Follow the money. As usual the Green trail ends at a Greenback (so-to-speak). In this case it’s the euro-colored kind. The EU is focusing on “first generation” biofuels — corn, soy, sugar and palm oil — which pushes up prices of food, and cuts down forests. (In a recent study, sugar cane ethanol was shown to produce 10 times the pollution of gasoline and diesel.) In contrast “second generation” biofuels are waste products. If the EU were interested in the environment, they would favour the second type. Instead, the policy hurts the poor and enriches the rich and does little to help the environment.
In 2010, Indur Goklany calculated the additional mortality burden of biofuels policies and found that nearly 200,000 people died in that year alone because of efforts to use biofuels to reduce CO2 emissions.
Where are the Greens protests?
Jo
The press release:
Biofuels benefit billionaires
11 October 2012 Inderscience
Biofuels will serve the interests of large industrial groups rather than helping to cut carbon emissions and ward off climate change, according to research to be published in the International Journal of Environment and Health this month.
Simone Vieri of the University “La Sapienza” of Rome, Italy, explains that, in its policies to combat climate change, the European Union has planned to increase to 10% the share of fuel derived from biofuels on the market by 2020. It has focused attention on first-generation biofuels, made from the conversion of plant material which can be grown specifically for fuel production, such as corn, soy, sugarcane or palm oil. It has given only a secondary role to second-generation biofuels, made from agricultural and woody crop biomass, including waste and by-products.
Vieri suggests that, “In 2020 the EU won’t be able to keep to its 10% biofuels goal using only European agricultural production, but will have to continue importing the greatest part of raw materials, or biofuels.” In this frame, Vieri explains that, “The EU’s decision to focus on the first-generation biofuels, raises many doubts.” In particular, the approach seems to favour several issues. For instance, it favours production systems that are in competition with traditional agriculture for use of resources and production factors, he says. Additionally, to encourage agro-industrials models, such as those on which the production of first generation biofuels is based, might compromise the possibility of developing models based on multifunctional agriculture and, then, on the production of energy from agriculture waste and by-products rather than from dedicated products.
The adoption of first-generation biofuels sometimes leads to exploitation of human and environmental resources of poorer countries, adds Vieri, as they are commonly the source of many of the agricultural raw materials used for production of biofuels. Moreover, agricultural production processes that change land use can lead to zero net benefit in terms of emissions reduction.
Other problems that arise when reliance is placed on first-generation biofuels lie with the economics. Financial market speculation strengthens the link between the price of oil and the price of the main agricultural raw materials, Vieri says. Furthermore, an increase, or instability of agricultural products’ prices, weighs heavily on poorer nations and their food security.
In this context “the choice to promote first generation biofuels is an example of how politics places the protection of the interests and profit strategies of a restricted number of subjects before the costs and benefits to be had on a wider scale”, adds Vieri.
Vieri adds that the “green economy” model might break new ground if it were to prove able to facilitate reduced emissions and allow economic growth and development with direct benefit to society itself rather than the profits of multinationals.
REFERENCE
Biofuels and EU’s choices” in Int. J. Environment and Health, 2012, 6, 155-169
Related posts
- There goes the biofuels $21 billion dollar industry: Reality bites in EU draft
- Sugar cane ethanol biofuel produces 10 times the pollution of gasoline and diesel
- Killing people with “concern”? Biofuels led to nearly 200,000 deaths (est) in 2010.
- Unintended Consequences: Greens protect coal deposits and destroy rainforest
Dear Joanne,
You know I used to send you millions of dollars through my secret funding sources.
With this commentary of yours, and some others, I can now say that you have strayed too far.
Some of us work for the WWF.
How dare you hold us to empirical crap.
As you know, we know.
140
Jo, you ask the fundamental question: “Where are the Greens’ protests?”
The answer is:
They’re Eugenicists. They don’t care about their fellow Human Beings.
The result fits their objective.
280
Sam
Maybe – but they’re certainly misanthropes; they love humanity but demonstrate a remarkable ability to hate individuals.
The problem is that “humanity” exists as an abstract concept, whereas people are actual entities. Their love is therefore squandered on a concept at the expense of the opportunity to do physical good.
A bit deep for this stage of the morning, but look at Professor Lewandowsky as an example.
Cheers,
Speedy
120
Speedy: Great points!
“Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence.”
― Napoleon Bonaparte
The good news: Incompetence will LOSE the battle
The bad news: Many innocent lives HAVE suffered
Oliver K. Manuel
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-1369
71
Oliver
Loving humanity is all about words unless you get down and grubby and start loving individuals.
That’s the problem with the greens – as for a lot of us.
Cheers,
Speedy
30
I’ve always though of the greens as the anti-human party. There is plenty of the their members who think the worlds population should be reduced to 1 billion or less.
Strangely enough they never discuss how they will achieve their aims. If only they would lead by example!
30
If there’s one thing the developing world knows about the environmental movement, it’s that it is the enemy of all their basic aspirations.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/10/12/green-myths-we-must-conserve-everything/
Pointman
160
Anyone know where i can buy one of these? Turn plastic into lovely life giving CO2 and tax free fuel. Great for the backup generator we will all need each time the wind stops blowing at night or on a cloudy day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJeg7aKYa0Y
50
It doesn’t look as if it would be incredibly difficult to make your own. The best approximation would be a still.
So when your not making Diesel you can make Scotch 🙂
30
Bob. It does not look to be difficult to make. You had me worried then when you said “still” and “make scotch”. The thought was “Oh no is this legal?”.
The words seem to be…
So a 4.5 Litre device soley for the purpose of recycling plastic seems to be fine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbNou1lXBck
00
Here is the rest of a system. Part of the text under this video says…
00
Do you feel guilty? Are you part of the problem? A generation or more of folks have been made to feel guilty about their role in spoiling Earth. The first Earth Day was proposed in 1969 for the following March 21st. Since then, just about anything that is floated as a ‘green’ activity is promoted without further thought. It takes about 8 – 10 years (I just made those numbers up!) for errors and the backlash to shut down the worst and others just fade away. Meanwhile, a few folks figure out how to make money from such things. They’ll move on to the next thing when this one is no longer attractive. Do you remember when planting trees was the next best thing to sliced bread? Except at higher latitudes, trees, being dark, against a snowy or other light background intercept sunlight and work to increase temperature – not lower it. Oops! Well, trees are still nice so that strategy moved quietly to the non-aggressive category of save the Earth activities.
So, having been made to feel guilty you and yours help elect folks and enact laws that permit and encourage policy that “hurts the poor and enriches the rich and does little to help the environment” or actually harms it. The next big scheme will be ( blank ).
140
Hi John
I do not feel at all guilty at the part I have played in the last 60 years or so of the Earths history.
I do not have truck loads of money from my “easy” life as a boomer and quite the contrary do at times feel
crushed and disheartened by politics and scheming.
kk
110
In primary school in the 80s they cut down all the large mature trees and planted new seedling because young trees absorb more CO2 than old trees! Shame they left the part about the old trees being 100 times larger from the equations!
00
And the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to… The EU.
The EU?? Yes, the EU. Not a person. Not a small team. Not even a company. But the über collective European Union.
* An undemocratic continent-sized tyranny currently waging economic war against its own members Greece and Portugal.
* A dictat proliferation parasite issuing thousands of Directives from Brussels, and the longer the Europeans turn a blind eye to this failed experiment, the worse it gets for them and the greater control the EU attains.
* A bureaucracy now demanding more food production from outside Europe be diverted into biofuels production, almost certainly raising world food prices and hastening the descent of the most desperate countries into rioting and civil war.
There you have it folks. Freedom is slavery, Ignorance is strength, and just to complete the Orwellian triple, now War is Peace.
320
This award of the Nobel peace Prize to the EU is wonderful and encouraging news. At the time when the EU is in such dire financial straits, this award shows that the Nobel Committee is doing all it can to assist in the recovery.
The Nobel peace Prize carries with it a wonderful cash award as well. That humungous cash award is $1.5 Million, which converts to 1,163,510 Euros.
With the population of the EU currently standing at 505 Million souls, that mans a personal check for every member of the EU in the amount of 0.23 Euro CENTS.
There, that should help.
(/s)
Tony.
170
But Tony,
You are missing the point. The Left Eurocrats absolutely love awards, it being their only reason for existence- basking in the exaltation of others, massaging their hapless egos, gleefully lapping up the kudos of a little gold medallion or a faux-metal statuette as an affirmation of the validity of their narcissism.
So what if Europe dies a precipitous and spectacular economic death and millions are thrown into abject poverty, or WW3 is up and running- at least they have their memories of that lovely awards night, rubbing shoulders with the glitterati, and then they can gaze lovingly at their little badge of acceptance on the mantlepiece, strategically placed below a large mirror so they can catch their own reflection out of the corner of their eye whenever they look at it. You’ve got to admit, it brings a tear of nostalgia to the eye to think of the pride welling in their chest at their “achievements”. Sigh.
As to the money, after all there’s plenty more where that came from, they have gone short on “humanity futures” this week.
100
Winston
The irony would be the bun fight which erupts when they decide who is going to stand on the podium and receive the actual award; I could see a world conflict arising from an argument about a “Peace” prize.
Cheers,
Speedy
50
It’s a win-win situation- Simple equation : WW3 + Global Depression = Wealth concentration + Surging Arms Sales + Derivatives Profiteering + Global Totalitarianism + Massive Population Reduction.
Can’t see any downsides in all that, Speedy, can you?
60
Winston
In response to your comment – I’m not sure that’s what the Nobel Peace Prize was set up to do…
Ironic, isn’t it? Alfred Nobel set up the Nobel Prize to compensate the world for his invention – dynamite. Now it’s likely his prize competition is rewarding the very people he would revile.
Cheers,
Speedy
60
Why in the world would the world need compensating for the invention of dynamite? The stuff is extremely useful.
The whole premise behind the Nobel Prize looks like Nobel’s guilt trip to me. So the stuff can be misused as his premise implies? So can anything useful, going back clear to the invention of the wheel, which allowed armies to move faster and be more deadly than before. And so what?
The Nobel Prize is a joke at face value.
20
The Nobel Peace Prize is a joke, the other categories usually recognise fantastic achievements!
00
Tony
My wife brought that up while reading the paper.
When I explained what you had said, divvy it all up, she burst out laughing at the 23 eurocents.
KK 🙂
00
A perfectly innocent and honestly meant question: Do these biofuel producers have some magic way of fermenting the sugar into alcohol without producing CO2? Whenever anyone I know has tried it (not for biofuels, I hasten to add), there always seems to be a heck of a lot of gaseous phase plantfood given off while the yeast’s doing its thing.
Followup questions: Is this CO2 (assuming they don’t have a secret process) included in the “green economics” of biofuel? Does it count in the “pollution” figures? The “total CO2 emissions” figures? Enquiring minds want to know.
160
Aha Steve, nice question, and it provides a nice segue also.
This does not count towards real CO2 emissions, you know, the filthy dirty version of that disgusting pollutant, CO2. This is good clean green CO2.
You see, the crop, as it is growing, takes in the CO2 from the air around it, you know, how CO2 is good for all growing things and all that. The crop takes in the CO2, sequesters the Carbon content in the plant, and gives off filthy disgusting Oxygen, while keeping the good bit, the Carbon for itself.
Then the crop is harvested and umm, turned into Biofuel. During the process, the good Carbon in the plant combines with that disgusting Oxygen to form CO2, which is given off during the process.
However, those wonderful green brains trusts have decided that what is actually happening is that this CO2 that is given off is the good CO2, because, in effect, the process is just returning to the Atmosphere the same amount of CO2 that was taken in by the crop during the growing process.
Wonderful, eh!
The same applies for Bagasse, cane trash left over after the sugar is processed. That Bagasse is burned in a furnace to boil water to steam to drive a turbine which drives a generator to produce electricity.
These Bagasse burning power plants, which come in at 470MW spread across NSW and Queensland, while emitting around 720,000 tons of CO2 each year are counted as renewable, because what they are doing is returning that CO2 (taken in during the growing phase for the sugar cane) back to the Atmosphere it came from.
Viola. Good clean green CO2 giving a result. (the produced electricity)
(Do I really need to add the /s)
Tony.
100
Right – so the deerdy pollootion type of CO2 is all that stuff that was sequestered by the dinosaurs, trampling it into the mud. Now I get it.
I only have one question, is the good CO2 distinguishable from the bad CO2? I mean, does it smell different, or is it a different color?
30
coal is actually a RENEWABLE in EXACTLY the same sense as biofuels are…
it just takes a bit longer.
petroleum.. not sure. Some seem to think it is a NATURAL substance formed in the Earth’s crust / mantle interface (or something like that), some think it may be a recycled product like coal.
40
ATTENTION John Brookes.
John, you were confused by a Comment I made in an earlier Post Of Joanne’s, with your comment at this link.
This above comment of mine in this Thread indicates an answer for you.
For all of you, as well as for John, can you see now why the Government set a limit on CO2 emissions for the introduction of their CO2 TAX, in other words emit CO2 in an amount above the
Laborlegislation’s limit and you pay that introductory $23 per tonne, rising a further two times, and then sliding across to an ETS.If they had have introduced it as an every emitter pays, then it would have introduced a number of potentially embarrassing inconveniences for the Labor Government.
While this CO2 emitted from all those plants at the sugar mills that burn the Bagasse comes in at a total of around that 720,000 tons of CO2 being emitted, that is spread across 32 power plants, and while a couple are large scale, (by Bagasse standards only, with only 5 of those plants 30MW or greater, making them
minutesmall by traditional plants scale) the remainder are all much much smaller.So then, the Government sets a limit above which the emitter pays, this then (very conveniently) leaves those Bagasse burning plants not subject to the TAX at this introductory 3 year period.
Imagine, if you will, making all emitters pay from the outset, and then someone (say, me even) digs down and finds renewable power plants having to pay the TAX. That would have been embarrassing. So, the introductory TAX leaves them out of the picture.
However, at the start of the ETS, ALL emitters will have to pay the impost, that is anyone who by the process they use for work causes CO2 (or any of those 24 GHG’s) to be emitted will be charged that price, and John, as per your pretty inane reply, that does not include coffee shops.
What Labor are relying upon is that by the time the ETS comes into effect, ho hum, everyone will have forgotten about it.
This also brings into play that wonderful Concentrating Solar Plant at Chinchilla. It was supposed to be 250MW. That would have been probably 5 X 50MW generators, and running Solar only, and keep in mind there was no heat diversion capability, so the solar power component would have averaged barely 5 to 6 hours of power a day extrapolated across the year.
However, this plant also included a Natural Gas component as well, so that when the solar component stopped, then the NG component would take over supplying power. This actually is a plant that could operate 24/7/365, well sort of, as the NG component was only going to drive one of those 50MW generators. A similar Solar/NG plant is proposed for Gila Bend in Arizona, the Abengoa Solana plant, in planning now for 4+ years and still not up and running.
Again however, I was informed that the NG component for this Chinchilla Plant was restricted to barely one and a half hours a day.
Why?
Anything more than that, and the CO2 emissions would have put it over the top of the Government limit, and subject to the CO2 TAX at this initial stage.
All of these plants, those Bagasse ones I mentioned above and this Chinchilla Plant, if it ever gets up that is, will be subject to paying for their CO2 emissions when the ETS comes into play.
Also keep in mind that with the introduction of the ETS the emissions cap is lowered each year as well, so that means all those sugar mills will end up having to source their power from other sources and that Bagasse over and above the limit will just be sent off to the dump, because you can’t burn it as it emits CO2 eh, and perish the thought of a record sugar cane crop.
Still it probably won’t be used for food any more as there will be bigger bucks in sending it off for Biofuel, which is what is happening in the U.S. now with corn. The cost of corn has skyrocketed because it’s going to Biofuel, and among the suffering people are those who use corn as a foodstock for meat animals.
Cunning people these Labor politicians eh!
So John, I hope this answers your
smartarsequestionTony.
90
Hi Tony. Thanks for the clarification. But you still haven’t told me what I want to know, and that is exactly who will have to buy emissions permits under the ETS? I presume there are guidelines somewhere, and even an estimate of the number of businesses effected.
00
Tony
Silly question I know, but how much of the energy from bagaase is actually from carbon combustion? I mean, plants aren’t made of pure carbon, they convert CO2 and moisture into sugars and cellulose etc. So to the extent that energy is derived from combustion of (say) cellulose, then there is “carbon friendly” element to the energy evolved.
Having said that, I realise that diesel is about 85% carbon, so the energy will be predominantly carbon-based. And, of course, that oxygen dihydride (Cas # 7732-18-5, a known greenhouse gas) is also released as a byproduct of the combustion process.
Worse than we thought?
Cheers,
Speedy
00
Speedy, that’s what a lot of people fail to realise.
The largest of the Greenhouse Gases is indeed water vapour. The Atmospheric content of the GHG Water Vapour is 49 times greater than that of CO2.
The Atmospheric content of Water Vapour is 196 times greater than that of the next 23 listed (by the UN) Greenhouse Gases.
I’m willing to bet that the UN probably wondered about placing a cost on water vapour emissions as well, but probably thought that they couldn’t get away with that one. Pity, they must have thought, because then they could have got those filthy Nuclear Power Plants as well.
Makes me smile every time they show those cooling stacks at power plants referencing them to CO2 emissions, and they still do it, even the ABC. They could have got away with it all along by just referencing those images to emissions of Greenhouse Gases, because technically, they would then be correct, as that water vapour is indeed a greenhouse gas.
And no, I’m not taking the p155!
Tony.
70
Water vapour acts as a control of movement of energy within the atmosphere because of its ability to change state at atmospheric temperatures. This is what regulates the atmosphere.
CO2 does not have this ability. Nor are there many other substances that do.
61
Tony
Give ’em time, Tony, give ’em time. Oxygen dihydride will be right up there at some stage.
In the meantime, however, H2O is the sleight of hand driver behind the General Circulation Models (aka GCM’s, aka climate models) that pushes the relatively modest temperature increases associated with CO2 into the stuff they make headlines out of. All without a shred of evidence. It’s immoral – especially when people die because of the resulting policies.
Cheers,
Speedy
30
You wont find the H2O greenhouse equivalent measurement anywhere as well.
These test are complete BS as they are measured in a dry environment. As a consequence gases like Methane are made out to be really bad where as in reality the overlap with the water vapour absorption spectrum means they have very little effect in the real world. CFC are potent on the other hand as their absorption spectrum lies within the atmospheric window.
00
To the average taxpayer or green voter, the catch-cries of “Cut CO2 and Save the Planet” and use
“Sustainable Non Polluting BIOFUELS” is too good a chance to bypass. We all want to think that we have done
something good. Why not join the crowd and be part of that wonderful aim of leaving a better world for our
grandchildren.
We who post here know that there is no science backing this Green Movement and that the only aim is to funnel
taxpayers contributions into very poorly monitored Green Schemes that allow money to trickle, or even gush,
out to the real beneficiaries. If ever an operating Template was needed to illustrate the Method we have no
further to look than the recent health union business that was exposed last year.
People are being DEFRAUDED, Global Warming is the vehicle.
There is no other way to express it, and the question that must be faced is how to raise public awareness to
the point that all voters are fully informed of their predicament.
Only then will this disease be removed from the nooks and crannies that it inhabits in our political
institutions, Schools, Universities and Local Government.
KK
120
One of the problems, KK, is that of human nature.
If you tell people they are being defrauded on a systematic basis, they will not believe you. The scale is just too large.
If you then explain how the scam works, and show them the mechanisms, they think, “Well if everybody else is doing it, I would be a mug not to.”
History shows a whole lot of “bubbles” caused by this trait of human nature, the “South Seas” bubble, being one, and the “Rich Dad, Poor Dad” rental property bubble being another.
What we are witnessing, in my opinion, is another “bubble”, but one started by the environmental NGO’s, and then picked up by elected representatives, and then industry.
The end result of this bubble will, I am afraid, be the same inevitable financial crash – in fact it has already started in Europe, it is just that not many people have connected the dots yet.
160
Good outline RW
Right on the money.
KK
10
I plan to write, document, and post on my own web page:
“Climategate: Sixty-four Years of Deception to Hide the Force (2009 – 1945 = 64 yrs)”
The Force: [1]
_ a.) Made our elements
_ b.) Birthed the world
_ c.) Sustains our lives
_ d.) Controls Earth’s climate
_ e.) Extends another 100 AU beyond Earth
_ f.) Cannot be controlled by the world’s tyrants
Those who think outside the box may imagine a connection between organized efforts to:
_ i. ) Hide the Force and
_ ii.) Generate, sell energy
– Oliver K. Manuel
[1] “Neutron repulsion,” The APEIRON J. 19, 1234-150 (2012)
_ http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V19NO2pdf/V19N2MAN.pdf
20
Oliver,
May the force be with you.
Someone had to say it …
20
In Costa Rica, four years ago, I saw where virgin rain forest was being destroyed, to plant trees for palm oil (and palm trees aren’t even proper trees). The very pleasant group with whom I was travelling was largely warmist, but knowledgeable about natural history, especially the local ornithology. I think they were generally pretty appalled by what was going on in the Costa Rican forests. There are entire species, such as woodpeckers, monkeys, sloths, which don’t readily return when their habitat is destroyed. I have no information, as far as the insect life is concerned, but the destruction is probably even more devastating for invertebrate species.
But hey, if you’re already a Fiend of the Earth, why should you feel the need to apologize?
130
Follow the money? In Australia that usually leads to a fat mining magnate.
But I agree Biofuels are not the answer.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111129123255.htm
15
I have no issues with using waste for biofuel, especially if it releases beneficial CO2 into the atmosphere.
We should alwasy extract the most from a material if economically viable. Think of all the many things we get from petroluem.
But using perfectly good land for growing biofuels rather than food is idiocy to the max.
90
Stupid . stupid Greens.. They allow the biofuel use of large tracts of land, without any fuss or complaint, because someone has convinced them biofuels are ‘the thing’,
but woe betide anyone should mention using a relatively tiny amount of land to build a dam and store water.
The so-called environmentalists have surely lost the “enviro” part of their name !!!! They are now just MENTAL !!!!
80
Avery relevant point. Relative impact of dams and bio-fuel land use.
Good one.
KK
00
A Return to Compressed Nesting?
The mob of Warmers Infesting the site at the moment have a very definite method of engagement.
They take any comment and deconstruct it, itemising all the points made or references used.
They then scan through their cue notes for a responses or failing that they go to SkS or the web generally
via Google for references to insert.
They briefly discuss items or make up stories about why they have to put it off for a while: family duties,
work? etc.
They may be Uni students or paid hacks for WWF or WWF executives trying to protect their income, whatever , they are NOT science trained.
One recent reply illustrated the method when he discussed Carl Popper ad nauseum in a way that said he/she did not want to deal with the science directly.
They want to pick apart YOUR GRAMMAR.
They are NOT science trained or if they are they did it like the guy who said he had a physics degree; to keep his mummy happy, not for the science.
There is a difference. Mummies boy resents having been forced to work; the other is searching for the truth.
Up to a point it is instructive to see how much they hold us in contempt because we fail to ” conform”.
Problem is I have seen a lot of good people tied up and wasting energy on this crap well after we have come to see them for who they are.
There is a big difference between wanting to learn and so questioning others and the above Spacer technique which simply involves cut and paste of others comments with SkS dogma inserted as required.
The latter more closely resembles Verbal Diarrhoea and needs to be hidden in a comment nesting set-up such as was used previously for this type of troll.
KK
10
I find it amazing that:
1. Biofuels to save the world cause real human starvation
2. Windfarms to save threatened species from extinction cause literally millions of bat and bird deaths each year
3. Carbon capture schemes cause people to be disposessed of their land in 3rd world countries
4. Renewable energy mandates cause fuel poverty and pensioners freezing to death in their homes
5. Priuses and wind turbines using neodymium metals cause vast pollution in China
It just goes on and on. Don’t these people have any ethics at all?
200
Bruce
No, but they have a very high opinion of themselves and the safe knowledge that they know better than anyone else. Therefore they can lie and be immoral because it is for the greater good – or their understanding of what the greater good is.
And, as Jo mentions, people will always side with a “greater good” than simultaneously lines their pockets.
Cheers,
Speedy
70
Oops, meant ‘neodymium magnets’.
00
Neodymium is a metal, is it not?
10
That was my first reaction too.
In hindsight Bruce obviously intended to say the neodymium was used for the magnets.
The revision does not imply that the first version was incorrect, just that it fell short of what he intended to communicate.
And if you had to guess, you’d guess just by probability that Nd was a metal since most elements fall into the metal category. Even the most abundant element in the universe, hydrogen, is placed in group 1 in the periodic table along with the other active metals, mainly because it has a similar outermost electron configuration and partly because it actually becomes a metal under very high pressure. That’s only under Jupiter-core levels of pressure, not hydrogen-tank-in-a-Low-Emissions-Vehicle levels of pressure.
And what a great segue from biofuel powered cars to hydrogen powered cars. I’m sure we could fill Jo’s blog to the brim with the reasons why hydrogen-powered cars won’t see the mainstream for a long time, if ever.
40
I knew that. I have this really cool coffee mug with the periodic table on it. Hydrogen has pride of place, top left, group 1, although it is shown as being a non-metal, and … a solid?
Perhaps I need a new coffee mug. 😉
20
Sure, Hydrogen is officially not a metal. It doesn’t like to play the metal game but will do so if sufficiently pressured.
Since coffee consumption has been linked to long term memory loss it is vitally important to politicians for us to drink it. No, that doesn’t stop me either. I drink to forget! haha!
I used to have a defence project mug that I acquired from my days in the industrial military complex, which was quite awesome in a scary kind of way. But fate intervened and one day while I was checking the low-carbon-footprint green-compliant CFL bulb over my stove rangehood, my elbow knocked the mug onto the floor and it totally shattered. My last connection with the industrial military complex was now gone for good. It is one of the poignant little symbolic moments in life.
The role of coffee in our information economy is so important to knowledge workers that one’s choice of coffee mug is indeed a very weighty personal decision. All I can say is, somewhere out there is exactly the right mug for you, and if you interview enough of them, one day, you will know your perfect coffee partner when you see it.
00
Hydrogen IS a metal chemically speaking, as it donates its one electron to form an H+ ion. Or, it can share it with elements such as carbon in a covalent bond.
Physically, it clearly isn’t what most would classify as a metal.
00
Yep, but it ain’t ‘metals’. I started writing rare earth metals, changed my mind and the ‘magnets’ got lost somewhere.
For those who want to know such things, wind turbines and electric cars tend to use Nd-Fe-B supermagnets, since they are light and powerful. The other type is samarium-cobalt, but those metals are much less common.
Priuses also use Ni-La-H batteries, with lanthanum being a rare earth element too. REE extraction is getting better, but is still pretty dirty in China.
20
Isn’t Lithium in the mix somewhere, as well? Or is that just for the next-generation batteries?
There certainly seems to be a heathy trade in the stuff out of China.
00
extraordinary BBC attack on sceptics, deniers, in denial, well organised, some don’t even believe the climate ever changes! and it was on BBC’s Business Daily!
12 Oct: BBC Business Daily: Justin Rowlatt: USA’s climate change
We go deep into the mighty Hoover Dam to explore the challenges of the United States’ changing climate…
In one of the US’s driest regions, the Hoover Dam is part of a network of reservoirs which traps the waters of the Colorado river.
Justin Rowlatt talks to:
Dr Terry Fulp, regional director of lower Colorado region of the Bureau of Reclamation, who is responsible for the water supply to millions of Americans.
Pat Mulroy, the head of the South Nevada Water Authority which serves Las Vegas.
And Professor Henry Jacoby, who works on the science and policy of Global Climate Change at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00ywhjd
Professor Henry D. Jacoby
Position:
Professor of Management, Sloan School of Management
Co-Director Emeritus, Joint Program
Director Emeritus, CEEPR
http://globalchange.mit.edu/about/our-people/personnel/all_id/39
10
Look behind many a bankrupt company and you will find a millionaire. It is a simple matter. Company A get a loan from the government if in return politician B gets a large political contribution from Owner C. Happens all the time.
Company D invoices Company A for goods and services, and company A ultimately files for bankruptcy, meaning the loans will never be repaid. The owner of Company D however does very well indeed, who if you could look, will turn out to be C, the same person that owned the bankrupt company A.
However, you will never find the connection between C and D, because it will be hidden. Person E will be paid a small sum to be the “legal” owner of company D, while the true owner C maintains a document making them the owner if they pay E the princely sum of $1 plus valuable consideration.
In return for making E the owner, C collects 100% of the profits paid into an offshore lawyer’s trust, where it can be neither taxed, traced nor attached. A perfectly legal means by which billions of $$ in taxpayer money is removed from the system to benefit the few
110
That’s it ferd. The big payoff.
Of course underneath that is the system of “hush Money or I’m in it too Money” where the next ones down the
chain get progressively less and less of the pie, but enough to keep them happy.
As Rereke mentioned above; everyone wants in on it.
Until we can get a better handle on prosecuting for dodgy deals done by politicians we will continue to be
enslaved by our tax burdens.
KK
70
Ferd
I understand Gordon and Slater had a line on this sort of “Association” sometime in the 1990’s. However, the “young and naive” partner in charge of that operation was sidelined and is doing her mischief elsewhere.
Cheers,
Speedy
70
Well illustrated, Ferd. In fact, the harder you look, the more ways you discover that the goodies flow steadily out of the pockets of the people actually doing the work and into the bank accounts of the biggest parasites.
There was a surprisingly and pleasingly intelligent blog from Dominic Frisby at the (UK) Independent’s website on Friday afternoon which puts a bit of perspective on the whole process:
What’s killing our economy? Money.
Having lived through the period he mentions, I can personally confirm that all the prices he mentions in it are pretty much spot on.
10
Ladies and Gentlemen, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the Ecology, Climate or the sake of the Planet. The carbon tax has been introduced because every human being on the planet uses Carbon in one form or another as fuel. The highly touted renewable energies are not as portable or convenient and so they will get very little use compared to Carbon fuels.
The Politicians of the world have seized on this and have therefore decided to tax Carbon. This is a master stroke of simplicity and gives them absolute control over the population of the planet. Eventually it could be used to start or stop wars, diminish or increase a country’s wealth, control governments, control populations and give ultimate power to a select body of progressive thinkers.
This is certainly not for our welfare as can be witnessed by the useless squandering of the wealth of many countries around the globe.
We have been hoodwinked into thinking this is a puritan driven scheme to save the planet. The Greens have been the leaders of the rush over the cliff but they are not solely to blame of course, many others through guilt have decided to follow like blind lemmings and have added to the impetus.
The brilliance of this plan to tax Carbon in all forms is stunning, although it is totally immoral and of course should have been abandoned by well meaning governments with their constituents welfare in mind. However we have seen the biggest tax grab in the history of the planet implemented for zero return except to supremacists having introduced this abhorrent tax.
We will not be able to progress any further unless our Politicians denounce this scheme as totally unacceptable but the pressure from the UN is huge. The power this organisation has been given is immense and it won’t be easy to break the stranglehold they have on world governments.
No one organisation should wield this much power !
I doubt I will see an end to this mischief in my lifetime but I live in eternal hope.
110
On the nose, Bob. And when you say “The power this organisation has been given is immense”, let us all reflect that it isn’t ordinary people who have given them this power. What we’re looking at is a Union, or Cartel, of politicians, who have been defining themselves ever more, and ever more unaccountable, power since WWII.
10
We need to rapidly withdraw from the UN, the IPCC , UNESCO and all like organisations.
If we still want to be charitable to those countries in need that can still be done and it will cut out the
middleman who currently takes 90% plus of our donations.
I have a serious aversion to men in suits who are either Bankers or Politicians.
KK
20
Agree 1000% !!
By the way there is a petition about “Protect Australian Farming Industries from Imported Produce” on
http://www.gopetition.com.au/petitions/protect-australian-farming-industries-from-imported-pro.html
Australians want to eat clean, locally produced produce and not filthy imported rubbish which destroys local jobs and our economy.
All this so called “free trade” BS originated from the anti human and anti Australian united nations and must be stopped !!
10
Like bees to a honeypot.
All you need a complete lack of morals and a ruling elite like we have now:
A Maryland man is awaiting sentencing for what may seem an unusual crime: selling bogus renewable energy credits and using the $9.3 million in illicit proceeds to buy jewelry and a fleet of luxury cars.
In a similar case in Texas, a man has been indicted for selling a whopping $42 million in counterfeit credits.
He bought real estate, a Bentley and a Gulfstream jet.
U.S. Struggles to Rescue Green Program Hit by Fraud
90
Why do they always want to buy jewelry, cars, realestate. Flash it around guys why don’t you, so even the clueless plod notices!
Still if the NYT is starting to write stuff on this, and the SMH on Ms Gillard’s backstory, then maybe there is some hope the MSM is coming to its senses. Fairfax shareprice is now below 40c so they better improve quick.
80
Bruce,
maybe people sourcing their news on the Internet actually is starting to bite their profits.
Tony.
20
… people sourcing their news on the Internet actually is starting to bite their profits.
You ain’t seen nothing yet.
The MSM – print (including some web sites), radio, and TV – is still built on the broadsheet model, where all of the available “new stories (news)” were printed in the same publication and then distributed to anybody who would buy it. It was up to the reader to sort out what was relevant to them, and why, and how.
The new model is based on the fact that the web in infinitely tailorable, so if you know what your reader is interested in, you can tailor the mix of stories to be directly relevant to their interests. To that, you can add some analysis of what it is likely to mean to them in the short term, and what the longer term implications might be. This is the traditional Intelligence model, and is making serious inroads into the corporate world.
The general population will ultimately get the same service once the required economies of scale are in place.
This is the primary reason why Governments want to control internet access and content. At the moment they can influence what is published (at least in the political sphere) through the press gallery and media release process. But “news” sites on the web that put up relevant content, AND which allow the readers to exchange views (under moderation rules), are not directly controllable except through overt intervention.
But as the Arab uprisings showed, controlling the internet is not as simple as it might appear on the surface.
80
I work in the broadcast industry (the actual transmission side, not the content side) and listened to a presentation by an industry analysis group that looks at trends in advertising. One slide they presented showed the market share of print media dropping like a stone. I asked the question “Is print media dead in the foreseeable future?”. Their answer – “Yes”.
40
Rereke, it doesn’t need to be simple, “they” (in the form of the ITU) are applying themselves to it as we speak. Do a quick search on “WCIT12” and shiver. Then work out who to protest to, before we all face yet another fait accompli after December.
00
Steve C,
Unless the ITU has seriously changed its mandate, it is primarily concerned with the physical interconnection of telecommunication networks and transmission protocol standards. It is all about engineering. It is not, as far as I am aware, concerned with the format or content of the communications carried over those networks.
00
Dunno about Fairfax but after this weekend’s Australian I may have bought the last weekend edition. I kicked the weekday habit awhile ago. Lotsa luck Rupe.
20
The idiots who gave these people the ability to create the fraud should be the ones behind bars 🙂
60
winston –
but WW3 will be Green!! LOL.
(2 pages)10 Oct: Aviation Week: Michael Fabey: U.S. Navy Secretary Says Biofuel Technology Has Arrived
Despite continued opposition from lawmakers like U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the U.S. Navy will continue its efforts to leverage biofuels technology for its ships and aircraft, service Secretary Ray Mabus says.
Mabus disputes McCain’s contention that the Navy is investing in unproven and costly technology by pursuing a course for biofuels. “The technology is there,” he said Oct. 9 during a luncheon in Arlington, Va., hosted by the National Aeronautic Association…
The service has touted the use of biofuels in recent large-scale exercises and it is putting together a so-called “Green Fleet” of ships that use alternative fuels while also developing a “Green Hornet” F-18 with the same concept…
The most promising process, the Navy says, would catalytically convert carbon dioxide hydrogen gas directly to liquid hydrocarbon fuel used as JP-5, a process being developed and honed by the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL)…
McCain says Mabus should stick to building and operating ships, not developing fuel for them. “You are the Secretary of the Navy, not the Secretary of Energy,” McCain says in a July 27 letter to Mabus…
In that same letter, McCain chastised Mabus for his “decision to buy 450,000 gallons of biofuels at over $26 per gallon for a ‘demonstration’ using operations and maintenance funds provided by Congress” as well as the Navy’s commitment of $170 million to develop a commercial biofuels refinery. Both moves “will result in a real cost to the readiness and safety of our sailors and Marines,” McCain said…
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_10_10_2012_p03-02-504735.xml
10
a “smart paper”! no wonder the world is in a financial mess:
11 Oct: Nature: Daniel Cressey: Global biodiversity priced at $76 billion
Researchers hope estimates of conservation cost will spur government action
Protecting all the world’s threatened species will cost around US$4 billion a year, according to an estimate published today in Science1. If that number is not staggering enough, the scientists behind the work also report that effectively conserving the significant areas these species live in could rack up a bill of more than $76 billion a year.
Study leader Stuart Butchart, a conservation scientist at BirdLife International in Cambridge, UK, admits that the numbers seem very large. But “in terms of government budgets, they’re quite trivial”, he says, adding that governments have already committed to taking this action in international treaties — they just did not know how much it would cost…
Under the internationally agreed Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), governments have committed to meeting 20 conservation targets by 2020, including improving the conservation status of threatened species. To come up with numbers for how much this might cost, Butchart and his team asked experts on 211 threatened bird species to estimate the cost of lowering the extinction risk for each species by one category on the Red List of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature…
The researchers concluded that improving the status of all the world’s 1,115 threatened bird species would cost between $875 million and $1.23 billion a year for the next decade. Adding in other animals raises the number to between $3.41 billion and $4.76 billion a year.
Another target of the CBD is to protect 17% of the Earth’s land surface. Estimates for this are harder to make, but by extrapolating from known land prices and management costs Butchart and his team put the number at $76.1 billion a year.
Exactly how much is now being spent to meet the convention’s targets is unclear, but spending will need to increase by “at least an order of magnitude”, Butchart says…
Henrique Pereira, who works on international conservation issues at the University of Lisbon in Portugal, says that although there are uncertainties inherent in extrapolating from birds to all species, the work is an “extremely smart paper”…
But Pereira also points out that the figure is for just two of the 20 targets agreed by the CBD. “If you look at the range of targets for 2020, the total bill will be higher,” he says.
http://www.nature.com/news/global-biodiversity-priced-at-76-billion-1.11582
10
I have made this point before, but I think it is worth repeating.
“The world is not a beautiful place”
“I think that the world is a beautiful place”
The world is just what it is. So is Mars, Venus etc.. It simply exists as it is.
However, because I am a human being, I perceive the world as a beautiful place.
In other words it is beautiful to me because I have the perception of its beauty.
Animals, other than humans, don’t have this perception. Therefore, to them there is no beauty present.
Without we humans, therefore, it’s back to survivalist instinct. Finding food, finding a mate, running from predators etc..
We make this world beautiful. The green fanatics are simply incapable of this logic.
70
Yeah, those silly animals not appreciating our beautiful world. We should hunt them down and kill them.
But seriously, we are animals, and I don’t think there is any way you can know that other animals don’t appreciate beauty.
17
Why do cats kill birds then?
00
John, even insects appreciate beauty, as I found this morning.
While sitting on the dunny I noticed a little daddy long-legs perched in a corner and we had a great
conversation.
She agreed with you, that all living things have an appreciation of beauty.
That’s amazing.
KK 🙂
40
Technically, an arachnid…
10
Yet Another Thing Caused By Global Warming: Bigger Growth Rings In Fish Ears.
Yes, fish ears.
I couldn’t believe my… erm… ears.
Since it sounds real and legitimate, I hesitate in suggesting adding it to The List as the purpose of The List is derisory.
Just one question. If warmer weather makes bigger growth rings in otoliths, and warmer water dissolves less CO2, and more CO2 makes it more difficult to calcify the otoliths, then which effect is supposed to dominate in CAGW-driven River Acidification? Do the rings get bigger or smaller? We have previously been told that Global Warming will make reef fish deaf.
We have war brewing in the middle east, the rise of a new police state, absurdly unaffordable housing by international standards, supply-constrained rises in petrol and food costs, but above all I demand that our tax money be spent on answering this critical question of fish ear healthiness! It’s vitally important, it’s not a red herring at all.
40
I actually have some experience with otoliths and temperature. Fish hatcheries can code information in the rings of the otolith by manipulating the water temperature that the fry are exposed to. A warming change of just a few degrees will force a permanent identifiable ring to be laid down in the otolith. Tapping this for proof of climate change however would be mighty difficult if you ask me. Fish don’t live long enough.
20
Something’s fishy all right…as in dead fish…the odor thereof.
We indeed have war all around us and yet climate change gets all the attention. We cry peace, peace, peace, ad nauseam but have no peace. War is at the door. Do we confront that head on or do we continue to ignore it?
30
corporate land now:
13 Oct: LA Times: Julie Cart: Federal plan designed to create large solar energy plants
Incentives to cluster projects on 285,000 acres of U.S. land in the West will be offered and an additional 19 million acres of the Mojave Desert opened for new facilities
The Obama administration has formally adopted a plan to help create large-scale solar energy plants, offering incentives for solar developers to cluster projects on 285,000 acres of federal land in the western U.S and opening an additional 19 million acres of the Mojave Desert for new power plants.
The plan places 445 square miles of public land in play for utility-scale solar facilities…
But developers can sidestep the zones under certain conditions. Companies may construct plants on 19 million acres designated as “variance” zones, but the government offers fewer incentives to build there…
Some conservation groups fought to prevent approval of utility-scale projects in the region, contending that the desert — home to scores of endangered plants and animals — was not capable of absorbing industrial-scale projects…
Critics contend that the policies are too late, coming after years of free-for-all leasing that encouraged rampant speculation. Since leasing began, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management has been working to process more than 300 solar applications.
Many of those are for land in California’s Mojave Desert, where counties have seen the cost of private land soar and the desert given over to thousands of acres of mirrors…
Janine Blaeloch of the group Solar Done Right supports renewable energy but said wholesale development of the desert is a mistake.
“This should all be happening on rooftops and in cities,” Blaeloch said. “But that wouldn’t profit the big utilities, and industry wouldn’t be able to get tax breaks, so we wreck the desert instead. We aren’t getting that public land back. Once it’s industrialized, everything that lives there and everything we enjoy about it will be gone.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-1013-solar-zones-20121013,0,2819109.story
12 Oct: Las Vegas Desert Sun: K. Kaufmann/AP: Streamlined solar plan approved
The Riverside East solar zone has two projects under construction — GE and NextEra’s 550-megawatt Desert Sunlight plant in Desert Center and NextEra’s 250-megawatt Genesis farm near Blythe — and another four projects either on hold or awaiting approval…
Among the companies that stand to benefit from the power generated in the Riverside East zone is Southern California Edison, the large utility that serves the western Coachella Valley.
There are at least 70 pending applications for solar projects in the 17 designated zones, which would be grandfathered under the plan…
Environmental groups like the Nature Conservancy that had been critical of the federal government’s previous approach to solar development in the desert applauded the new plan…http://www.mydesert.com/article/20121013/BUSINESS0302/310130021/Streamlined-solar-plan-approved?odyssey=nav%7Chead
00
Yet ANOTHER reason to get rid of this demon OBUMMER…..
10
The underlying presumption that there is enough waste to provide any significant amount of energy is preposterous.
The governments will have to institute anti-efficiency programs. Hmmm . . . they’re pretty good at that.
10
The evils of growing crops for biofuels. It will lead to starvation. Maybe, but it is more likely to produce a flood of crocodile tears.
There are a great many uses of arable land that don’t result in the production of food, or at least not the sort of food that will save the starving millions. Believe it or not, but I gave up alcohol about a year ago, and I’ve replaced it with dark chocolate (Green & Black’s 85% cocoa to be precise). Poor people in Africa farm cocoa, instead of growing useful food. They go hungry, while others get rich, and I indulge myself with something totally unnecessary. It was the same in the Irish potato famine. The Irish starved, but during that time they were a net exporter of food. Because they were busy growing crops (not potatoes) for the landowners.
So turn off those crocodile tears. Biofuels may or may not be a good idea, but the problem with poverty is more to do with who owns and controls the land and what it is used for.
110
At least someone was gettin fed !
Darn I was about to say that not one of the moronic trolls that frequent the site had come out in support of biofools. Yet the biggest fool of all.. does. !!
30
That’s perfectly true, John.
So why add yet another competitor, which competes for large tracts of finite arable land, when there is a perfectly appropriate fuel that largely is found in less suitable, non-arable, non-agriculture areas. And because corn and the like are foodstuffs which are also used as fuel, price manipulation by the unscrupulous in these commodities will cause untenable cost pressures upon staple foods for these vulnerable people.
I think it is very different to grow cocoa, which uses different terrain than wheat and corn also, and is fairly intensive rather than extensive crop, as opposed to an ever-increasing insatiable land grab escalation of biofuels competing directly and extensively in return for carbon credits. These will feed no one, because the corrupt governments in these 3rd world nations will merely seize the land from the peasants, and then pocket the dough for arms and entrenching their power. And to encourage that is reprehensible, and is proxy dispossession of the poor and a deliberate attempt to kill large numbers of people.
So, are you in favour of that John, or are you still going to play Pontius Pilate? Just whose side are you on, the bankers and the speculators and the carbon pirates, or the poor peasant in the field? Time to look to your moral centre, John, or perhaps just you could just offer us another glib comment and turn a blind eye to injustices being performed in your name. You decide.
60
And who owns the land? Surprise!!!! It’s those who hope to get rich quick on the save the world bandwagon of global warming. They’re buying it up as fast as they can and with government and UN help by all accounts. That’s a problem those like you are creating, John. It’s not skeptics of CO2 induced global disaster.
PS: If you feel guilty about such things, give up the [self snipped] chocolate. Don’t complain about it.
30
JB Says…
The mechanism linking biofuel production to starvation is as follows.
1. Government funding subsidises malinvestment in corn production for biofuels.
2. 40% of the US Corn crop is sold for biofuel production.
3. Subsidised consumption of Corn increases world price for Corn (food staple)
4. Poor people on the edge, can no longer afford to buy Corn – go hungry – and starve.
Not controversial.
Your point is not clear. You indulge yourself with something unnecessary – and by your own words the primary beneficiaries will be the landowners and not the poor farmers. So your switch from Alcohol to Chocolate was not motivated by morality, or perhaps it was – but your poor reasoning skills simply resulted in you subsidizing the profits of the landowning class in Africa instead of helping the poor.
Poorly linked concept – as it does not relate to the biofuels topic, and appears to be here to buttress your point about moving from Alcohol to Chocolate – which is already demonstrated as logically inept.
Biofuels are demonstrably a bad idea, for the following reasons.
1. The EROEI is negative. I.e. more energy is required to produce biofuels than is released when they are consumed. The are a net energy sink. Classic Fail.
2. Biofuels would not exist in the market place without Government subsidy.
3. Biofuels consume food crops and cause higher food prices – directly harming the poor.
There are no redeeming features for biofuels – unless you are linked to the subsidy – blood money – gravy train.
30
I dont think the average pseudo green voter knows about any of the above.
Or is bright enough to care..they just keep repeating the slogans….same old appeals to authority..same old clueless comments.
And every time another hole appears in the meme..remain silent..
Look at the Antarctic Consensus post..do you believe that any of them stop and think..”hey, thats odd”.
Nope..
Nothing..and I do mean nothing..will get through.
The new catch all is, “hey..all our predictions are mostly wrong..but we are still all doomed anyway”.
50
Sorry OT but for New South Wales residents this is of vital importance.
There is a web site to make your feeling heard on the New South Wales Government and their eco nutjob plan of a “renewable energy target”.
FFS This, as well as the PLANT FOOD TAX is why electricity is fast turning into a luxury that people are unable to afford !
Here is thw web site…..
http://haveyoursay.nsw.gov.au/renewableenergy
You need to first register and then they email you.
Tell these eco communists what you think of their BS Renewable Energy plan/target !!
NOTHING BUT FAIRY DUST !
30
[…] http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/biofuels-benefit-billionaires/#more-24258 […]
00
I don’t know if I’ve spouted this idea in this forum before, but here goes:
IMHO the CAGW proponents know perfectly well that warming is waning. Cooling is on tap. They are probably in the process of removing the population from the countries nearer the equator, so when the colder latitudes become too harsh to thrive in, then they can move toward the equator. If provision for this is not in the treaties, then it’s in the day-to-day struggles, which are simply being exacerbated by pro-CAGW policies. I’m guessing their hobby of sucking up all the loose money from everywhere is just gravy. I think they really just want the real estate where the sun shines.
I’m not any kind of expert on the EU, but there is a familiarity in seeing how Spain and Portugal are being treated, somewhat like the Northern States treated the Southern States in the USA in the so-called “Civil War”.
10