A little picture of what I said. All carbon in plant matter comes from the air. Growing crops for biofuels, burning them, and re-releasing the carbon is carbon neutral.
Posted on 11/11/2010 8:01:08 AM PST by seamus
I love all those "green future" commercials companies like Exxon and BP ("Beyond Petroleum") run. They never fail to get a chuckle out of me, no matter how often I see them.
I can’t remember who is responsible for the latest one in which an “engineer” and a “teacher” (both actors, of course) speak almost simultaneously in split screen. They both talk about how we need to get off of carbon-based fuels like petroleum. I’ve only seen it once — and will likely see it 100 times more — but my initial guffaw line was when the “teacher,” in exasperation, wonders why our cars aren’t running on compost already! … or something.
The Heartland Institute has labored mightily over the last several years to expose the “green economy” scam. So it’s nice to see the MSM — at least in Britain — get wise and report on it. The November 10 Independent of London reports a story with the headline: “Biofuel plan will cause rise in carbon emissions.” You don’t say!
The first four graphs of the story lay it out in refreshingly clear terms:
Britain’s promise to more than double its use of biofuels by 2020 is “significantly” adding to worldwide carbon emissions, the Government admitted yesterday. Britain is signed up to a European guarantee to source 10 per cent of its transport fuel from renewable sources, such as biofuels, within the next 10 years. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at somewhatreasonable.com ...
No matter what the project, plan or promise ... if the loony left supports it, you KNOW it’s a lie.
It doesn’t matter. This isn’t about carbon. It’s about envy. Leftists want to punish people who use energy.
Instead of taking the consumers tax dollars to create something that costs the consumer more money to have, try letting the marketplace create something that will save the consumer money and is affordable enough to make the consumer want it more than anything else.
Oops.
Leftists want to punish peopleThat's more like it! ;-) Global Warming, Climate Change, Global Climate Disruption ... whatever the left calls it doesn't matter. This has never been about saving the planet. It's been, from the start, about controlling the people who live on the planet -- which is reason enough to resist even if the science wasn't bogus.who use energy.
Well....now what?
The study, from the Institute for European Environmental Policy, found that far from being 35 to 50 per cent less polluting, as required by the European Directive, the extra biofuels will be twice as bad for the environment.
This is yet another reason why it’s a shame that Prop 23 didn’t pass in California. The voters of the former Golden State condemned their economy to stagnation because they believed the fantasy that a major industrial economy can simply state that they will “go green” and (1) it will not result in economic disaster and (2) it’s even a “good” thing for the environment.
They are idiots, and I know this is not news to anyone other than the Kos/DU trolls who occasionally lurk. Without getting terribly advanced, a little technical but not overboard at least, all educated people who think for themselves should be able to recognize that biofuels have no net carbon emissions. Zero. None. Zilch. Nada.
Suppose that I decide to grow corn, soy, and switchgrass for biofuel purposes. When they are burned, they will, of course, release all that carbon into the air. But where did the carbon in my switchgrass come from? Hint: high school biology; 6CO2 + 6H2O + Energy ---> C6H12O6 + 6O2 [carbon dioxide plus water plus sunlight gives sugar plus oxygen]. The carbon in our biofuel crops comes from . . . atmospheric CO2.
The morons in the environmental movement are somewhat silly to count CO2 as pollution at all, but to count a closed cycle with no net CO2 release at all as worse than the open cycle that releases carbon from coal or from oil is insane even by environmentalist standards.
A little picture of what I said. All carbon in plant matter comes from the air. Growing crops for biofuels, burning them, and re-releasing the carbon is carbon neutral.
He has missed the ignorant GE commercials with the neon green posts sticking out of the fround that everyone is suppose to plug in thier “electric” car.
And don’t forget their mercury lightbulbs.
I wonder if “mad cow disease” was really a disease?
If it comes from a greenie it is a LIE.
Isn't that the point they are making.
This is because Europe will need to cultivate an area somewhere between the size of Belgium and the Republic of Ireland with biofuels to meet the target, which can only be done through land conversion – and more controversially, deforestation. The work will be on such a scale that the carbon released from the vegetation, trees and soil will be far greater than those given off by fossil fuels they are designed to replace.
Of course, which is why the major stockholders of energy companies are big donors to green groups. In fact, I have never seen a major environmental initiative that did not consume MORE oil and gas. Not one. Everything from replacing trees with cement and plastic to the pumping and transportation of raw material feedstocks, it's all the same.
I don't give a hang about anthropogenic CO2, but I do think improving soil fertility is a big deal, particularly in mesic and xeric systems.
Good point. However, you can go even beyond that. The net OXYGEN production of any tree, plant, or grass, from seed through growth and maturity to death and decay, is exactly ZERO. Planting trees, or anything else, does not add one single oxygen molecule to the atmosphere, once you take into account the fact that after the plant dies, it will be oxidized again (burned, eaten by termites, etc.).
I don't think that was their point. The actual energy for distilling is relatively low because of the use of heat exchangers. One of their points was the deforestation for crops, but I didn't find that convincing either. My impression is that we have farmland that is no longer used for that purpose as crop yields continue to rise, so there is no major need for new deforestation.
As long as we don’t care about eating maybe.
Then again refining those things into fuels is also causing pollution
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.