the picture, as the UN and Oxfam should know very well. Maybe something does need to be done, but this kind of alarmist talk by the UN is not going to be taken seriously. The UN has not exactly covered itself in glory recently in its own attempts to prevent genuine crimes against humanity, and trying to shift the blame for world poverty on to US corn farmers is not going to magically make things better. |
||||||||||||
| vegplot |
Unfortunately, it will mean a drive to develop more GM crops in an effort to increase crop yeilds in a thinly disguised veil of 'feeding the third world'. This is while we continue our love affiar with the car and waste a large proportion of the food we produce. | ||||||||||||
| Mrs Fiddlesticks |
I think its right to highlight the whole subject though (alarmist headlines not withstanding -although the way the global media is my guess is that only alarmist will get read) We cannot grasp biofuels as a saviour to human fuel needs without considering its consequences. | ||||||||||||
| Mrs Fiddlesticks |
this is actually what needs addressing first actually. There is a similar local analogy going on around here. Thames water want to build a stocking great reservoir close by and quite rightly the detractors are asking if its done enough about leaks and current infrastructure before embarking on future projects. So it is with biofuels and the food debate - are we being as parsimonious with current fuels and developing current technologies to stop the love affair with the car or reduce its use with alternatives. And are we looking at food and global hunger at an international level to sort out the inequalities and wastage -I think not! |
||||||||||||
| orangepippin |
What exactly is this love affair with the car and what is its connection to world poverty? Poverty existed before the car came along.
If we ditch the car, will it solve world poverty? Surely if anything can be learned from the biofuels scenario, it is that what appeared to be a very well-intentioned attempt to reduce global warming has had some unforeseen and possibly dangerous side-effects. So, before we abandon our love affair with the car, let's make sure that this time we have considered the consequences. |
||||||||||||
| Behemoth |
If we started to view the car as a tool rather than an extension of our personalities we might put a lot more things in perspective. | ||||||||||||
| gnome |
i think this is a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". the cost of petroleum based fuels is rising, and we are running out, so this will obviously make the transportation of food more expensive, and in some cases untennable. if food grown in developing nations begins to cost too much for it to sell in the west, the dealers will simply take the cost away from the producers, thus causing more poverty. on the whole though, the farmers growing bio-fuel crops in developing nations are more likely to be those who were previously growing food crops for export rather than their own consumption, so switching to the more lucrative fuel crop is not going to increase their poverty - more likely to decrease it. where thi policy of growing fuel crops will cause hardship is actually here in the west.
European farmers are more likely to switch to growing fuel crops, which means there will be a decrease in home produced food. we would become more like america, where fresh vegetables are a luxury commodity. i agree the sudden leap onto the bio-fuel bandwagon may be a little shortsighted, but what is the alternative? the clock is ticking folks, and so far bio-fuel is the only real solution to a world without mineral oil. |
||||||||||||
| Rob R |
Anyone see the Dispatches programme I've posted about? | ||||||||||||
| cab |
Biofuels are, in principle, sustainable and environmentally friendly. The problem is that its being pushed as the economic solution, rather than towards a scientific solution. |
||||||||||||
| cab |
It would be a start. |
||||||||||||
| gnome |
not for us men it wouldn't. we love tools and can't resist the temptation to use them all the time and show them off to our friends. |
||||||||||||
| cab |
Thankfully, some of us men aren't making up for anything. Right, I'm off to fire up the laser. |
||||||||||||
| Mrs Fiddlesticks |
and its being pushed as a like for like solution without it seems to me a lot of understanding that it can't be that ; there really isn't enough planet to offer that. The unpalatable truth (which governments, investors, manufacturers etc etc don't want to think about for economic reasons) is that we have to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels especially with regards to transport. Biofuels are being pushed as the next gold rush with mega profits to be made, and lets not worry about who we trample on on the way to the money |
||||||||||||
| cab |
Is it? I see it being persued quite vigorously, but as a like for like solution? Where is current biofuel technology being thus hailed?
Agreed.
And, again, agreed. |
||||||||||||
| orangepippin |
Blaming the car, or people trying to make a profit out of biofuels, is not going to solve anything. | ||||||||||||
| cab |
So... Blaming the people using the product, and blaming the people selling the product, is unproductive? |
||||||||||||
| orangepippin |
Biofuels have taken off because scientists and governments thought they would help to reduce global warming. Now the scientists have changed their minds. Responsibility for this situation therefore lies with poor science and confused government. Blaming farmers or motorists is completely missing the point. | ||||||||||||
| cab |
No, biofuels have taken off because the price of oil has gone up such that the technology that already existed for turning crops into fuels are worth running. The plants for producing biofuels that have been established recently offer few real innovations, they're using old technology and engineering to produce an old product, which was not economically feasible while oil was cheap but IS feasible now.
No they haven't. Overwhelming scientific opinion is that far better tools are needed to make biofules. These tools include but are not limited to improvements in stress responses of crop plants to grow in marginal land, better molecular tools for modifying microbes needed in biobutanol production, higher conversion efficiencies by modifying both feedstocks and processes, and exploitation of algal and other microbial sources for direct fuel procuction. The view is that this is expensive, and that it will never be funded until such a point as the price of fuel gets high enough... And lo and behold, that research is only really going to get off the ground in the next few years. That has been the view for, well, as long as I can remember.
What poor science? Cite specific examples. |
||||||||||||
| Rob R |
I take it noone did watch Dispatches? Anyway, as the farmer on there (who was growing some of his crop for biofuels) said, at least his wheat crop is getting grown & is available for food if the price goes up to make it worthwhile. Just a couple of years ago crops were not getting planted when the price of grain was utterly unsustainable, so in terms of food security, it isn't such a bad thing, had to ruminate on that one for a while, but he's got a point. | ||||||||||||
| cab |
I didn't see it... But if thats what he said, he does have a point. Its a dislikable form of logic, but he's not wrong. |
||||||||||||
| vegplot |
The simple fact, if it could be called that, is while biofuels in principle are sustainable and a good it when the demand far outstrips supply that other energy generating commodoties, such as food, are threatened.
The arguments waged are too black and white, if you're a supporter of biofuels you're now accused of mass genocide and a supporter of GM crops. The marketing of science is badly handled all the way down the line and we end up with distilled reactionary stances which do not help solve the worlds energy problems. |
||||||||||||
| Rob R |
Yep, and a city trader was being blamed for upping the price of wheat by trading in futures. However, as he pointed out, all that extra value is encouraging investment in farming which have been severely lacking in the past 20 years. Which kind of supports my view that you can't keep food prices down or you'll end up with no one able to make a living at producing food (so they won't do it). | ||||||||||||
| gnome |
Bio-fuels are not THE solution, but they are part of a solution, and are definetely worthy of attention.
however, the real problem is we still have the 20th century mindset. on the whole, the western civilisation thinks it is living in a disposable world with a never ending supply of whatever it needs. we need to change our way of lives. we would save a hell of a lot of oil if we just stopped making plastic bags and plastic bottles. many journeys are not really neccesary. business meetings dont have to take place in real life anymore - there is no reason why they can't be done on line using video conferencing or VR browsers - so why fly thousand of miles just to shake hands on a deal? what's the point of having 21st century technology if we dont actually use it for anything? it may be fun to do your xmas shopping in the big shiny city, but you could save money and fuel by doing it online. walking or riding a bike is better for your health (unless you get squashed by an uncaring driver who doesnt notice anything smaller than a car), so why drive everywhere? here in the UK we have one of the highest concentrations of motor traffic in the world - and we don't really need to, we have just got used to it, and think that if we dont drive everywhere in our own cars, we look "poor". come on everyone - if we don't set an example, who will? |
||||||||||||
| orangepippin |
I am confused. Are you saying biofuels are ok or not ok? So biofuels were not being promoted as a way to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and reduce global warming? I find that very surprising. The poor science relates to failing to consider the impact of converting land used for food production into land used for biofuel production. Poor government because of the failure to see the economic impact of growing westerised populations in India and China. Bad luck that we also have a series of poor harvests in key areas of the world. Remember, the original point in this thread was that biofuel production was causing world proverty - supported by some highly inflammatory language from the UN. I have to agree with vegplot, why people see this so black and white is hard to fathom. Now it appears that world poverty is caused by the car? Well let's get rid of the car and all will be well then. |
||||||||||||
| Rob R |
In ever so many years, oil will run out. Does anyone else think that suddenly coal will become fashionable again? (Probably more in the form of the electric car, rather than the steam train, but who knows...  )
|
||||||||||||
| Mrs Fiddlesticks |
bring back the Steam train.... 
|
||||||||||||
| Mrs Fiddlesticks |
agree totally with what you say there. What I rather clumsily put above you've summed up perfectly |
||||||||||||
| vegplot |
I doubt it, there isn't that much coal left that's easliy exploitable and it's only short term anyway. Optimistic estimates 200 years pessimistic 30 years. It might be a stop gap but energy requirements will have to be met by mores ustainable technologies. Biofuels is a small part but hydrogen the major player (for readily consumable fuels). |
||||||||||||
| Rob R |
The Holy Grail, you could say.
|
||||||||||||
| Treacodactyl |
I saw the programme, the one that also mentioned you currently get 110 energy units out of bio-fuels for every 100 units put in, i.e. they're not really doing much to reduce our CO2 output. As for the farmer example, did that take into account the grants and extra funding bio-fuel crops are getting? |
||||||||||||
| Rob R |
As far as I know there aren't any on wheat at production level, it just filters down from higher up the chain. But if two years ago he wasn't planting, and now he is (certainly seen that round here) then there is no benefit in a cheaper wheat price. |
||||||||||||
| orangepippin |
Cab: does this sound like bad science? |
||||||||||||
| Treacodactyl |
I thought it said if it wasn't for the grants and legislation though bio-fuels wouldn't make sense. You could put grants and legislate for more wheat to be planted for food. |
||||||||||||
| cab |
You're saying that responsibilty lies with 'poor science'. Cite examples of the poor science of whic you speak. I am not againstthe concept of biofuels, nor do I entirely support current policies in this area, and I totally reject your 'for or against' attitude as being unconstructive and naive.
Cite where I said that.
(remainder cut unread) You're not reading my posts, else you'd be responding to what I've written rather than repeating the same starting position. You're trying to shift blame away from the consumer on to anywhere or anyone else you can because you don't want to shoulder your own share. Fine, do that, but the premis on which you're doing so is clearly and obviously broken. |
||||||||||||
| cab |
Cite where such is actually demonstrated rather than hand waved and I'll tell you. It sounds like exploitation of a means to sell a product at higher price, utilising (American, I believe) government back handers to do so, and it has tit all to do with science. |
||||||||||||
| Rob R |
You could, but the same inefficiencies 100/110 would still apply to wheat, but subsidising fuel or food is just stupid anyway. |
||||||||||||
| gnome |
oh dear. i dont often hear myself say this, but for once i agree with cab. it's not a problem that scientists and governments have to fix so we can carry on living our normal lives - we all have to change the way we live - we are all responsible. | ||||||||||||
| Treacodactyl |
If the wheat was eaten then those inefficiencies wouldn't be relevant. |
||||||||||||
| Rob R |
Depends where your alternative fuel source was coming from. |
||||||||||||
| Treacodactyl |
The governments are legislating so bio-fuels are used though. If I only drive 100 miles a year I still have to use some bio-fuel, or will do when the regs are implemented. |
||||||||||||
| Treacodactyl |
I see. Well, at the moment I'd rather see a real effort to reduce fuel usage by 5% rather than force that 5% to be bio-fuels. Or, depending on whatever science you wish to base your argument on, far less than 1% reduction would be needed. |
||||||||||||
| orangepippin |
I agree with Treacodactyl. This is a government and science issue. That is what they are elected for and paid for. | ||||||||||||
| Rob R |
Agree, I'd also like to see us reducing our food wastage [and our food useage] in this country to something like 5% & become self sufficient over night. All this concern over food prices in the UK has naff all to do with world hunger, it's all about ensuring we can keep our consumer goods. 
|
||||||||||||
| Behemoth |
I'd say that is due to economics and planning issues not science. A scientist can advise on the optimal way to produce and use biofuels, how and when it's applied is rather out of their hands. i.e the technolgy that has been developed is now economical to use compared to other options. The technology surrounding biofuels is in the most part old (taxis in Rio have been fueld by sugar cane for about 20 years now) its application now makes some economic sense. Economic sense does not always mean 'good'. |
||||||||||||
| Andy B |
Wont the next type of bio fuel come from waste product? | ||||||||||||
| gnome |
but we cant just carry on living our wasteful western lives (i'm speaking generally - not downsizers) and expect scientists and politicians to make everything allright. true - it is the governments legislation that will affect how we behave, but the simple truth is the human race has become dependant on fossil fuels. they are running out and the alternatives are not as viable. so we either change the situation, or we face extinction. choose. | ||||||||||||
| Behemoth |
Possibly, the first thing to do is stop calling some materials and resources 'waste'. | ||||||||||||
| cab |
It isn't an either or thing really. I entirely agree with you about food waste, and I'm uneasy with the policy push towards biofuels without a far, FAR greater emphass on reducing oil consumption. Biofuels are not necessariy a bad thing, but to rush forward with existing (in my view inefficient, almost antiquated) ways of making them from prime agricultural land is a mistake. But I think that what is often forgotten here is that biofuels are being persued because across much of the world you can make more profit out of it. Blaming governments, science, etc... No, much of the problem is a free market economics. |
||||||||||||
| cab |
Depends really. Probably not. |
||||||||||||
| cab |
You've hit the nail on the head. It ain't extinction though, its more just economic, political and social meltdown. But hey, I'm an optimist. |
||||||||||||
| Behemoth |
Your poo, dried, grow oil seed rape on it, plough it in, dry it a bit = fuel. |
||||||||||||
| cab |
True enough, but thats not the next biofuel, rapeseed and similar oils are this generation of biofuels. |
||||||||||||
| Rob R |
Sorry, that was really more about the programme than the wider issue, it should say that for most people in this country.
Disagree entirely with that, because the world is not in a state of free market, biofuels or food. |
||||||||||||
| gnome |
actually, you can make bio-fuel from used cooking oil - and schools, chip-shops, hospitals, canteens etc produce a lot of that.for some reason the government wont fund or subsidise projects wanting to do this - only levy a heavy tax on them. | ||||||||||||
| Andy B |
I am sure i read somewhere that the next generation of biofuels were based on the waste from crops not the food, i shall have to do some searching! |
||||||||||||
| cab |
Its a broken free market. A free-ish market 
The farmer is entitled to use whatever legal means there are to increase profitability, and if with subsidy he can make more money out of bifuels then growing food is priced out. Eventually, if technology for growing and processing improves, and if the price of oil continues to rise, even without subsidy it may be advantageous to grow fuel crops. Its not an entirely free market at all, I agree, but it is an odd kind of economic market, and in that market the loss of food land for biofuels is inevitable. |
||||||||||||
| cab |
A good opportunity to plug some excellent chaps I know (and if I had a car, and it was a diesel, I'd be getting my fuel from them and rolling my sleeves up to help): http://www.cambridgebiodiesel.co.uk/ |
||||||||||||
| cab |
Oh, there are several approaches to do that, and it might make a contribution, but it ain't the main direction of research in that field at all. Most crop breeding in the last half century or so has been to produce crops with less waste, with more of the energy put into a harvestable form. Waste just isn't what it used to be. |
||||||||||||
| Rob R |
Not to mentioning capitalising on cheap fuel & fertiliser  another form of waste
|
||||||||||||
| Maxwell Smart |
Actually no. Hyrdogen is probably less of a saviour than biofuels as it is primarily an energy carrier in much the same way as a battery is. It still takes energy to produce the hydrogen and unless that energy source is being sustainably managed then it really is no better. Once biofuels have evolved to the next stage of converting waste then they will be a much more viable option.
A friend is working on just this. They already have prototype machines running which are capable of taking virtually any organic material (including sewage and thus to an extent faeces) and producing fuel. Generally though they are using waste agricultural material which is unsuitable for food production. |
||||||||||||
| Treacodactyl |
You often hear the waste word but is it really waste or will it be waste in the future? Straw for example can be used for bedding, feed, building material etc or ploughed in to improve the soil. Crops that are currently unsuitable for human consumption might well be reclassified in the future as suitable due to food shortages or they can be used for animal feeds etc. |
||||||||||||
| Rob R |
That's exactly what the holy grail part of it is (which is why we aren't using it at the moment). You can't create energy so in effect everything is an energy carrier. |