Al Gore hearing in front of senate to battle global warming...snowed out?

[¹²³]

Why not use the land to grow crops, and why not burn the fossil fuels that are plentiful?

Brazil has 355 million hectares of arable land and uses 1% of it to grow sugar cane for ethanol. There is plenty of room to grow a lot of other crops. Fossil fuels pollute more than biofuels, so if ethanol production doesn't put in risk the economy, I think it's only fair to use it. I can see why it won't work in the USA with all the government subsidies and the higher cost to produce it from corn.

As some people said early, it's not a wise thing to reduce polution at ALL costs, but at SOME costs it might be worth it in the long run. It's not an easy topic and as hoojacks said, we shouldn't scare people but we as humans should find ways to reduce pollution.

 

[Denny Crane]

Christ. Note to self: never ask Denny Crane for a link.

The link contained all sorts of links to stuff about 400 scientists (climatologists, geologists, etc.) who think man made global warming is a scam. Feel free to figure out if they're really scientists (note to self, they are).

 

[Denny Crane]

Brazil has 355 million hectares of arable land and uses 1% of it to grow sugar cane for ethanol. There is plenty of room to grow a lot of other crops. Fossil fuels pollute more than biofuels, so if ethanol production doesn't put in risk the economy, I think it's only fair to use it. I can see why it won't work in the USA with all the government subsidies and the higher cost to produce it from corn.

As some people said early, it's not a wise thing to reduce polution at ALL costs, but at SOME costs it might be worth it in the long run. It's not an easy topic and as hoojacks said, we shouldn't scare people but we as humans should find ways to reduce pollution.

http://cei.org/gencon/025,05532.cfm

Biofuels, Food, or Wildlife? The Massive Land Costs of U.S. Ethanol

The high price of fossil fuels, environmental concerns, and geopolitical instability in some major oil-producing nations have spurred intense interest in the United States in alternative fuels, especially from renewable energy sources.<o></o>
<o></o>
While popular with environmental activists, wind and solar power, because of their costs and unreliability, are not expected to grow significantly, even with massive subsidies.<o></o>
<o></o>
Nuclear power is still viewed with suspicion, even though other countries, including France, supply a majority of their energy needs from nuclear plants.<o></o>
<o></o>
Crop-based fuel production, especially corn ethanol, has been the main focus of interest, with government subsidies and mandates stimulating demand. Cellulosic ethanol produced from crop wastes has been heralded as the alternative fuel of the future, but it is yet to be produced in other than experimental production facilities. More recently, Brazil’s example of producing ethanol from sugar cane has been presented as a model for the United States to follow.<o></o>
<o></o>
There are significant trade-offs, however, involved in the massive expansion of the production of corn and other crops for fuel. Chief among these would be a shift of major amounts of the world’s food supply to fuel use when significant elements of the human population remains ill-fed. <o></o>
<o></o>
Even without ethanol, the world is facing a clash between food and forests. Food and feed demands on farmlands will more than double by 2050. Unfortunately, the American public does not yet understand the massive land requirements of U.S. corn ethanol nor the unique conditions that have allowed sugar cane ethanol to make a modest energy contribution in Brazil.<o>
</o><o></o>
The United States might well have to clear an additional 50 million acres of forest—or more—to produce economically significant amounts of liquid transport fuels. Despite the legend of past U.S farm surpluses, the only large reservoir of underused cropland in America is about 30 million acres of land—too dry for corn—enrolled in the Conservation Reserve. Ethanol mandates may force the local loss of many wildlife species, and perhaps trigger some species extinctions. Soil erosion will increase radically as large quantities of low-quality land are put into fuel crops on steep slopes and in drought-prone regions. <o></o>
<o></o>
The market is already responding to the high price of oil, as investors flock to alternative fuels, including investments in cellulosic ethanol research and development. Those developments are healthy, if markets are allowed to discover the winners and losers in future alternative energy sources without government intervention through subsidies and fuel mandates, and with a clear assessment of the trade-offs that may be involved.

 

[barfo]

The link contained all sorts of links to stuff about 400 scientists (climatologists, geologists, etc.) who think man made global warming is a scam. Feel free to figure out if they're really scientists (note to self, they are).

One thing I did notice while skimming it is that they don't all think global warming is a scam. They have a variety of points of view - one guy says that we don't have to worry about it because nanotechnology is going to solve the problem, for example.

barfo

 

[¹²³]

http://cei.org/gencon/025,05532.cfm

Biofuels, Food, or Wildlife? The Massive Land Costs of U.S. Ethanol

The high price of fossil fuels, environmental concerns, and geopolitical instability in some major oil-producing nations have spurred intense interest in the United States in alternative fuels, especially from renewable energy sources.<o></o>
<o></o>
While popular with environmental activists, wind and solar power, because of their costs and unreliability, are not expected to grow significantly, even with massive subsidies.<o></o>
<o></o>
Nuclear power is still viewed with suspicion, even though other countries, including France, supply a majority of their energy needs from nuclear plants.<o></o>
<o></o>
Crop-based fuel production, especially corn ethanol, has been the main focus of interest, with government subsidies and mandates stimulating demand. Cellulosic ethanol produced from crop wastes has been heralded as the alternative fuel of the future, but it is yet to be produced in other than experimental production facilities. More recently, Brazil’s example of producing ethanol from sugar cane has been presented as a model for the United States to follow.<o></o>
<o></o>
There are significant trade-offs, however, involved in the massive expansion of the production of corn and other crops for fuel. Chief among these would be a shift of major amounts of the world’s food supply to fuel use when significant elements of the human population remains ill-fed. <o></o>
<o></o>
Even without ethanol, the world is facing a clash between food and forests. Food and feed demands on farmlands will more than double by 2050. Unfortunately, the American public does not yet understand the massive land requirements of U.S. corn ethanol nor the unique conditions that have allowed sugar cane ethanol to make a modest energy contribution in Brazil.<o>
</o><o></o>
The United States might well have to clear an additional 50 million acres of forest—or more—to produce economically significant amounts of liquid transport fuels. Despite the legend of past U.S farm surpluses, the only large reservoir of underused cropland in America is about 30 million acres of land—too dry for corn—enrolled in the Conservation Reserve. Ethanol mandates may force the local loss of many wildlife species, and perhaps trigger some species extinctions. Soil erosion will increase radically as large quantities of low-quality land are put into fuel crops on steep slopes and in drought-prone regions. <o></o>
<o></o>
The market is already responding to the high price of oil, as investors flock to alternative fuels, including investments in cellulosic ethanol research and development. Those developments are healthy, if markets are allowed to discover the winners and losers in future alternative energy sources without government intervention through subsidies and fuel mandates, and with a clear assessment of the trade-offs that may be involved.

Totally agree with the bolded part. I do think corn ethanol won't fly as an alternative fuel.

Edit: And the PDF in the link is a relly nice read as well.

 

[Denny Crane]

One thing I did notice while skimming it is that they don't all think global warming is a scam. They have a variety of points of view - one guy says that we don't have to worry about it because nanotechnology is going to solve the problem, for example.

barfo

They signed a document and sent it to the UN (I believe) saying MMGW is a scam.

The document is linked to somewhere on that page or one of the pages linked to from that page.

 

[barfo]

They signed a document and sent it to the UN (I believe) saying MMGW is a scam.

The document is linked to somewhere on that page or one of the pages linked to from that page.

I'll check it out.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Oh yeah, it was 400+ scientists who signed the document in 2007, and 650 or so in 2008.

 

[MARIS61]

Sure, but not at ALL costs.

We've already seen that pushing ethanol helped trigger this recession/depression we're now in. Food prices went way up last year since the corn used to feed cattle and people was being turned into fuel. This is the kind of thing we want to avoid.

That's not actually true, as the price of corn rose less than most other foods.

The gas-price-fixing scam is what caused ALL commodities to rise, due to increased shipping and storage costs.

Big oil got fat off the suffering masses, like all good parasites do.

 

[MARIS61]

To the left: Florida isn't going to be underwater in 20 years if we continue at the same rate. Scaring people is the republican's thing, they're much better at it. No one is really buying this.

It depends on what part of Florida you're talking about.

Some of it has already been destroyed by global warming.

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2007...report_everglades_park_harmed_/?breaking_news

 

[Denny Crane]

That's not actually true, as the price of corn rose less than most other foods.

The gas-price-fixing scam is what caused ALL commodities to rise, due to increased shipping and storage costs.

Big oil got fat off the suffering masses, like all good parasites do.

How was the price of beef? Cattle eats corn, at least in the mid-west.

 

[barfo]

The link contained all sorts of links to stuff about 400 scientists (climatologists, geologists, etc.) who think man made global warming is a scam. Feel free to figure out if they're really scientists (note to self, they are).

Some of them are scientists. Some of them are TV weathermen, some are economists, and some are people who write letters to the editor. If this list was meant to be convincing, it isn't to me. I have to wonder why the author of the list larded it up with the completely unqualified. Makes me think his intentions are less than honorable, or that he is incompetent.

Now, I'm not claiming there aren't actual scientists who think global warming is a scam. There are. But this list is merely evidence that the "alarmists" are not the only ones politicizing the debate.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Some of them are scientists. Some of them are TV weathermen, some are economists, and some are people who write letters to the editor. If this list was meant to be convincing, it isn't to me. I have to wonder why the author of the list larded it up with the completely unqualified. Makes me think his intentions are less than honorable, or that he is incompetent.

Now, I'm not claiming there aren't actual scientists who think global warming is a scam. There are. But this list is merely evidence that the "alarmists" are not the only ones politicizing the debate.

barfo

So what? Al Gore is no scientist at all, not even a meteorologist (which IS a scientific study of the atmosphere).

A shorter but incomplete list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

 

[Dumpy]

It's a shame that environmentalism in this country has been reduced to issues like global warming and are being championed by people like Al Gore. I mean, really, there's nothing wrong with Al Gore, people just love to hate him because he's sticking to his guns on an uncomfortable issue and he reminds you of that aspergers kid you knew in middle school.

But this whole discussion is moot until we, as a country, can get on the same page. We need to meet in the middle.

To the left: Florida isn't going to be underwater in 20 years if we continue at the same rate. Scaring people is the republican's thing, they're much better at it. No one is really buying this.

To the right: Environmentalism isn't run by communists trying to destroy America.

To everyone: pollution exists. Trees don't pollute more then cars. Can we just try to take care of the Earth a little more before we die and let our kids ruin everything? It's the least we can do.

This is my feeling as well. Forget about global warming. We are destroying ecosystems and wiping out species. We are killing all of the sharks and the cause of malformed amphibians. Nearly all primate species are endangered. Here in Florida, there are approximately 3500 manatees left in the wild. Their greatest cause of death? Boats. We are not managing our resources properly, which includes the forests and wetlands.

The cause of all of this is selfishness and greed. And politics, which is just a "nice" way of saying that.

 

[PapaG]

This is my feeling as well. Forget about global warming. We are destroying ecosystems and wiping out species. We are killing all of the sharks and the cause of malformed amphibians. Nearly all primate species are endangered. Here in Florida, there are approximately 3500 manatees left in the wild. Their greatest cause of death? Boats. We are not managing our resources properly, which includes the forests and wetlands.

The cause of all of this is selfishness and greed. And politics, which is just a "nice" way of saying that.

To be fair, there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of new plant and animal species discovered. Here is a Google search for 2007.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...number+of+species+discovered+2007&btnG=Search

 

[barfo]

So what? Al Gore is no scientist at all, not even a meteorologist (which IS a scientific study of the atmosphere).

So what? So if you (I mean the guy who made that list) don't make a honest argument, then you won't be taken seriously.

Al Gore, for all his faults, does not claim to be a scientist, as far as I am aware.

barfo

 

[barfo]

To be fair, there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of new plant and animal species discovered. Here is a Google search for 2007.

Uhm, those aren't new in the sense of newly created. Not knowing about some species of moss in Peru hardly excuses killing the manatees.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

Uhm, those aren't new in the sense of newly created. Not knowing about some species of moss in Peru hardly excuses killing the manatees.

barfo

I never said it did excuse killing manatees.

 

[barfo]

I never said it did excuse killing manatees.

What was your point then?

barfo