Imagine the worst case scenario: developed nations, eager to do something about global warming, set minimum biofuels targets. Huge swaths of forest, relying also on land outside of those nations, are cleared to grow more crops. Petroleum-based fertilizers are required to grow the crops, and more fuels are needed to convert the crops to biofuel and transport them to the point of use. Subsidized biofuels producers can make a profit even with less efficient processing. By the time all these factors are thrown into the calculations, the biofuel tanked by Europeans barely saves a few percent of greenhouse emissions compared to using traditional fuels. And the forests are gone: with fewer trees to absorb CO2, the net effect is: worse global warming.Remember, according to this post, good ol' Al Gore "saved the ethanol" in the U.S.
On top of that, social unrest grows, set off by rising food prices as crops are diverted for fuels, and by people having little say over how land is being used to serve the demands of other nations. Security of fuel supply is threatened.
Note also an excerpt from this page:
Vice President Al Gore maintains that “it’s well known that I’ve always supported ethanol. I have a consistent record of shoring up the farm safety net.” Gore, who as vice president cast a tie-breaking vote in 1994 against a proposal Senator Bill Bradley sponsored to cut tax incentives for ethanol fuel, adds that “I have not ducked when votes for ... agricultural interests were on the floor.”
Source: Sustainable Energy Coalition, media backgrounder #2 Nov 18, 1999
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment