Biofuels may threaten environment, U.N. warns

[CG51]

Biofuels may threaten environment, U.N. warns (http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/01/23/biofuels.fears.ap/index.html)

BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) -- The world's rush to embrace biofuels is causing a spike in the price of corn and other crops and could worsen water shortages and force poor communities off their land, a U.N. official said Wednesday.

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/TECH/science/01/23/biofuels.fears.ap/art.palm.afp.gi.jpg
Workers in North Sumatra pile up palm oil fruit, which can be used to make biofuels.

Speaking at a regional forum on bioenergy, Regan Suzuki of the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization acknowledged that biofuels are better for the environment than fossil fuels and boost energy security for many countries.

However, she said those benefits must be weighed against the pitfalls -- many of which are just now emerging as countries convert millions of acres to palm oil, sugar cane and other crops used to make biofuels.
"Biofuels have become a flash point through which a wide range of social and environmental issues are currently being played out in the media," Suzuki told delegates at the forum, sponsored by the U.N. and the Thai government.

Foremost among the concerns is increased competition for agricultural land, which Suzuki warned has already caused a rise in corn prices in the United States and Mexico and could lead to food shortages in developing countries.

She also said China and India could face worsening water shortages because biofuels require large amounts of water, while forests in Indonesia and Malaysia could face threats from the expansion of palm oil plantations.
"Particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, land availability is a critical issue," Suzuki said. "There are clear comparative advantages for tropical and subtropical countries in growing biofuel feed stocks but it is often these same countries in which resource and land rights of vulnerable groups and protected forests are weakest."

Initially, biofuels were held up as a panacea for countries struggling to cope with the rising cost of oil or those looking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The European Union, for example, plans to replace 10 percent of transport fuel with biofuels made from energy crops such as sugar cane and rapeseed oil by 2020.

But in recent months, scientists, private agencies and even the British government have said biofuels could do more harm than good. Rather than protecting the environment, they say energy crops destroy natural forests that actually store carbon and thus are a key tool in the fight to reduce global warming.

Some of those doubts were on display Wednesday at the U.N. forum, with experts saying many countries in Asia have rolled out plans to mandate biofuels for transport without weighing the potential risks.

Thailand, for example, is considering delaying the introduction of diesel blended with 2 percent biofuel for two months until April because of palm oil shortages, while the Philippines is considering shelving a biofuels law over concerns about the negative environmental effects.

India is facing criticism that its plans to plant 30 million acres of jatropha trees by 2012 for biofuel could force communities from their land and worsen deforestation. There are also concerns that it will be unable to find the 100 million acres of vacant land it needs to grow the shrub-like plants.

Varghese Paul, a forest and biodiversity expert with the Energy and Resources Institute in India, said dependence on a single species is dangerous.

"An outbreak of pests and diseases could wipe out entire plantations in one stroke," Paul said.

[SOG]

Well not only that but turning to bio fuels with so many people on the planet and the demand of food going through the roof is stupid as well. Plus what the article mentioned, if crops get hit hard during a certain year, then what? Nobody drive anywhere?

[Shadowstorm]

Like I said before, biofuels is just joke and all it's for, because the farmers and corporations wants to make a fast buck. Thats all it is.

[dangerclose]

I like oil .. it comes out of the ground .. and there's lots and lots of it.

[Laworkerbee]

Like I said before, biofuels is just joke and all it's for, because the farmers and corporations wants to make a fast buck. Thats all it is.

Brazil is looking pretty sweet thought, using sugar.

[seraosha]

Too many people.

[Tokamak]

Brazil is looking pretty sweet thought, using sugar.

By destroying the rain forest sure!.

[T3ngu]

Too many people.

+ who own cars.

[CG51]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/international/2008/01/21/rivers.thailand.oil.addiction.cnn?iref=videosearch

[Power_serj]

This is pure retardation! There will always be a trade-off when it comes to fuel. There will always be a negative side-effect when using fuel.

[I can't think of a name]

Crude oil is the best solution.

[T3ngu]

Crude oil is the best solution.

Perhaps 50 years ago, but today with the Kyoto Protocol being ratified by most countries, alternates need to be examined. The day of oil IMO has come and gone. Yes there may be more left, but its getting harder and harder to get at and use.

[silvarius2000]

I probably need to change my glasses. I could have sworn they said it was Buffaloes being a threat to the environment

[I can't think of a name]

Perhaps 50 years ago, but today with the Kyoto Protocol being ratified by most countries, alternates need to be examined. The day of oil IMO has come and gone. Yes there may be more left, but its getting harder and harder to get at and use.

The day of the Kyoto Protocol is done, most nations who signed on are failing to meet it.

This reminds me of how stupid most environmentalists are, it is funny science.

Remember "Split Wood not Atoms" campaigning? Well burning wood makes a lot of carbon. Now they are all pro nuclear.

Remember banning paper grocery bags to save trees? Well turns out the plastic ones never breakdown. Now they are banning plastic and just using paper?

[T3ngu]

The day of the Kyoto Protocol is done, most nations who signed on are failing to meet it.

This reminds me of how stupid most environmentalists are, it is funny science.

Remember "Split Wood not Atoms" campaigning? Well burning wood makes a lot of carbon. Now they are all pro nuclear.

Remember banning paper grocery bags to save trees? Well turns out the plastic ones never breakdown. Now they are banning plastic and just using paper?

Some valid points. However, Kyoto is almost outdated i agree, but we have a building block to more forwards on. Ratifying it is only the start, takes 3 years to get to the point where you can start doing something. Emissions trading will soon become a way of life, and perhaps the start of something better. Looking at the daily air quality bulletins out of the USA asking people not to use cars etc during winter really reinforces this concept of reducing emissions.

And yes the old plastic bags don't break down, but I have both plastic garbage and shopping bags (new ones) that I use when gardening, both break down within a few weeks if left out. Which is a pain if you pick them up and they collapse.

[rkpo]

The day of the Kyoto Protocol is done, most nations who signed on are failing to meet it.

This reminds me of how stupid most environmentalists are, it is funny science.

Remember "Split Wood not Atoms" campaigning? Well burning wood makes a lot of carbon. Now they are all pro nuclear.

Remember banning paper grocery bags to save trees? Well turns out the plastic ones never breakdown. Now they are banning plastic and just using paper?

Its called progress!!! At least it should be, but the main problem is people are too slow and hesitant to embrace change, let alone seek it out. Biofuel is another excuse to lay waste to rainforests in the third world so not a great idea.

The only real threat facing humanity is overpopulation which will lead to disease or violence and that technology will amplify the effect of those things when they happen to extinction levels. The big problem is though that people individually, and therefore politically find it really hard to look beyond their noses.

We need space colonies now :)

[DaGreatRV]

we'de better speed up solar, wind and hydro forms of renewable energy.

I think that will be better in the end.


The only thing I don't know is how to run a jet plane on battaries or hydrogen. :roll:
Cars are no problem, trains are electric for 100 years. But what to do about airplanes?

[Moledet]

Hopefully, we will prove that electric cars are the best solution currently. The electric car project of Renault-Nissan will start in Israel by 2011, if it works the Arabs are going to be screwed harder than in the 6 days war.

[dangerclose]

The day of the Kyoto Protocol is done, most nations who signed on are failing to meet it.

This reminds me of how stupid most environmentalists are, it is funny science.

Remember "Split Wood not Atoms" campaigning? Well burning wood makes a lot of carbon. Now they are all pro nuclear.

Remember banning paper grocery bags to save trees? Well turns out the plastic ones never breakdown. Now they are banning plastic and just using paper?


Then there's the Toyota Prius battery. The nickel mining and smelting plant in Ontario is the sole source of all the nickel found in the Prius' battery and Toyota purchases over a thousand tons of it every year. This plant has caused so much damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the ‘dead zone’ around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles. Then there's the acid rain. Less energy is consumed and less damage done to the environment making and driving a Hummer than a Prius. But driving a hybrid is all about feeling good about yourself and preaching your greener than thou religion to the rest of us.


Gooooo Planet!

[dangerclose]

Its called progress!!!

The only real threat facing humanity is overpopulation


You know, environmentalists can do their own part regarding that. It is for mother earth after all. Remember kids, the power is yours.

[Tokamak]

Then there's the Toyota Prius battery. The nickel mining and smelting plant in Ontario is the sole source of all the nickel found in the Prius' battery and Toyota purchases over a thousand tons of it every year. This plant has caused so much damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the ‘dead zone’ around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles. Then there's the acid rain. Less energy is consumed and less damage done to the environment making and driving a Hummer than a Prius. But driving a hybrid is all about feeling good about yourself and preaching your greener than thou religion to the rest of us.


Gooooo Planet!

Good point. We are very good solving one problem by creating another one. I would like to read more on the problem created by those batteries.

[Shadowstorm]

we'de better speed up solar, wind and hydro forms of renewable energy.

I think that will be better in the end.


The only thing I don't know is how to run a jet plane on battaries or hydrogen. :roll:
Cars are no problem, trains are electric for 100 years. But what to do about airplanes?
Will they been doing experiments on hydrogen for aircraft for 30 years or more and same with solar power too. Their were other proposes to include nuclear power aircraft which the Russians flew a modified Tu-95LAL (Tu-119) with a nuclear reactor, while the U.S was planning to fly the X-6 which was a modified B-36, but the program was canceled due to cost and environmental reasons. However their are plans to resurrect nuclear power aircraft due to gas prices and other stuff.

[Tokamak]

I support the use of nuclear power, but to put a small nuclear reactor on every airplane I woulnd't like that. Nuclear energy I think must be use to seriously reduce the use of fossil fuels but not in that way. We won't stop using fossil fuels even in small quantities to produce other materials or even fuel for airplains. The problem is that currently we use too much of them.

[Shadowstorm]

Will the most likely candidates for aircraft to get nuclear power will most likely be strategic bombers, transports and other large aircraft, but possibility fighters too for the military. And civilian aircraft like medium and long range passenger aircraft and future SST, but it's possible these small aircraft will one they carried them.

[Shadowstorm]

Their was a proposal by the Ford car company to build nuclear powered cars back in the 50's, which was called Ford Nucleon. But that proposal was killed due to cost and environmental reasons. However a mock up was built and it's now at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e8/Ford_Nucleon.jpg/300px-Ford_Nucleon.jpg

[orionhawk]

Perhaps 50 years ago, but today with the Kyoto Protocol being ratified by most countries, alternates need to be examined. The day of oil IMO has come and gone. Yes there may be more left, but its getting harder and harder to get at and use.

disagree. the day of petroleum will not go until something better comes.
and, by "better" I do not only mean "cleaner". the problem with the biofuels is that the only difference between them and petroleum is that they are a more stupid idea.

personally, I'm big on hydrogen and nuclear power. the only issue with hydrogen, other than setting up the infrastructure, is that you are using electricity to make it. the thing there is that you can put 1000 tons of environmental gear on the smokestack of even a coal or wood powerplant, and reduce its environmental impact quite low, or just use a nuclear plant. you can't get a similar level of cleanliness for a car or truck, without raising the cost and reducing the performance out of acceptable range.

the issues with nuclear power are safety and waste storage/destruction. the safety issue is just a matter of engineering and training (I say this as a trained and qualified U.S. Navy nuclear powerplant operator, 50 years, over 100 reactors, no nuclear accidents), and the waste issue can be dealt with in any of several ways after political bs gets cleared out, like this Yucca Mountain idiocy.

this biofuels crap was just kind of an "anything but oil" hysteria. I'm glad to see somebody at an adequately high level has noticed the level of stupidity involved.

[orionhawk]

Will they been doing experiments on hydrogen for aircraft for 30 years or more and same with solar power too. Their were other proposes to include nuclear power aircraft which the Russians flew a modified Tu-95LAL (Tu-119) with a nuclear reactor, while the U.S was planning to fly the X-6 which was a modified B-36, but the program was canceled due to cost and environmental reasons. However their are plans to resurrect nuclear power aircraft due to gas prices and other stuff.

the USAF also did a design study on a "flying saucer" nuclear bomber running on a 2-MW reactor direct-driving a hydrogen hypergolic rocket. they got as far as testing the rocket at JPL or Sandia (don't remember which, I think JPL). the materials were not up to it.


Will the most likely candidates for aircraft to get nuclear power will most likely be strategic bombers, transports and other large aircraft, but possibility fighters too for the military. And civilian aircraft like medium and long range passenger aircraft and future SST, but it's possible these small aircraft will one they carried them.

don't see it happening, even with pebble-bed technology. too much weight, too dangerous in a crash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_X-6
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_aircraft

note the issues.

as an active U.S. Military nuke operator, there is nothing I am aware of that is even being looked at along this path.

leave nuclear power in ships, and on the ground. use ground-based nukes to make LH2 for aircraft.

also, biofuels suck. now my post is still on-topic.

[Shadowstorm]

Yeah I support nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal power and water too. I support hydrogen too, but that biofuel crap, No Way Jose! Biofuel will due more harm than good to enviroment and will bring food costs up and the same with ethanol.

[Shadowstorm]

the USAF also did a design study on a "flying saucer" nuclear bomber running on a 2-MW reactor direct-driving a hydrogen hypergolic rocket. they got as far as testing the rocket at JPL or Sandia (don't remember which, I think JPL). the materials were not up to it.


don't see it happening, even with pebble-bed technology. too much weight, too dangerous in a crash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_X-6
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_aircraft

note the issues.

as an active U.S. Military nuke operator, there is nothing I am aware of that is even being looked at along this path.

leave nuclear power in ships, and on the ground. use ground-based nukes to make LH2 for aircraft.

also, biofuels suck. now my post is still on-topic.

I never heard about that nuclear flying sauser program other than Project Pluto and the X-6 project, but thanks for telling me that Orion. Yeah, I agree on that. I rather have a nuclear power on ships and use as power, but not for a airplanes and definitely not cars! But I wouldn't put a pass those scientist's that they will develope a smaller nuclear reactor as technology progress.

[orionhawk]

Yeah, I agree on that. I rather have a nuclear power on ships and use as power, but not for a airplanes and definitely not cars! But I wouldn't put a pass those scientist's that they will develope a smaller nuclear reactor as technology progress.

if they could find a way to do it with no more danger than existing petroleum-based setups, or at least safer than LH2 (which can be awfully explosive stuff), I'd be all over it. I just don't see it happening, at least not in this century.:-(

[Shadowstorm]

Yeah, same here. I wouldn't support no nuclear power aircraft.

[AztecMex]

I think the key is to use boi fuel with renewable resources and Nuclear energy together so that they balance out good and bad.Like use Nuclear energy for mid and large size citys and large ships.With Bio fuels being used for the largest of aircraft that produce the most damage to the enviroment and renewable resources used for everyday things like cars, light for small citys, ect..

[Tokamak]

Still I would prefer the use of fossil fuels than biofuels for the aircrafts. I just don't see the advantage of using them. Biofuels only create more problems.