Posted on 06/22/2004 2:17:33 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
LONDON — Farmers of the world must shift quickly to growing plants for industrial uses such as oils and plastics to replace petrochemicals as the climate warms and crude supplies run out, British scientists said Monday.
"In the next 20 to 50 years we have to reverse our dependency on fossil fuels," said Alison Smith of Britain's John Innes plant research center. "We must breed for sustainability."
At a news conference, she complained that in the past there had been a lack of coherent thinking, but that was now changing in the face of the looming crisis.
Ian Crute, director of the Rothamsted plant-breeding center in Hertfordshire, said it was not a matter of switching wholesale out of growing crops for food but of correcting the balance.
"We have an opportunity here ... to substitute our dependency on fossil fuels," he added at the introduction of a report by private scientists on nonfood crops titled "Growing the Future."
Not only is oil running out, but the world's population is predicted to grow sharply over the next half-century and has to be fed. This will put huge strains on the world's economy.
"We have to get more productivity out of less land," he said.
The report noted that plants could produce plastics, fuels, oils, medicinal drugs, insulators, fibers, and fabrics, many of which are currently made from crude oil.
Smith said it was not just a matter of genetic manipulation of existing crops — although that too had a place — but of making better use of plants currently grown for food.
Plants could also be bred for specific uses such as special types of oils or fibers. They could in effect be used as "green factories" to produce whatever humankind needed in the future, she said.
Farmer and businessman Clifford Spencer — who grows crops for industrial uses — said some research suggested that between one-quarter and one-third of the farmland in Britain could switch to such uses.
He said that while their arguments were not new, the science to make it happen was, and businesses around the world were waking up to the urgency and the possibilities.
It is written in a "the sky is falling" manner that says we need to act (in a socialist manner of course) or the world will end.
In fact, we do need people to get excited sometimes, so the clear thinkers pay attention.
In this case, I only see opportunity. First, yes, we will eventually need to switch to alternative fuels. Secondly, by using modern technology, we can grow those fuels in increasingly more efficient ways on marginal land.
Since the developing world's biggest trade problem is agricultural subsidies, then generating new non-food cash crops may be a key to allowing the French to continue to have their beautiful farms, the 25000 American cotton growers grow fat off the teet of the American taxpayer and still lift African subsitence farmers out of penury and into the global economy.
All of these things are written between the lines here. Unfortuantely, the ridiculous part in the is that this scientist has no clue about economics and beleives we need to "plan" this switch. As if supply and demand will in no way encourage it.
I don't really think this is said in pursuit of a nfarioius agenda. I think it is just ignorance, or for lack of something to say. If I had an address I would send him a copy of Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations".
She must of seen that movie about New York City.
Sustainable oil? Chris Bennett offers compelling evidence of vast energy source:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1142365/posts
There is no such thing as "fossil fuel". That's pure BS that's been foisted upon you by the enviros and the oil industry. Case in point: Titan, moon of Saturn. Atmosphere: Methane, propane, butane and other hydrocarbons. How many dinosaurs died on Titan to provide this abundance of "fossil fuels"???? Oil is a product of our planet's geochemistry, and has absolutely nothing to do with decayed organisms.
Secondly, we can produce all the oil we'll ever need right out of our landfills, crop waste, and animal processing waste. Do a search for the phrase "Oil from anything" here in FR's search engine. The technology came out in 2003, and was written up in Discover magazine as well as many journals.
Yup. The oil isn't going to run out. Ever. Once the oil industry lets that cat out of the bag the price per barrel should drop dramatically. Of course the left will never admit that one of its' favorite methods of behavior control was pure BS from the start.
Thanks for pointing me in the direction of that post. It is truly an interesting theory.
Actually, I don't think humans will ever even come close to depleting oil resources on the earth. The Canadian sandpits alone have an estimated 1 tillion barrels.
The problem is whether or not they are economically recoverable. A barrel of Saudi crude only costs $1 to bring up. The Canadian sand is about 25 times as expensive to extract.
As you have surely seen, the spike in oil prices has led to lots of claiming that "we are running out of oil." This only becomes true if the word "cheap" is inserted.
Thus, technological development will either allow us to make cheaper alternatives or extract the currently more expensive oil economically.
All other things being equal, if it helps alleviate poverty through individual effort and the creation of new markets and wealth in the developing world, I am for it. If it is a scheme to transfer wealth and control resources I am against it.
Regardless of the technology path chosen (likely to be a combination of the two), the sky isn't falling and we will have plenty of energy.
You are of course right. At the end of the day, we use oil because it is the cheapest source of fuel.
If it becomes more expesnive, or other alternatives become cheaper, then we will switch.
That was my point about leaving it to the market to decide.
Although given the fact that most of the cheap oil is in a part of the world that is unstable and not exactly fond of Americans, perhaps a few more cents at the pump would be a good trade off for independence from OPEC.
Yes and no. To do so is an enourmous investment that requires expectations for future prices that do not yet seem feasable.
It isn't as if one just goes to the sand with a big truck and gets the oil. You are talking about the construction of a huge infrastructure over a long period of time with costs in the range of 10s of billions.
The second that oil slips below the break-even price, you have a money losing enterprise that will soon go bankrupt.
The profit margin for oil is well over 75%. Enter an industry with a margin like that in which yours is more like selling PCs and you are just asking to lose money.
Also, in order to set up a large enough production to justify the construction of the infrastructure one would have to produce several million barrels a day. And, this would lower the price of oil immediately.
There is a reason no one has done it yet. When oil gets to $70 a barrel maybe.
By the way, creating energy through wind turbines is cheaper than oil at $70 a barrel.
The question that puzzles me more and more often: Are these people just stupid, or are they evil?
There is an energy source that would make all these problems go away. All we need to use it is a friggin BACKBONE, and thats NUCLEAR! WE could then do without fossil fuels, and we could virtually fix any global warming that is due to the burning of said fuels. But NOOOOoooooOOOOO! Enviroweenies dont want to save the earth, they are all about taking us back to the agrarian utopia which never really was, crazy luddites.
These pointy headed dorks don't have a clue...
Not everything has to be a mega-trend. How is a farmer going to shift to non-food crops over 50 years? Is he going to plant another 10 acres each year in non-food crops until he has 500 planted?
The farmer will put in his seed in the spring and he will havest that crop in the fall. It takes less than one year, less'n of course it's 'sparagus. If the price of flax seed goes through the overhead in 2053, there will be a whole lot of flax planted in the Spring of 2054.
This is funny. What are we supposed to eat? Are our cars more important to feed than we are?
" we can grow those fuels in increasingly more efficient ways on marginal land. "
Marginal land is marginal because it is subject to erosion, etc. You can't make a living growing commodity crops on marginal land; and I sincerely doubt that the "fuel" crops would be priced from the farmer as anything other than commodity . . .
The best cropland should not be used for fuels, because top soil is lost with every growing season. Until there is no loss of our productive soils, I would rather see it growing food! Or saved for growing food.
I read someplace that we (US) have enough coal (that we can convert to gasoline) to last for over 500 years. So what is the problem?
The questions comes down to whether converting coal to gas and then transporting and burning it is economically viable in comparison to alternatives.
The point is always that the market will take care of it.
Look, what you write might be true today, but technological advances will make it wrong tomorrow.
I agree, we must use the most productive land for food. And, technology eventually needs to advance to the point where we stop eroding top soil or bye-bye agriculturally based civilization.
But, we will always use the cheapest available energy as determined by market forces. If it is decided that releasing carbon has a cost, then that will be added into the equation of total cost.
Regardless, the often unpredicatble advance of technology will answer the question of where we get the majority of our fuel. Sometimes it makes sense to harvest, drill or collect more. Sometimes greater efficiency is the cheaper alternative. All of these things are determined by supply and demand and the reaction to price on the part of the consumer.
In other words, the sky isnt falling, there will be sources of energy and the market will make sure the prices are reasonable. Case closed.
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.