Archive for 8 maj, 2008

Etanol – An Environmental Disaster

8 maj, 2008

Här kommer två forskningsrapporter plus två artiklar om vansinnet med att odla upp regnskogar, torvmossar, savanner och betesmark etc. för att odla grödor för etanoltillverkning. Vi pratar om ökning av CO2 utsläppen på 17 till 420 gånger mer än de ”besparingar” som sker när etanol ersätter bensin.

Eller att etanolen kostar $2.53 per gallon att producera i USA, vilket alltså är MYCKET HÖGRE än för bensin. Av marknadspriset så är HELA 42 till 55 % av etanolpriset RENA SUBVENTIONER!

Se det var en riktig ”miljövinst” i Global Warming Hysterikernas smak! Och våra kära intälägänta svenska politiker fortsätter istadigt på denna befängda och miljö förstörande och kostsamma väg.

Se även mina inlägg: Avgasutsläppen från etanol är STÖRRE och VÄRRE än från bensinbilar!The Really Inconvenient Truths,  Food shortages, questionable benefits downplayed as Dr. McGuinty hits the gas pedal on ethanol,  Biofuel Madness: Environmentalism exploited for political purposesBrazil’s experience testifies to the downside of this energy revolutionGermany Scraps Plan to Raise Ethanol Content for CarsThe Clean Energy Scam – Eller Etanolbluffen!

Abstract finns här:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1152747

Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt

Joseph Fargione,1 Jason Hill,2,3 David Tilman,2* Stephen Polasky,2,3 Peter Hawthorne2

Increasing energy use, climate change, and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels make switching to low-carbon fuels a high priority. Biofuels are a potential low-carbon energy source, but whether biofuels offer carbon savings depends on how they are produced. Converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or grasslands to produce food crop-based biofuels in Brazil, Southeast Asia, and the United States creates a ”biofuel carbon debt” by releasing 17 to 420 times more CO2 than the annual greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions that these biofuels would provide by displacing fossil fuels. In contrast, biofuels made from waste biomass or from biomass grown on degraded and abandoned agricultural lands planted with perennials incur little or no carbon debt and can offer immediate and sustained GHG advantages.

1 The Nature Conservancy, 1101 West River Parkway, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55415, USA.
2 Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA.
3 Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA.

________________________________________________________________________

Abstract finns här:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1151861

Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change

Timothy Searchinger,1* Ralph Heimlich,2 R. A. Houghton,3 Fengxia Dong,4 Amani Elobeid,4 Jacinto Fabiosa,4 Simla Tokgoz,4 Dermot Hayes,4 Tun-Hsiang Yu4

Most prior studies have found that substituting biofuels for gasoline will reduce greenhouse gases because biofuels sequester carbon through the growth of the feedstock. These analyses have failed to count the carbon emissions that occur as farmers worldwide respond to higher prices and convert forest and grassland to new cropland to replace the grain (or cropland) diverted to biofuels. By using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land-use change, we found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years. Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%. This result raises concerns about large biofuel mandates and highlights the value of using waste products.

1 Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA. German Marshall Fund of the United States, Washington, DC 20009, USA. Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute, Washington, DC 20001, USA.
2 Agricultural Conservation Economics, Laurel, MD 20723, USA.
3 Woods Hole Research Center, Falmouth, MA 02540-1644, USA.
4 Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.

 _____________________________________________________________

The Ethanol Boondoggle

Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren of the Cato Institute examine the politics, economics, and environmental impacts of ethanol. They document the disastrous consequences of subsidies and tax breaks

”If etanol lacks economic merit, however, no amount of subsidy is likely to provide it. And make no mistake – welfare directed now (and for many decades) at the ethanol industry is staggering. A comprehensive study recently published by the non-partisan International Institute for Sustainable Development estimates that federal and state subsidies for ethanol in 2006 were somewhere between $5.1 billion and $6.8 billion, and that they will soon increase, to as much as $8.7 billion annually, assuming no further change in policy.

Those estimates, moreover, are conservative, because they do not include the benefi ts

bestowed by federal and state ethanol-consumption mandates, loan guarantees, subsidized loans, implicit subsidies provided by tax-exempt bond financing for the construction of ethanol processing plants, subsidized water for corn production, and state vehicle purchase incentives. Don’t forget the regulatory loophole given to manufacturers of fl exfueled vehicles – cars that can run on gasoline or blends of gasoline and ethanol – under federal automobile fuel-effi ciency mandates.

Without those subsidies, there would be no corn-based ethanol production at all. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, corn ethanol’s variable production costs are 96 cents a gallon, while capital costs average $1.57. The upshot is that ethanol costs an average of $2.53 a gallon to produce in the United States, far more than the cost of conventional gasoline. The stuff only makes it to the pump because the feds and the states give it a big financial boost. In 2006, the subsidies translated into $1.05 to $1.38 per gallon of ethanol, or 42 percent to 55 percent of its wholesale market price.”

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6 rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

(more…)

Why the carbon trading scheme is impossible and unjust

8 maj, 2008

Som jag har konstaterat tidigare:

Folk börjar äntligen få upp ögonen och genomskådar detta gigantiska skojeri som Global Warming Hysterikerna försöker tvinga på folk genom nya och högre skatter/avgifter. Och framförallt detta sanslöst dyra system med handel på utsläppsrätter som är en öppen inbjudan till manipulation och förfalskning.

Där som sagt BÅDA parter vinner på att fuska med uppgifterna! Ett rent dröm scenario för alla skojare – både köparen och säljaren vinner på att fuska!

När skall våra kära politiker börja FÖRSTÅ de ekonomiska realiteterna av Global Warming Hysterin? Och de ofantliga summor som kommer att förslösas på nonsensåtgärder. Åtgärder som är ett direkt hot mot vår demokrati, vår frihet, vårt välstånd och vår ekonomi! Dessa orimliga kostnader utgör ett direkt hot för den industriella överlevnaden i den här delen av världen. Men det pratar man tyst om.

Istället pratar våra svenska politiker på som om inget har hänt och vill att Sverige skall gå i täten och vara världsledande på detta gigantiska skojeri. Arma svenska folk som kommer att få betala dessa gigantiska kostnader för dessa nonsensåtgärder.

Som sagt, fler och fler börjar INSE de GIGANTISKA KOSTNADERNA för att genomföra dessa nonsensåtgärder. När skall de svenska politikerna vakna – När sista lampan har släckts och all industri är borta?

Här kommer mera kritik från en studie som har undersökt de lokala effekterna av handeln med utsläppsrätter. Observera att författarna tror på Global Warming.

Citat:

Abstract

Tree plantations aimed at ”compensating” for industrial carbon-dioxide emissions are now being established in many parts of the world. The market for what such plantations are said to produce — which is not, strictly speaking, carbon but rather a sort of carbon-sink equivalent — presupposes an accounting system capable of commensurating and calculating over decades the global interactions of intercoupled ecological, social, geological, political, hydrological, bureaucratic, biochemical, economic, and atmospheric systems. The fact that such an accounting scheme is impossible has not so far proved to be an obstacle to the ongoing construction of the market and its associated system of property rights and distribution. This market is being put together not so much by states as by a burgeoning international web of technocrats, multilateral agencies, corporate alliances, brokers, lobbyists, consultants, financiers, think tanks, lawyers, forestry companies and non-government organizations. Like other enclosure movements, the push for carbon ”offset” plantations extends and normalizes inequality. In applying ”first-possession” views of property to the atmosphere, it would put particular pressure on local land and water rights in the South and could well become a source of rural strife rivaling industrial pulpwood and oil palm plantations. Understanding the discourses through which the carbon ”offset” market is being created will be crucial to political action on climate change.

Most presentations at our [Yale University] Agrarian Studies 2000 conference analyze, in one way or another, past and present agrarian economies. This paper, by contrast, looks at what may become a future tree plantation economy revolving around a new global export crop: biological climate-change equivalents, or carbon sequestration credits. I hope to establish three main points: first, that the commodity to be traded in this new market is fictitious and that buying and selling it does not, in fact, address the issue of climate change; second, that the system of property rights the new market presupposes is inegalitarian and regressively redistributive; and third, that the expansion of carbon ”offset” plantations is likely to provoke rural resistance. One ironic consequence of this new agrarian economy may be that industrialized countries’ destabilization of global climate becomes, for the first time, an everyday political issue for many rural dwellers in the South.”

Se även mina tidigare inlägg bl.a.: Green tax revolt: Britons ‘will not foot bill to save planet’A Big Nyet: Russia Doesn’t Want any Binding Caps on Carbon!Green Week and Earth Week probably should be disclosed as lobbying efforts!How will the political class manage the necessary climb-down?Global warming proposals would gut N.C. economyCarbon plan ‘to cost business $22bn’”Emissions Trading – a Weapon of Mass Taxation”,  Giant Global Warming Tax Hikes Headed Your WayEurope finds that cutting carbon emissions is far easier said than done.  An Organization Diagram from Hell – Welcome to carbon trading!Geschäftet och fusket med handeln av utsläppsrätter!Clearing out the environmental fogA CO2 graph that says it all!,  A Carbon fantasy that will bankrupt us!,  We were forced to swallow disadvantageous conditions for diplomatic reasons!,   EU:s CO2 policy – The hot air of hypocrisy!,  Self-Interest: Inconvenient Truth of Climate Change!,

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/item.shtml?x=52186

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6 rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

(more…)

Wikipedia (Wicked Pedia) bias – At Wikipedia, one man engineers the debate on global warming, and shapes it to his views!

8 maj, 2008

Här kommer mera om hur Global Warming Hysterikerna SYSTEMATISKT FÖRVANSKAR OCH FÖRÄNDRAR biografier i Wikipedia (Wicked Pedia) från vetenskapsmän som inte stödjer Global Warming Hysterin.

Samtidigt som de förskönar motsvarande biografier från sina egna ”hjältar” inklusive tar bort all kritik på deras felaktiga vetenskapliga resultat.

Är det inte underbart med dessa sanna förkämpar för vetenskap och sanning som systematiskt raderar ALLT som inte stämmer överens med deras religion!

Som sagt – ”Debatten är ju över”, ”Det finns inget att diskutera” och ”Det är omoraliskt att ENS TÄNKA TANKEN” enligt Al Gore et consortes.

Visst är det skönt att leva i ett öppet samhället där sanning och vetenskap respekteras! Och tur att vi inte lever på inkvisitionens tid då man förföljde och tystade folk p.g.a. deras vetenskapliga åsikter som gick på tvärs mot vad man DÅ var överens om.

Se även mitt inlägg:  Wikipedia (Wicked Pedia) bias – Or How Global Warming Hysterics Systematically alters everything critically of Global Warming!

Några citat:

”Connolley is not only a big shot on Wikipedia, he’s a big shot at Wikipedia — an administrator with unusual editorial clout. Using that clout, this 40-something scientist of minor relevance gets to tear down scientists of great accomplishment. Because Wikipedia has become the single biggest reference source in the world, and global warming is one of the most sought-after subjects, the ability to control information on Wikipedia by taking down authoritative scientists is no trifling matter.

One such scientist is Fred Singer, the First Director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, the recipient of a White House commendation for his early design of space satellites; the recipient of a NASA commendation for research on particle clouds — in short, a scientist with dazzling achievements who is everything Connolley is not.

Under Connolley’ssupervision, Singer is relentlessly smeared, and has been for years, as a kook who believes in Martians and a hack in the pay of the oil industry. When a smear is inadequate, or when a fair-minded Wikipedian tries to correct a smear, Connolley and his cohorts are there to widen the smear or remove the correction, often rebuking the Wikipedian in the process.

Wikipedia is full of rules that editors are supposed to follow, as well as a code of civility. Those rules and codes don’t apply to Connolley, or to those he favours.

”Peiser’s crap shouldn’t be in here,” Connolley wrote several weeks ago, in berating a Wikipedian colleague during an ”edit war,” as they’re called.”

Connolley and his cohorts don’t just edit pages of scientists actively involved in the global warming debate. Scientists who work in unrelated fields, but who have findings that indirectly bolster a critique of climate change orthodoxy, will also get smeared. So will non-scientists and organizations that he disagrees with. Any reference, anywhere among Wikipedia’s 2.5-million English-language pages, that casts doubt on the consequences of climate change will be bent to Connolley’s bidding.

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=490337&p=1

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>

(more…)


%d bloggare gillar detta: