Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/sc...hp&oref=slogin

Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than
conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these "green"
fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have
concluded.

The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent months,
as scientists took a closer look at the global environmental cost of their
production. These latest studies, published in the prestigious journal
Science, are likely to add to the controversy.

These studies for the first time take a detailed, comprehensive look at the
emissions effects of the huge amount of natural land that is being converted
to cropland globally to support biofuels development.

The destruction of natural ecosystems - whether rain forest in the tropics
or grasslands in South America - not only releases greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere when they are burned and plowed, but also deprives the planet of
natural sponges to absorb carbon emissions. Cropland also absorbs far less
carbon than the rain forests or even scrubland that it replaces.

Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat
 

"ATP*" wrote in message
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/sc...hp&oref=slogin

Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than
conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these "green"
fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have
concluded.


A few years ago I saw a study which showed that it costs the equivalent
energy of 1.26 gallons of of oil to make 1.0 gallons of ethanol.. This
study was immediately denied by the tree huggers and it disappeared quickly.

Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat
 

NewsGroups wrote:

"ATP*" wrote in message
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/sc...hp&oref=slogin


Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions
than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these
"green" fuels are taken into account, two studies being published
Thursday have concluded.


A few years ago I saw a study which showed that it costs the equivalent
energy of 1.26 gallons of of oil to make 1.0 gallons of ethanol.. This
study was immediately denied by the tree huggers and it disappeared
quickly.

Perhaps it was the same article that identified the REAL beneficiary
of the biofuels movement was Archer Daniels Midland, the agri-business
megalopoly. Didn't see any denials from the huggers.... /mark

Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat
 

On Feb 10, 9:18 pm, "ATP*" wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/sc...uels.html?_r=2...

Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than
conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these "green"
fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have
concluded.

The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent months,
as scientists took a closer look at the global environmental cost of their
production. These latest studies, published in the prestigious journal
Science, are likely to add to the controversy.

These studies for the first time take a detailed, comprehensive look at the
emissions effects of the huge amount of natural land that is being converted
to cropland globally to support biofuels development.

The destruction of natural ecosystems - whether rain forest in the tropics
or grasslands in South America - not only releases greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere when they are burned and plowed, but also deprives the planet of
natural sponges to absorb carbon emissions. Cropland also absorbs far less
carbon than the rain forests or even scrubland that it replaces.

I just got a preprint of a recent paper on this, probably the one you
are referring to. I have not had time to read it in its entirety yet,
but what I have read seems to indicate that biofuels CAN have a
positive effect on greenhouse gases IF the biofuel is produced
properly. Yes, currently most biofuel production, especially corn-
based ethanol, is NOT produced in a very green way. That does not
mean, however, that biofuels can NEVER be made in an environmentally
positive way.

Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat
 

Don, ditto. But Wisconsin believes that with the power of positive
thinking, we can turn all the corn into our own little oilwells and tell
the middle east to kiss off.

I've not been getting my royalty check from Wisconsin because of the
bottomless well of profit that is the result of ethanol. Unlike the
checks in Saudi Arabia...

So who is stroking whom? The oil companies, or the tree huggers?

I have no issues with re-using the spent oil from deep fat fryers or
whatever, that's wringing the last penny out of a product. If something
else works, has an actual cost benefit, then people will use it.

Double whammy. More corn for ethanol, less corn for food stocks.

Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:
biofuels CAN have a
positive effect on greenhouse gases IF the biofuel is produced
properly. Yes, currently most biofuel production, especially corn-
based ethanol, is NOT produced in a very green way. That does not
mean, however, that biofuels can NEVER be made in an environmentally
positive way.

Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat
 

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 08:10:21 -0500, NewsGroups spar@plaus wrote:

A few years ago I saw a study which showed that it costs the equivalent
energy of 1.26 gallons of of oil to make 1.0 gallons of ethanol.. This
study was immediately denied by the tree huggers and it disappeared quickly.

If you mean the one I think you mean, it was by Pimentel, whose research
is consistently debunked but widely reported. His favorite tactic is to
ignore anything but the primary product of a biofuel's production. So,
with ethanol from corn, he ignores the fact that the proteins are then
used as cattle feed, and so on. I don't know if he's involved in this
latest study, but if he is, it's suspect at best.

I wonder which oil company is paying him to lie.

Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat
 

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:18:54 -0600, Louis Ohland wrote:

Double whammy. More corn for ethanol, less corn for food stocks.

That assume an inelastic supply, which isn't the case for, for instance,
corn in Wisconsin. I've got about 15 acres of tillable soil that I am
specifically not growing corn on, because being paid to not do so pays
better than doing so. If that equation changes, I'd consider putting it
back into farmland.

If the price of corn goes high enough, the millions of acres in
land-bank, will be taken out. That's exactly the sort of thing that
land-bank is for.

Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat
 

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:18:54 -0600, Louis Ohland
wrote:

Double whammy. More corn for ethanol, less corn for food stocks.

That assume an inelastic supply, which isn't the case for, for instance,
corn in Wisconsin. I've got about 15 acres of tillable soil that I am
specifically not growing corn on, because being paid to not do so pays
better than doing so. If that equation changes, I'd consider putting it
back into farmland.

If the price of corn goes high enough, the millions of acres in
land-bank, will be taken out. That's exactly the sort of thing that
land-bank is for.

Resulting in more harm to the environment, the taxpayer, and increasing
greenhouse gases.

Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat
 

"NewsGroups" spar@plaus wrote in message
. ..

"ATP*" wrote in message
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/sc...hp&oref=slogin

Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than
conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these "green"
fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have
concluded.


A few years ago I saw a study which showed that it costs the equivalent
energy of 1.26 gallons of of oil to make 1.0 gallons of ethanol.. This
study was immediately denied by the tree huggers and it disappeared
quickly.

BS. As Mark F pointed out, ADM is the biggest promoter of ethanol. Any
environmentalist that is half-conscious knows it's a scam.

Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat
 

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:47:23 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm,
"ATP*" quickly quoth:


"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:18:54 -0600, Louis Ohland
wrote:

Double whammy. More corn for ethanol, less corn for food stocks.

That assume an inelastic supply, which isn't the case for, for instance,
corn in Wisconsin. I've got about 15 acres of tillable soil that I am
specifically not growing corn on, because being paid to not do so pays
better than doing so. If that equation changes, I'd consider putting it
back into farmland.

If the price of corn goes high enough, the millions of acres in
land-bank, will be taken out. That's exactly the sort of thing that
land-bank is for.

Resulting in more harm to the environment, the taxpayer, and increasing
greenhouse gases.

I like the extra octane of ethanol, but the 10% worse gas mileage sure
doesn't make it seem worthwhile--ecologically or economically. My new
truck runs just fine on regular, with or without the oxidizer.

--

SALMON -- The Other Pink Meat

Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat
 

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:49:18 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm,
"ATP*" quickly quoth:


"NewsGroups" spar@plaus wrote in message
...

"ATP*" wrote in message
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/sc...hp&oref=slogin

Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than
conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these "green"
fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have
concluded.


A few years ago I saw a study which showed that it costs the equivalent
energy of 1.26 gallons of of oil to make 1.0 gallons of ethanol.. This
study was immediately denied by the tree huggers and it disappeared
quickly.

BS. As Mark F pointed out, ADM is the biggest promoter of ethanol.

Big Ag itself!


Any environmentalist that is half-conscious knows it's a scam.

There is a problem with that. Most environmentalists aren't even close
to half-conscious, or the Global Warming(kumbaya) scare wouldn't be
ruining lives worldwide with its godawful costs.

--

SALMON -- The Other Pink Meat

Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat
 

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:47:23 -0500, ATP* wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

If the price of corn goes high enough, the millions of acres in
land-bank, will be taken out. That's exactly the sort of thing that
land-bank is for.

Resulting in more harm to the environment, the taxpayer, and increasing
greenhouse gases.

Really? Tell me please, exactly how growing corn is any different than
letting grasses and wildflowers grow for free?

Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat
 

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:47:23 -0500, ATP*
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

If the price of corn goes high enough, the millions of acres in
land-bank, will be taken out. That's exactly the sort of thing that
land-bank is for.

Resulting in more harm to the environment, the taxpayer, and increasing
greenhouse gases.

Really? Tell me please, exactly how growing corn is any different than
letting grasses and wildflowers grow for free?

Read the study.

Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat
 

On 14 Feb 2008 06:03:00 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

,;On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:47:23 -0500, ATP* wrote:
,;
,; "Dave Hinz" wrote in message
,; ...
,;
,; If the price of corn goes high enough, the millions of acres in
,; land-bank, will be taken out. That's exactly the sort of thing that
,; land-bank is for.
,;
,; Resulting in more harm to the environment, the taxpayer, and increasing
,; greenhouse gases.
,;
,;Really? Tell me please, exactly how growing corn is any different than
,;letting grasses and wildflowers grow for free?

Corn is a row crop requiring cultivation. None of the projected costs
of corn ethanol consider topsoil loss.

Corn requires fertilizer and herbicides. Nitrates and herbicides (e.g.
Atrazine) in ground water are serious problems.

You obviously have not had much experience with agriculture or you
would have known that there is a big difference between a row crop and
grassland.

Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat
 

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:05:57 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm,
Unknown quickly quoth:

On 14 Feb 2008 06:03:00 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

,;On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:47:23 -0500, ATP* wrote:
,;
,; "Dave Hinz" wrote in message
,; ...
,;
,; If the price of corn goes high enough, the millions of acres in
,; land-bank, will be taken out. That's exactly the sort of thing that
,; land-bank is for.
,;
,; Resulting in more harm to the environment, the taxpayer, and increasing
,; greenhouse gases.
,;
,;Really? Tell me please, exactly how growing corn is any different than
,;letting grasses and wildflowers grow for free?

Flowers die off and return their nitrogen/elements. Ag crops strip
nutrients which have to be replaced.


Corn is a row crop requiring cultivation. None of the projected costs
of corn ethanol consider topsoil loss.

Corn requires fertilizer and herbicides. Nitrates and herbicides (e.g.
Atrazine) in ground water are serious problems.

Fertilizer runoff causes algae blooms in rivers and streams, causing
fish killoffs, too.


You obviously have not had much experience with agriculture or you
would have known that there is a big difference between a row crop and
grassland.

Yes, a major difference in every facet.

--

SALMON -- The Other Pink Meat

Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat
 

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 07:22:02 -0500, ATP* wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:47:23 -0500, ATP*
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

If the price of corn goes high enough, the millions of acres in
land-bank, will be taken out. That's exactly the sort of thing that
land-bank is for.

Resulting in more harm to the environment, the taxpayer, and increasing
greenhouse gases.

Really? Tell me please, exactly how growing corn is any different than
letting grasses and wildflowers grow for free?

Read the study.

The one that ignored secondary uses of the products turned partly into
biofuels, and which hinges on deforestation to make the numbers work?
Yeah, read it. Did you have an answer?

Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat
 

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 07:22:02 -0500, ATP*
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:47:23 -0500, ATP*
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

If the price of corn goes high enough, the millions of acres in
land-bank, will be taken out. That's exactly the sort of thing that
land-bank is for.

Resulting in more harm to the environment, the taxpayer, and increasing
greenhouse gases.

Really? Tell me please, exactly how growing corn is any different than
letting grasses and wildflowers grow for free?

Read the study.

The one that ignored secondary uses of the products turned partly into
biofuels, and which hinges on deforestation to make the numbers work?
Yeah, read it. Did you have an answer?

Wild environments are more efficient at converting carbon dioxide per acre
and use less inputs, such as petroleum based fertilizer.