Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Green Fuels Cause More Harm Than Fossil Fuels, According to Report
Using fossil fuel in vehicles is better for the environment than so-called green fuels made from crops, according to a government study seen by The Times.
The expansion of the palm oil industry in Indonesia has turned it into the third-largest CO2 emitter, after China and the US. Indonesia loses an area of forest the size of Wales every year and the orang-utan is on the brink of extinction in Sumatra. (AFP/Conservation International/File/Kabir Bakie) The findings show that the Department for Transport's target for raising the level of biofuel in all fuel sold in Britain will result in millions of acres of forest being logged or burnt down and converted to plantations. The study, likely to force a review of the target, concludes that some of the most commonly-used biofuel crops fail to meet the minimum sustainability standard set by the European Commission.
Under the standard, each litre of biofuel should reduce emissions by at least 35 per cent compared with burning a litre of fossil fuel. Yet the study shows that palm oil increases emissions by 31 per cent because of the carbon released when forest and grassland is turned into plantations. Rape seed and soy also fail to meet the standard.
The Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation this year requires 3¼ per cent of all fuel sold to come from crops. The proportion is due to increase each year and by 2020 is required to be 13 per cent. The DfT commissioned E4tech, a consultancy, to investigate the overall impact of its biofuel target on forests and other undeveloped land.
The EC has conducted its own research, but is refusing to publish the results. A leaked internal memo from the EC's agriculture directorate reveals its concern that Europe's entire biofuels industry, which receives almost £3 billion a year in subsidies, would be jeopardised if indirect changes in land use were included in sustainability standards. A senior official added to the memo in handwriting: "An unguided use of ILUC [indirect land use change] would kill biofuels in the EU."
The EC hopes to protect its biofuel target by issuing revised standards that would give palm plantations the same status as natural forests. Officials appear to have accepted arguments put forward by the palm oil industry that palms are just another type of tree.
A draft of the new rules, obtained by The Times, states that palm oil should be declared sustainable if it comes from a "continuously forested area", which it defines as areas where trees can reach at least heights of 5m, making up crown cover of more than 30 per cent. "This means, for example, that a change from forest to oil palm plantation would not per se constitute a breach of the criterion," it adds.
Clearing rainforest for biofuel plantations releases carbon stored in trees and soil. It takes up to 840 years for a palm oil plantation to soak up the carbon emitted when the rainforest it replaced was burnt. The expansion of the palm oil industry in Indonesia has turned it into the third-largest CO2 emitter, after China and the US. Indonesia loses an area of forest the size of Wales every year and the orang-utan is on the brink of extinction in Sumatra.
Last year, 127 million litres of palm oil was added to diesel sold to motorists in Britain, including 64 million litres from Malaysia and 27 million litres from Indonesia. Kenneth Richter, biofuels campaigner for Friends of the Earth, said: "The billions of subsidy for biofuels would be better spent on greener cars and improved public transport."
- Posted in
69 Comments so far
Show AllAnd who funded this study??? Shell or British Petroleum? Sounds fishy to me. I agree that other ideas are warranted but certainly don't take one "???government study" (already a big red flag) as gospel.
But if it makes sense? Fits in with earlier studies?
Cutting down forests is a BAD idea. As the study, and other studies, show it takes quite a while for trees to such up much CO2. They are efficient mechanisms and can get by with scarce ecological resources.
Cutting down trees requires fossil fuels. (Burning is far worse.) So does clesring the land and planting new crops. Let alone harvesting them and processing them. It's been a dirty little secret for years that corn especially is a LOUSY biofuel, using up considerably more fossil fuel than it can replace.
This doesn't include such things as increased water needs and decreased food production and so forth.
http://tinyurl.com/yfgrrk3
http://tinyurl.com/5wuqpb
http://tinyurl.com/2xjulv
Gotta go.
Gary
"Certainly, we are hurt by the high fuel prices because it raises our cost."
-- David Neeleman
But isn't that a one-time cost? Once you have a plantation, you don't have to burn the forest again.
If the plantation actually equaled in CO2 sucking what the forest did, then it would be a "one-time cost." It would also depend on how much cultivation the plantation took; the fertilizing (if any), the processing emissions, and the ecological cost of replacing depleted plants.
One other problem, among others, is with greed based capitalism you want to keep planting more plantation crops, meaning more cutting or burning of additional forests. Growth don't you know.
Gary
"It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government to save the environment."
-- Ansel Adams
It's true. BioFuels, which should be called AgraFuels are ramping up deforestation on a massive scale. That's why they were called a Crime against Humanity in the U.N. I'd call them a Crime Against The World.
You want to cut back on CO2 in the air, increase the number of trees, not decrease them.
You want to feed the poor, grow food to eat, not fuel to put in our cars and trucks.
By the way, the Big Petro companies are investing heavily in AgraFuels as it is they who you'll be buying them from at the gas station.
Old news.
Anyone who has done any research into biofuels found this out long ago.
If you want to reduce the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere from internal combustion sources, reduce the number of IC engines. That is, stop driving. Impose a pollution tax on car makers of $25 000 per vehicle. Require proof that the driver actually needs the vehicle, instead of wanting it out of vanity. High license fees to own and operate a vehicle. Match the vehicle to the need (ie a Smart Car instead of an SUV). Limit the number of vehicles a household may own. Increase the number of car free areas and days in cities. Improve public transit. Go back to trains for freight instead of long haul Diesel trucks. The list goes on...
yes...bad then, still bad...what would make one think otherwise? oh, yeah...
the meat industry produces more greenhouse gases than all transport worldwide-- see UN report "Livestock's Long Shadow." cars are not to blame, as much as meat is. going veg is the best way to combat global warming... and giving up your car will also help!
And lets don't forget the damage to bio-diversity that is caused by mono-cultures. If they want to use bio-diesel, then they need to be limited to recycling used cooking oil.
Been there, done that, and believe me when modified 44 gal drums, a pickup and a hand pump are what you have to work with, there better be a good reason to proceed.
But Industrial hemp is another matter. Its been used in tests in Australia to soak up sewage waste ponds (think control of ground water pollution from existing feed lots and factory farms) and in phytoremediation of contaminated ground at Chyernoble (think 'brownfield recovery'). There are types that produce large amounts of oil seed. And it could be a valuable part of a local solution. Except that for reasons only too well known, its not permitted in the Us and underutilized elsewhere.
Too bad!
The only workable solution is to encourage home owners to grow cannabis hedges, the most efficient producer of biomass on dry land. Instead of diverting forest or food crop resources into fuel, resources currently used for lawns would be used instead. The cannabis crop itself would bring homeowners an annual income of at least $10,000. This is the only way to go green.
This is a sane economical solution and the same reason the petro chemical companies like Dupont lobbied to have hemp plants illegal, along with the pushed fear of Mexicans, Blacks and Musicians.
Lots of countries like the USA, and Haiti and now Peru could be taken back by the people with free hemp.
People will be free to improve the planet someday... when things get bad enough to loosen up.
I have a crazy kind of faith that someday soon, things will get bad enough to get better.
Tell me why in 2010 are we still using 19th century technology? The care hasn't changed since Ford rolled out the model T.
Changing the outside and the interior doesn't improve a combustion engine, don't care what kind of fuel it uses.
We can go to the moon but we can't use a Stirling Engine with a solar component to run a car?
the cars are heavy to hold up heavy engines.
Make a lighter hydrogen cell engine and run a lighter body car.
What do kids in MIT study, finger painting 101?
Our space program is a bad joke too, stuck in 1960 technology hooked up to a computer.
The only problem the world has is that our scientist never get to use all those over-educated brain cells.
There are kids in India making hydrogen fuel cells to run their mopeds. Who need any kind of oil, when water doesn't pollute?
Who would suppress new technology?
1 reason. It's cheaper! And when you say the car hasn't changed much since the 19th century, if you mean it still has 4 wheels then I agree. But in terms of efficiency, it's dramatically more efficient. All the things you mentioned Sterling engine, solar power, hydrogen are more expensive than a fossil fuel powered internal combustion engine. In america you become wealthy by making things cheaper not more expensive.
you know what, i've been hearing this for a long time... that the biofuel industry is harmful for the environment, steals food away from the poor, etc.... I DONT BUY IT. i think this is a myth going around the progressive community, and everyone's just jumping on the bandwagon... yes, i'm serious. why dont we point the finger at the real problem here... the real environment destroyer, the real food thief: THE MEAT INDUSTRY! thats right! listen up: the meat industry hoards tons of food for cattle that could feel the whole world instead... the meat industry pumps more greenhouse gases into the air than all transport worldwide!! and people point at the biofuel industry like its the bad guy here-- GIVE ME A BREAK!!!! wake up people, and look at the WHOLE PICTURE-- the enemy is standing right behind you, and you dont even know that he's there, breathing poisons over your shoulder. if humanity could figure out a way to eat less meat, then we could theoretically use those fields to grow more food for the poor, and for biofuels as well... PROBLEM SOLVED. but no, people love killing animals, shoving tasty dead flesh down their throats... its an indulgence that people cant seem to give up!! humans have to be the strongest and most powerful beings on earth, we have to dominate other animals, we have to show them who's boss, we have to feast on them... THIS IS BULLSHIT!!! we dont NEED to eat animals, and its destroying our environment! stop eating meat, and use those fields for biofuels. thats my image of a more sustainable world. GO VEG!!!
Bio-fuels is also bullshit.... we can have 2 goals not just one.
but what exactly is bullshit about biofuels, provided that we didn't deforest land to produce it? if the argument is then that food is being stolen from the poor, then i would blame the meat industry for that, not biofuels... and biofuels would be much more useful than meat, at this present stage of our industrial evolution. do you catch my drift?? if we have limited land, then we should use it for the right thing. someone please help me understand it... how biofuels could be really wrong.
There is a better bio fuel and building material than food. Just Food is wrong to burn as fuel as it raises the price of that food like corn which is also fed to the meat industry so cutting down on meat, I agree is also helpful too.
Hemp is not really a food and a better substitute for plastic too that can grow just about anywhere and take out more carbon and put in more oxygen than trees.
Hemp can be made into all kinds of material and oil and medicine.
That would be a new source of jobs and sustainable industry.
But things are not bad enough yet for the big change to happen.
We are using the wrong Bio fuels controlled by the big corporations.
yes, I see... it's true that hemp is a great solution. the point that burning food will raise its cost is also valid. so not all biofuels are bad... people need to make a distinction. thanks for helping clear that up.
I understand that you want to drive a car and have found an excuse to do so (It's not as bad as eating meat). So people should just quit eating meat so you can drive your car. But people have been eating meat for at least 1000 times longer than we have been driving cars.
Do you catch my drift? There may be reasons that humans have been eating meat since before we were even human. Just because biofuels would be much more useful to you than meat doesn't make it so for everyone. There are soil degradation issues and water depletion issues associated with growing any crop.
Just so you know: My meat consumption is about 1/4 the national average and decreasing.
hey tommy... umm... i dont have a car! so much for THAT argument.
it's best if people dont have a car AND dont eat meat. sorry i didnt spell that out for you... but i thought it was obvious. and if i defended biofuels, i didnt do so because it would be good for ME-- thats ludicrous... i think that my ego has sufficiently diminished for me to be beyond that point. of course, i'm thinking about the whole society... about the big picture. do you also think about the big picture??
the classic argument that "humans have evolved eating meat" is invalid, in my opinion. lets look at it this way: humans evolved from monkeys. a long, long time ago, we were very animal-like. as we evolved, we have become more and more human-like... and what does this mean, "human-like"? it means we have a higher level of consciousness... that we can think and feel for the well-being of others, not just for ourselves. animals are quite selfish, in general... and humans have the capability to be self-less. so, we dont need to kill other animals to survive... we simply DON'T. we can live so nicely without eating meat... and so why do we keep doing it? the question is a good one.
i'm glad to hear that you're eating less meat... keep it up :) they say that you cant be an environmentalist if you eat meat, and i think its true (unless you eat only organic meat, maybe...) =D peace
"it's best if people dont have a car AND dont eat meat"
Well, thats one opinion. :)
Well shut my mouth! Sorry, I completely misinterpreted your posts.
Humans ether need meat , or a very complex assortment of vegetables to properly function.,
Meat is what allowed for human evolution in the first place, but i don't get why we just can't use hemp
Hemp can do anything, food, homes, fuel, LEGALIZE HEMP
Yes, mass transit needs to be expanded to areas that are currently un(der)served. Yes, that will take time and resources. I don't see how subsidizing mass conversion to electric vehicles will take any less time or fewer resources. It looks to me that it would take more time and result in a dependence upon resources like lithium, rare earths and other scarce metals from other countries and a perceived need to dominate these countries militarily to ensure a stable supply. Once said infrastructure is built we would then hear about how it would be a waste not to use it to its fullest capacity. All of the (mostly very lame) excuses currently used to justify automobile use would still be used.
Automobile use (along with air travel) needs to become much more expensive. People who don't have the resources to adjust should be helped to do so. Living situations can change. It happens all the time.
tommy_slothrop
"electric vehicles"
If you look into it, electric vehicles are no solution at all.
Less sympathy for those who live in transit cities( good public transportation, high cost of living, LA, NY) who drive cars they purchased new( yes, 399$ a month adds up) and find them selves behind on bills.
I spend 575 a month on rent, i have friends who spend more the that much on gas, car payments , and insurance.
I HAVE NO PITTY FOR THEM when they complain about not being able to pay rent, It sickens me that we have such a BUY IT NOW America.
Where is the hard working American who helped his friends out once in a while...
Fact is, if you live in major city you don't NEED a car. If you need a car for transportation , you need a cheap used one that you can get for say, 3,500$.
Not the new car you saw on tv for 21,000$.
Both do the same thing, point A to point B. Period. Take that 399$ a month and put in a saving's account.
Or you can over extend yourself like many Americans with the brand new car, the brand new home and 20,000$ in debt
Visiting Professor
Hooray for a voice of sanity. The recognition that buzz words and wishful thinking are not reality nor can they be made so is the first step to solving the problem.
In my neck of the woods, pick ups and SUV's serve a useful purpose. Try driving a Smart Car on rural roads some time. But are they really needed to go to the store or hairdresser's? No, but demonizing, threatening and denigration gets you nothing but rejection and contempt.
"People need mobility to function in our society. Pretending that they don't or suggesting that they use public transportation that doesn't exist in their communities will not help, though it will aggravate a lot of people."
Why is this so hard to understand?
Don't just visit Professor, stay awhile.
For every rural resident who needs to live there be cause he or she works in agriculture and needs a pickup there are several who live there but commute to the city to work and own a pickup as a fashion statement. Why should I as someone who doesn't own any vehicle other than a bicycle subsidize their lifestyle choices?
tommy_slothrop
"Why should I as someone who doesn't own any vehicle other than a bicycle subsidize their lifestyle choices?"
I guess for the same reason they subsidize your public transportation. And the streets and sidewalks you ride on. You were aware that public transportation is virtually not self sustaining? Or that the streets you ride on are paid for with gasoline taxes? And that you get a disproportionate share of those taxes?
Its best to be careful when talking about who subsidizes who.
That said, I agree with you that there are lots of folks that don't need that kind of vehicle to commute to the city for work. But you say "several" and I'd say many. And more and more are getting out of the cities but still working there.
In a fully capitalist society, public transport will not pick up unless the motor car is made less viable. Obviously there are places so rural that public transport will never provide the full solution. But for most of us, try this thought experiment:-
Stand at the side of a road, and imagine if there were no cars, how long would it be until the next bus, tram or train came along? To find out, count the people going past in their cars. Count how long it would take for these people to fill half a bus. Then you have your answer.
Without private vehicles, the public transport becomes super efficient. Places with a very poor public transport get to have a very good public transport. Places that previously would have had zero public transport get to have a half decent public transport.
Philippines is fully capitalist, but poor, so most people cannot afford their own car. Try getting around to a remote rural area with very poor roads by public transport. You will find that it is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE. There ARE lots of SUV's there. They have been made into something quite functional. They are elongated somewhat, and can carry up to 30 people.
Approach a highway into or out of the city, with the daily traffic jam, and try a similar thought experiment.
Another dumdum gets it wrong on biofuels by using a bad biofuel such as corn or palm oil to classify all biofuels as bad. Webster should go back and read all about hemp and algae first before jumping to the wrong conclusions. His claim that all biofuels causes more harm than fossil fuels sounds like big oil talk to me. When will more environmentalists get the facts right on hemp and algae as exceptionally outstanding biofuels?
right! i agree... this badmouthing biofuels does sound like big oil talk! hemp is a great solution.
The problem is that virtually all of these ideas and writings are driven by either money or power,or ideology -- not by careful science and facts, and not in terms of system thinking. One can't determine what to think or work for when information is so distorted.
What is pretty likely, however, is that it's not going to be solved by any one change, but by an integrated system incorporating various approaches for different situations -- each having some upsides and some downsides. Every decision for things like building houses, cars, trucks, etc., producing and transporting goods and produce, lighting, extraction of resources - everything -- needs to have the environmental effects and the effects on other activities factored in. We live in a complex ecological system and we need to act like it.
"The problem is that virtually all of these ideas and writings are driven by either money or power,or ideology -- not by careful science and facts."
That is why our economy is known as a 'political economy'. Every issue is resolved by discussion and politics, even scientists and engineers are swayed by money, power, and ideology. Careful science often overlooks things like the unintended consequences. For example, the EPA mandated the addition of MTBE into all fuels several years ago in an attempt to reduce co2 emissions. Now entire public drinking water systems have been destroyed by MTBE leaking into the ground water supply. Thank You Mr. EPA!
Hi Lilly,
Maybe we did not use MTBE in the country where I live, so I had to look it up in Wikipedia to find out about it. Yes, as you say, it has contaminated whole water supplies in the USA and yes it will cost $billions to remove. And of course we know that when it comes to cleaning up, US politicians will no doubt think that sort of money would be better spent on war, or donated to Israel.
However, the article reveals the REAL reason why this contamination is a problem.
"MTBE is not classified as a human carcinogen at LOW exposure levels by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)."
"MTBE gives water an unpleasant taste at VERY LOW concentrations, and thus can render large quantities of groundwater non-potable." "MTBE can be tasted in water at concentrations of 5 – 15 µg/l."
Now I am willing to bet that if it did not taste bad, your government would gladly let you drink it. I am sure that if somthing else that leaked into the environment that tasted fine, but was carcinogenic would also be gladly given for you to drink.
One track minds when they hit an obstacle are stuck forever.
Stanley Meyers built and sold to the Dept of Defense a fully functional hydrogen engine that runs on water, plain, everyday water. There are versions that run on salt water.
Look it up on YouTube.com.
We have tiny Stirling Engines that run on the heat from your hand.
Stirling Engines powered by a candle flame or alcohol lamp.
Why can't Toyota build this engine to work in a Camary?
It doesn't take a lot of heat to get one to run, it does take imagination and determination to see other sources of energy.
Why are you all so blind?
We can't survive in the 21st century dependent on technology that was new in the 1800's!
Grow up and try to see the world as it could be if we let people with ideas free, let them build like Tesla did 100 years ago, give their new ideas a chance.
The only problem is HOW we see the answer.
Stanley Meyers was a con-man. You CANNOT run an engine on just water whereas the electrolysis to break H2O into hydrogen and oxygen is somehow less energy intensive than the energy potential from the split elements. The reverse is true, it takes MORE energy to crack water than you get from burning the hydrogen with the oxygen.
Perpetual motion machines don't work unless they are gimmicked. The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics have NEVER been violated. And never will.
Gary
“Hell must be isothermal; for otherwise the resident engineers and physical chemists (of which there must be some) could set up a heat engine to run a refrigerator to cool off a portion of their surroundings to any desired temperature”
-- Henry Albert Ben
So, the main points of carbon emission:
1. Transportation (cars, and most everything in US is delivered by Truck)
2. Agriculture/Food production
3. Energy Production (Coal)
4. Pollution (algae, and garbage dumps)
A key factor in bio-fuels, when oil and coal get too expensive, is how do we adjust our power production.
You wanna make things cheaper... an electric motor in a car makes it a whole lot cheaper (after battery prices come down, which they are) because you don't need all those moving parts. But the energy has to come from somewhere.
hemp...pot...cannabis...
marijuana is wonderful...
helps with the physical situation...
helps with the mental situation...
helps all over...
so good they had to call it 'bad' to prevent comparison...
and to take it away to prevent competition...
weeeeeeellll, dubet... i think its not so simple. hemp is way more wonderful than marijuana, in my opinion. ok, ok... pot is valuable for medicinal purposes, for treating pain symptoms and whatnot... but for the mind, well, i think that it doesnt have the most beneficial effects... particularly for your average pothead. it sucks life energy from the body, leaving it in the classic A-motivational state. waaaaaayyyyyy too many young american kids are smoking waaaaayyyyyy too much pot (6 foot bongs? i think, based on experience, that these are mostly found in the USA) and kids are left stupified, in an aimlessly drifting mental state... and often times dont pay attention, or care, about real issues going on in society. i used to be an avid pot smoker in my college days, so i've had first hand experience with this. and people wonder why young people arent more politically and socially active?? i really think that this, in combination with the abundance of psycho-active pharmaceuticals that are being imposed on them, provides at least a partial explanation as to why kids these days arent getting off their asses and protesting against their own government. i think... and call me out if i'm totally wacked out with this idea... that the goverment may not mind that kids are so stoned... because theyre safer sitting on their asses, passing a joint around and staring at the tv than getting up and into the streets with the intention to challenge the system.
in fact, i feel like pot is so passe... it was so big in the 60s... isnt it kind of like, old now? come on kids, stop drugging yourselves for goodness sake... your mind is capable of so much more than this!! humanity is is trouble, and youre just sitting on your ass zoning out... ESCAPING... arent there more important things to do??? and i'm not criticizing the occasional pot smoker (everyone needs to kick back sometimes)... i'm talking about potheads, who really dull their minds with it. i hope i'm not offending anyone here...
but i digress a bit... basically, hemp is a wonder-plant... capable of transforming society for the better. in terms of marijuana... umm... i dont see the same potential there. and also dont forget that hemp and marijuana are distinct plants... not one and the same. you'd have to smoke a field of hemp to get high... not much THC in there.
"in fact, i feel like pot is so passe... it was so big in the 60s... isnt it kind of like, old now?"
I disagree...good is good, regardless of fashion...
is peace also passe? it was big then...
why don't more pot smokers or peace lovers protest?
because they get assaulted, tasered and shot by the same law enforcement officers their tax dollars pay?
because politicians work for their opponents, so protesting is futile, therefore, in light of consequence, asinine?
because, due to private property, an interruption of even brief duration in their income, due to travel or arrest and incarceration, might leave them, and their loved ones, homeless?
you blame pot? if you agree that humanity needs an attitude adjustment, and don't feel pot meets the requirement, what does?
yes... to each his own. pot is definitely not the enemy, of course... and i'm sure it's beneficial for some. my life feels so much better without it... but thats just my experience.
I believe we all knew this long ago.
Bu as Visiting Professor says, "However, the study posted here can be used in many different ways for different purposes"
Galenwainwright makes a good suggestion of encouraging people to match the vehicle to need. You could tax by engine size if you don't get carried away.
The thing you cannot do is dictate to people what, where or when they drive, nor can you fool them very long with pie in the sky talk.
The idea that a sterling engine with any substantially useful output can be run on the heat from one's hand or from a candle is sheer nonsense. Even the very best heat engines (like internal combustion engines or sterling engines) put out in mechanical energy way less than half what is put in. The very best modern automobile engines run at 40% efficiency or less. Modern coal-electric plants run at less than 40% efficiency.
Jim Shea
The modern STIRLING engine is more efficient (and better mass to output) than any internal-combustion engine. And a solar powered stirling engine coupled with a generator achieved a record solar-to-electric efficiency of 30% compared with 10% or less from solar cells.
Actually I've seen a demonstration Stirling engine model that ran on the heat from a candle. Used to be available from Edmund's Scientific at one time.
Gary
“He was almost there, when... Smash! Crash! Bash! He slid down and mashed into engine hash the little engine that almost could.”
-- Shel Silverstein
While biofuels are a DANGEROUS component of the lassez-faire approach, biofuels are a CRUCIAL component of the sustainable approach.
So the biofuels question is really a question of economic approaches - laissez-faire versus sustainable.
If the media had its way, we would ban biofuels, and allow laissez-faire capitalism to survive.
Can you imagine what would happen then? I think you can see that the plunder and gluttony would continue without a glitch.
Laissez-faire capitalism is in its death throes today. This article is yet another moaning of the downed beast. We're going to have biofuels as a CRUCIAL component to LOCAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY WORLDWIDE.
thats right. biofuels is a good step in the right direction... better than nuclear, which looks like the next big capitalistic thing! when we need to get off the fossil fuel addiction fast, we need a stepping stone like biofuels... its good to see that more people recognize this.
more people = less resources
Remember when the Palm Tree blight hit Jamaica? The trees died and the palm oil industry (mostly for soap) was wiped out.
Now, wouldn't it be just insane, on top of the pollution problem, if the rain forests were cut down to plant palms and the blight spread to those?
Is there a cure for the palm tree disease? Anyone know?