As the industry expands, it is encouraging intensified, industrial agriculture, providing a new promotional vehicle for GM crops, and posing a serious threat to food sovereignty. The argument that these biofuels will mitigate climate change is unproven indeed, the destruction of rainforests, peatlands and other ecosystems to make way for agrofuel plantations may well accelerate global warming.
Download PDF (639 Kb) at <http://www.tni.org/reports/ctw/agrofuels.pdf?>;
This document focuses on particular types of biofuel which we prefer to call agrofuel because of the intensive, industrial way it is produced, generally as monocultures, often covering thousands of hectares, most often in the global South.
Climate change:
A primary concern is the potential for agrofuels to accelerate climate change, rather than combat it.
Production involves considerable emission of greenhouse gases from soils, carbon sink destruction and fossil fuel inputs and is already causing significant deforestation and destruction of biodiversity. The clearance of Indonesia's peat forests to plant oil palm plantations has caused massive outputs of CO2. Once forest removal reaches a certain tipping point, a process of self destruction may begin, particularly in the Amazon.
Because so much remains unknown, a precautionary approach to developing agrofuels is necessary.
Lots more at:
http://www.tni.org/detail_page.phtml?&act_id=17069
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on July 9, 2007]
Note: http://www.tni.org>
http://www.tni.org/repo...
http://www.tni.org/deta...
Agrofuels-Towards A Reality Check In Nine Key Areas
Posted on Friday, July 06 at 14:25 by Ed DeakContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1
<br />
As I understand it 10% ethanol is about the max without engine modifications so far as gasoline vehicles are concerned, the reductions in emissions overall (from field to use) is given at 3 or 4%, however a loss of fuel mileage is given as 2 or 3%. Some additional chemicals are emitted by burning Ethanol. It would seem that it would be more productive (in the short term at least) to get better fuel mileage from our vehicles. ( 10% increase in mileage for the same amount of fuel SHOULD mean a 10% reduction in emissions PER MILE DRIVEN) ………………………<br />
Bio DIESEL seems to be a different proposition entirely, its Energy Balance is MUCH higher (why I have not figured out yet), existing engines ( it would seem) will run on 95% biodiesel although some lubrication problems may have to be addressed and in the long term engines may well need to be specially built for that fuel. The diesel engine is also said to be 40% more efficient at converting fuel energy into mechanical energy, so it’s a win all round. Given our reliance upon trucking (as opposed to rail) to move our goods and the number of, distance driven and thus fuel burnt by these heavy haulers, I would think this would be the place to start. Most trucking companies fuel up at special depots so distribution would be much easer, but would our governments give the industry any incentive to switch? <br />
<br />
For more opinion and several links to further information please visit <a href="http://saugblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/as-push-towards-biofuels-gains-momentum.html">http://saugblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/as-push-towards-biofuels-gains-momentum.html</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p>---<br>When you are up to your ass in alligators it is difficult to remember that the initial objective was to drain the swamp
If the present 90-100 kmh limits were reduced by 15-20 km, fuel consumption would go down by up to 20-25%.
Yet, governments are increasing them on public demand. E.g our local highway, between Likely and 150 Mile House, used to have an 80 km limit, now it is 90. Of course, most do 100 and some 120, which means their consumption could be up by 30%, or more.
Ed Deak.