Feb
Enough to make an Orang Utan laugh
The Oil Drum reports that bio-fuel use increases CO2 emission.
“It is estimated that production of one ton of palm oil will result in an average emission of 20 tons of CO2 from peat decomposition alone – not taking into account the emissions from fire and other CO2 emissions during the production cycle. The Netherlands alone imported at least 400,000 tons of palm oil to meet its Kyoto target for 2005, thus actually increasing [its] greenhouse gas emissions.”
But I thought bio-fuel was carbon neutral.
“[In Indonesia] 600 million tons [of CO2 emission] is caused by decomposition of dry peat (a process that will continue until all peat has disappeared) and 1400 million tons is lost through the annual fires.
The country emits more than India, more than Russia, and several times more than the UK or Germany. It emits more than all the efforts of western countries to reduce greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Protocol.”
So we’ll be emitting a bit less CO2, and Indonesia will increase its output astronomically, and destroy its environment.
“In 2001 Malaysia’s production of 7 million tons of crude palm oil generated 9.9 million tons of solid oil wastes, palm fiber, and shells, and 10 million tons of palm oil mill effluent, a polluted mix of crushed shells, water, and fat residues that has been shown to have a negative impact on aquatic ecosystems.”
So a factory tree plantation is in itself a pollutant?
By promoting bio-fuel, the AGW promoters are actually increasing CO2 pollution, and if the EC and Indonesia classify oil palm plantations as ‘forest’ as proposed, our governments will be financing the destruction of rainforest and an increase in CO2 emission – and the end of the Orang Utan.
Possibly related posts:
In China they suggest burning corn stalks and roughage for heat. (less coal)In America, they are now clamoring for cellulosic ethanol. Both processes deplete the soils and hamper soil fertility. You can suggest dangerous farming methods and act like they solve problems because most city peiople do not have a clue.
I understand this farming and see it is just as bad as overgrazing by sheep.
Money,Money,Money,forget global warming ,its ALL about the MONEY.
Greenpeace and WLF hung by their own publicity of LIES.
The trouble with the word burn is that the gas CO2 is usually the result.
Go near a fossil fuel and burning creates CO2, but if it’s a bio-fuel they still use the word ‘burn’ but miss out that it also creates CO2.
There may be advantages in some apects of bio-fuel production and disadvantages in other aspects and overall the only benefit is in reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, but it’s hardly worth losing the last of the world’s virgin rainforest habitats for, and I’m no environmentalist.
Although I’m very skeptical about AGW and wholeheartedly support the message of this blog, I’m actually pro-biofuel and know that different sources have different efficacy. The reason I’m really pro-biofuel is not greenhouse concerns, but energy security concerns. We should never be held hostage by countries with backward dictatorships like Iran and Venezuela. The path to stabilized energy prices and energy independence definitely involves carbon neutral biofuels (algal biofuel in particular)…whether or not AGW is real.
Bart,
As it turns our I completely agree with you. One day (not too far from now) the oil will become prohibitively expensive (it will never actually run out, just become gradually more scarce). We will need to switch to alternatives. However, fairyland science will not help us handle any difficult technological situation. While our heads of state waste their time and our money wringing hands over CO2, we cannot make intelligent decisions about alternative energy.
In Australia we have CO2 accounting set such that ripping up a field of wheat and allowing scrub to grow over the field is a carbon “credit” even when the scrub burns back to bare earth in 10 years when a bushfire goes through (as inevitably fires go through all scrub sooner or later). You can shoot feral camels all day and have no accounted impact on methane production, but if you capture and domesticate those same camels you need to buy a permit for the “additional” methane production. These sort of insanities inject wacko false signals into the market, which in turn will induce the government to attempt correction with more and more regulation.
Thus, we must first get science itself back on the rails, and return the policy discussion to evidence-based decisions and a free market in real goods (not a pretend market in unaccountable permit certificates). Only then can we move forward in alternative energy policy (and you know that coal is still looking pretty darn good as an energy source for at least the next 50 years).