The Intergalactic Commission On Bio-fuels
Posted on May 27th, 2007
by 
Zink
Zink
The evidence is mounting and disturbing that the continued use of fossil fuels and the resulting effects of global warming can no longer be easily dismissed or tolerated. Virtually all of us agree that something must change. The supply of renewable energy sources must be carefully and thoughtfully pursued by the global community as a whole with a mind set on the ultimate good for all humanity and the promise of a cleaner and safer earth for our descendents. Government control or some form of oversight of research and development of alternative fuels is likely to result in fewer unintended consequences than would be the case if all efforts are left to the free market.
It is obviously imperative that we develop alternative renewable energy sources for electricity production and locomotion so that fossil fuels may continue to produce the more than 700,000 products we in the civilized world could hardly live without. To simply burn the vast majority of that fossil fuel supply seems wasteful. When we run out of petroleum, we cease to be able to make acrylics, asphalts, cosmetics, fertilizers, medications, paints, plastics, varnishes, etc, etc, etc. Finding new sources of fossil fuels, expanding production to lower prices, increasing refinery capacities, none of these efforts will stop the inevitable end to the supply. At least some petroleum based products can be recycled.
In the free market, research and development of alternative fuels is turning out to be a plodding and calculated process. The oil producing countries, the oil companies, and the automotive industry have vested interests in keeping us all dependent on fossil fuels for as long as another barrel of crude is available. Thus far, we can see a concerted effort by these oil giants in the free market to convince us that only certain alternative fuels, (that need to be produced in gallons and delivered via the existing infrastructure) are even viable possibilities. Meanwhile, gas prices continue to be a massive burden on the working class and even more so on the working poor while company executives collect untold millions in profit sharing. The decisions about which alternative fuels should be developed must not be left to the forces of the free market. There is too much at stake to allow greed and profiteering to benefit the few at the expense of the many.
“If you make biofuels properly, you will reduce greenhouse emissions,” said Peder Jensen, of the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen. “But that depends very much on the types of plants and how they’re grown and processed. You can end up with a 90 percent reduction compared to fossil fuels — or a 20 percent increase.” Whatever we as a species do to reduce greenhouse gasses must be considered globally before acted upon locally.
Unintended consequences are inevitable if the future of bio-fuels is left entirely to the forces of the free market. For example; The Netherlands created an increased demand for Palm Oil when it switched to burning that renewable energy source for the production of electricity. The resulting decrease in emissions for the Netherlands was beneficial but this produced unintended consequences in Malaysia. A full 87% of deforestation in Malaysia between 1985 and 2000 can be directly attributed to the creation of new palm oil plantations. It is also estimated that the draining of peatland in Indonesia to prepare land for new palm oil plantations releases 660 million tons of carbon a year into the atmosphere. Further, the burning of that dried peat adds 1.5 billion tons annually. This attempt to reduce greenhouse gasses may have succeeded locally but it failed globally.
What happened in the Netherlands example is that a government prompted the market to produce more palm oil and the market raced willy-nilly to supply the demand without consideration of the consequence to the planet as a whole. The operation was totally based on profit motivations and when profit is foremost, logic and reason and concern for the well being of all takes a distant second. Do we then trust the market to produce enough ethanol in the United States without deforesting millions of acres or jeopardizing our status as “breadbasket of the world“ by converting food producing acreage into biomass corn plantings? Will this effort reduce greenhouse gasses globally?
For that matter, is ethanol our best alternative? “Ethanol is being promoted as a clean and renewable fuel that will reduce global warming and air pollution,” said Mark Z. Jacobson, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering and author of a study in the online edition of Environmental Science and Technology. He continues, “But our results show that a high blend of ethanol poses an equal or greater risk to public health than gasoline, which already causes significant health damage.” The ground level ozone produced by the burning of high concentrations of ethanol blended with gasoline is much more detrimental to human health than gasoline itself.
Is it possible that all our efforts may not be enough to stop the unintended consequence purported in the “Olduvai Theory”? In his theory, Richard C. Duncan, Ph.D at the Institute of Energy and Man, writes, “The life-expectancy of Industrial Civilization is less than one-hundred (100) years. Industrial Civilization doesn’t evolve. Rather, it rapidly consumes ‘the necessary physical prerequisites’ for its own existence. It’s short term, unsustainable. This is a one shot affair…there will be one chance, and one chance only” If Dr. Duncan is right, we don’t have much time left to act wisely.
Someone has to make the decisions about which alternatives we should be pursuing. I am not convinced that elected or self appointed governments, subject to the lobbies of industry, can be trusted to oversee this all important effort without the motivations of greed and power. But some governing body, whether it be a Counsel of United Nations or an Intergalactic Commission on Bio-Fuels, must oversee all global efforts to assure the maximum limitation of unintended consequences and the realization of the greatest good for all mankind. Foresight and planning will help us achieve these goals. Left to the free market, civilization, as we know it, will collapse when our fossil fuel sources are completely depleted. The future of humankind depends on the development of greater alternatives than even bio-fuel promises.
It is obviously imperative that we develop alternative renewable energy sources for electricity production and locomotion so that fossil fuels may continue to produce the more than 700,000 products we in the civilized world could hardly live without. To simply burn the vast majority of that fossil fuel supply seems wasteful. When we run out of petroleum, we cease to be able to make acrylics, asphalts, cosmetics, fertilizers, medications, paints, plastics, varnishes, etc, etc, etc. Finding new sources of fossil fuels, expanding production to lower prices, increasing refinery capacities, none of these efforts will stop the inevitable end to the supply. At least some petroleum based products can be recycled.
In the free market, research and development of alternative fuels is turning out to be a plodding and calculated process. The oil producing countries, the oil companies, and the automotive industry have vested interests in keeping us all dependent on fossil fuels for as long as another barrel of crude is available. Thus far, we can see a concerted effort by these oil giants in the free market to convince us that only certain alternative fuels, (that need to be produced in gallons and delivered via the existing infrastructure) are even viable possibilities. Meanwhile, gas prices continue to be a massive burden on the working class and even more so on the working poor while company executives collect untold millions in profit sharing. The decisions about which alternative fuels should be developed must not be left to the forces of the free market. There is too much at stake to allow greed and profiteering to benefit the few at the expense of the many.
“If you make biofuels properly, you will reduce greenhouse emissions,” said Peder Jensen, of the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen. “But that depends very much on the types of plants and how they’re grown and processed. You can end up with a 90 percent reduction compared to fossil fuels — or a 20 percent increase.” Whatever we as a species do to reduce greenhouse gasses must be considered globally before acted upon locally.
Unintended consequences are inevitable if the future of bio-fuels is left entirely to the forces of the free market. For example; The Netherlands created an increased demand for Palm Oil when it switched to burning that renewable energy source for the production of electricity. The resulting decrease in emissions for the Netherlands was beneficial but this produced unintended consequences in Malaysia. A full 87% of deforestation in Malaysia between 1985 and 2000 can be directly attributed to the creation of new palm oil plantations. It is also estimated that the draining of peatland in Indonesia to prepare land for new palm oil plantations releases 660 million tons of carbon a year into the atmosphere. Further, the burning of that dried peat adds 1.5 billion tons annually. This attempt to reduce greenhouse gasses may have succeeded locally but it failed globally.
What happened in the Netherlands example is that a government prompted the market to produce more palm oil and the market raced willy-nilly to supply the demand without consideration of the consequence to the planet as a whole. The operation was totally based on profit motivations and when profit is foremost, logic and reason and concern for the well being of all takes a distant second. Do we then trust the market to produce enough ethanol in the United States without deforesting millions of acres or jeopardizing our status as “breadbasket of the world“ by converting food producing acreage into biomass corn plantings? Will this effort reduce greenhouse gasses globally?
For that matter, is ethanol our best alternative? “Ethanol is being promoted as a clean and renewable fuel that will reduce global warming and air pollution,” said Mark Z. Jacobson, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering and author of a study in the online edition of Environmental Science and Technology. He continues, “But our results show that a high blend of ethanol poses an equal or greater risk to public health than gasoline, which already causes significant health damage.” The ground level ozone produced by the burning of high concentrations of ethanol blended with gasoline is much more detrimental to human health than gasoline itself.
Is it possible that all our efforts may not be enough to stop the unintended consequence purported in the “Olduvai Theory”? In his theory, Richard C. Duncan, Ph.D at the Institute of Energy and Man, writes, “The life-expectancy of Industrial Civilization is less than one-hundred (100) years. Industrial Civilization doesn’t evolve. Rather, it rapidly consumes ‘the necessary physical prerequisites’ for its own existence. It’s short term, unsustainable. This is a one shot affair…there will be one chance, and one chance only” If Dr. Duncan is right, we don’t have much time left to act wisely.
Someone has to make the decisions about which alternatives we should be pursuing. I am not convinced that elected or self appointed governments, subject to the lobbies of industry, can be trusted to oversee this all important effort without the motivations of greed and power. But some governing body, whether it be a Counsel of United Nations or an Intergalactic Commission on Bio-Fuels, must oversee all global efforts to assure the maximum limitation of unintended consequences and the realization of the greatest good for all mankind. Foresight and planning will help us achieve these goals. Left to the free market, civilization, as we know it, will collapse when our fossil fuel sources are completely depleted. The future of humankind depends on the development of greater alternatives than even bio-fuel promises.
Access: Public
bio-fuels
August 2008 