Well, it's like I said in an other thread, whether or not we want the big oil companies at the table when we're discussing alternatives to oil, they're gonna be there. They have the capital resources to change things in a big way, we've just gotta convince them that biofuels are in their best interests as well. I think it can be done.
I'm not aware of any conclusive data on the viability of the fuel crop industry either, but I'm very optimistic and even a little excited about the possibilities. It's true that our current sources of biofuel (corn, rapeseed, and palm trees) are currently inadequate to meet even a tenth of our fuel needs, and to expand those sources could mean higher demand for fertile farm land. But there are two recent developments that will hopefully allay those concerns. First is the development of bacteria strains that not only feed on the corn starch to make ethanol, but also the cob, the stalk, and even the leaves. These cultures will be able to turn almost any kind of plant cellulose into fuel, so it makes sense to use hearty plants like switchgrass which grows fast even in nutrient poor soil. This will have the added benefit of keeping corn and sugar beet prices reasonably low.
The other is the use of microalgae to make biodiesel instead of rapeseed or palm oil. It turns out that certain species of algae are very oily with lipids accounting for 50% or more of their mass. Various farming techniques are being tried right now, but the National Renewable Energy Laboratory theorizes that future algae farms will yield up to 10,000 gallons of biodiesel per acre per year, compared with palm oil's 635 gallons and rapeseed's 127 gallons. Like switchgrass, algae grows very fast and it doesn't need to be grown on fertile land because it grows just fine in seawater. Imagine sunny southern California dotted with algae farms fed with water from the Salton sea or the Pacific Ocean, and local fuel prices well below the national average. We'd never hear pisser complaining about gas prices again.
Whether these fuel crops will actually offset GHG emissions, I don't know. I found that study on N2O release due to rapeseed farming interesting, but it's been pointed out that it may have a lot more to do with over fertilization than with the crop itself. Fuel farming practices will mature with time as they have always done. What matters most to me is that all our fuel be produced within our borders for the sake of creating jobs and decreasing our dependence on OPEC.
The basic premise of the AGW theory is that we have been altering our environment for more than a century, so 'carrying on' is not the same as doing nothing. If indeed we do have the ability to engineer our climate then it's incumbent upon us to decide what climate we think is optimal because we can't just assume that the way things were 200 years ago is the way things should be. If you want to know whether we should be doing something
to change, well I don't know. It may turn out that the .6°C of warming since the mid 20th century may be partly responsible for the world's booming food supply since then. It may turn out that further warming will have a net negative effect. It's really hard to know when all those non-scientists in the media and the government focus solely on the negative effects.
Your guesses are mostly right. I read the results of
a study done a few years ago that conclude that the enhancement of the hydrologic cycle by global warming will in turn increase carbon dioxide uptake when the conditions are right. When the growing season is longer and wetter, and when there is more carbon dioxide in the air, plants thrive. And yes, some regions will experience droughts or floods but it's impossible to say how much usable land will be lost or gained as the earth warms.
I've always maintained that we need to be able to adapt to climate changes no matter what's causing the climate to change. Adaptability is what lets us turn lemons into lemonade. With the proper application of knowledge and foresight there's no excuse for moderate global warming to end up having a net negative effect on us. Solving global poverty plays directly into that theme because wealth begets adaptability. Considering reports that global warming will have the greatest impact on the poorest people, I think that makes the elimination of poverty our first priority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone
Good. Wasn't so painful was it?
|
Not at all. What is painful is all the socialist crap that has been thrust upon this issue by those who think it will help them curb the spread of capitalism. Politics has taken over so of course I have strong opinions about it. Environmental protection policies should be pursued to benefit public health and to maintain this nation's natural beauty, not to further a left-wing ideology. It has become next to impossible to divorce the science from the politics, to the point that even scientists who raise questions about environmental policy are lumped in with greedy corporations and right-wing extremists. People with ulterior motives have sullied this issue, now it's impossible to delve into it and come out clean.