October 23, 2008

  • The IMF (International Monetary Fund) has said that making energy from food (biofuels) is a very bad idea. Essentially saying it takes food away from the poorest people in the world and uses up a tremendous amount of our water supply.

    Incentives introduced
    in some advanced industrial countries to mitigate effects of climate
    change have backfired, panelists said during seminars held during the
    IMF-World Bank Annual Meetings.

    With many developing nations experiencing deep shocks and citizen
    unrest due to rising food and fuel prices, plenaries and breakout
    sessions during the Program of Seminars addressed causes, effects and
    solutions.

    Commitments by members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation
    and Development (OECD) to reduce carbon emissions through alternative
    fuels development, while well meaning, have exacerbated the global food
    crisis and contributed to world-wide water shortages, said Nestle chief
    executive Peter Brabeck-Letmathe.

    The resulting drop in agricultural productivity has led to price
    increases, he said. "Water scarcity will be the most constraining
    element," to additional production, he predicted. Replacing fuel with
    biofuel is "a very, very bad idea."

    Entire article here.

    This more than I was able to articulate in an earlier post is exactly why I am against such knee-jerk reactions to addressing climate change. The lack of examining all possible consequences to a fuel source solution has the potential to do more damage to the people in the world who can least afford it. 

    With biofuel from corn it takes a gallon of fuel to make a gallon of fuel. Which means a net-zero gain in fuel, and an actual loss when you take into account it is making it harder for the truly poor in the world to afford food. Wind energy I like, but even it has the drawback of requiring 100% redundancy because if the wind stops blowing for a time, you have no energy.  It also is not self-sustaining, in that you can not create those giant turbines using only wind energy to power the process (or so I've read, must find source on that, I believe it was one of Kunstler's books). A combination of wind, solar, and ocean wave seems to be a good trifecta to help offset fossil fuel sources while we develop other sources. I also favor, for the time being, clean coal technology. Though I think a nuclear system like France uses (roughly 70% of their energy is nuclear) is the best option for now.

    That said, I think we all should still be actively trying to limit our consumption of energy as we reasonably can, be mindful of how we are polluting the environment (and that includes litter), and recycle. I also think that there should be incentives provide by the government to organizations (for-profit or otherwise) who are working on alternative fuel sources.

    My question to you is do you think the solution to our energy/climate change needs/problems will come from the private sector or from the governement? Why?

    Note and disclaimer: I am not a scientist, nor do I claim to be an expert in any way whatsoever on energy or climate change. I have and continue to read about it and other subjects as much as I can. More importantly, I hope this post hasn't pissed anyone off like some of my past ones have, I'm just trying to have an open dialouge.

Comments (12)

  • They are right..it's also one of the reasons the price of food is so high. Farmers that sold corn to food companies are now making it for ethenol (sp) and farmers that sold wheat for food, switched to sell corn for ethenol..thereby making a small shortage everywhere, the demand for the product higher, and in the end higher food prices...

  • I'm going to go with private sector, because green (as in money) is the ultimate motivator. And while the gov't likes to spend money, they aren't so good at coming up with ways to make it. I expect new types of energy to come into play from civilians, but I do not expect them to be much less expensive than what we currently have, although maybe less harmful. If we can sustain life at our present cost, anyone with any business sense is going to undercut present technologies only a little bit, no matter what their actual cost. Every solution causes a problem, in one area or another. 

  • I once got into a very long discussion about alternative energy.  I said something to the effect that our reliance on oil is like the structure of a house - you can't just knock out most of the walls right away and expect the house to remain standing.  You have to use alternatives that are "good enough" to support the house while knocking down one wall at a time.

    This slow process should give us some stability as we get away from oil and towards alternative energy.  And then we can figure out how to make alternative energy as efficient as oil.

    Now private versus government funded - it could be a little bit of both. I know CA is voting on a measure that would give us tax breaks for purchasing hybrid vehicles.

    I would like a think-tank group to come up with a way to convert our all our old cars into energy-efficient vehicles, comparable to hybrids, but conversion would cost less than buying a new car.

    I think that because more people are concerned about the environment and getting away from using oil, there is a bigger market for alternative energy than before.  The biggest issue, I think, is cost.

    I was going to recommend "The Long Emergency"... but you told me about it first. ;)

  • I agree with Freekycheek for precisely the same reason- private sector does it better when it comes to business.  Elected officials and governmental agencies serve way too many interests to get anything efficiently accomplished.  

  • The private corporate interests have way too much influence on our government.  Everyone cries about gas prices, but they don't mention real solutions like having more public transportation available.  I used to love being able to take the train in New Jersey and the public transit systems in Boston, Chicago and NYC.

  • It's going to be a mixed palette of energy sources. Biofuels have potential - but we don't have to grown corn. Grass, for example, has a fantastic amount of energy, and a home could be heated with just a very few acres of hay, converted into pellets. It doesn't require much fertilizer or maintenance, either, and can be grown on land that is not ideal for food crops. My workplace is doing some work on that.

  • no to nuclear... the fusing of the byproduct and glass will only keep the waste safe for about 100 years.  then you will still have the same toxic issues you have without the fusion.  Also on a planet that has a very limited water supply should we really use the tons and tons of water to keep the core cool?

    What we need is to get over this PRETEND war on drugs and allow the growth of hemp to be used as a bio fuel.

    PLUS you forgot the best power source that is always ON...  geothermal.

    @scifiknitter - the use of geothermal will heat and cool a house better then anything that can be grown by man. The use of better building products and building in accordance to the sun would almost eliminate the need to external heating and cooling.

    Sorry if i ranted...  this is a subject near and dear to me.  I've reduced my electric bill in 3 months by 2/3. I've managed to reduce my other expenses but the electric bill is the biggest drop I've been able to pull off... 

    Watch/read "living with Ed" or just leave your cable/satelitte on Planet Green all day. It's amazing the things i've learned.  Next week I will start building my mothers solar heating system for her house...

    FYI -  Thank you for the Wedding gift... it will soon become VOC free paint for my kitchen

    reduce, reuse and recycle..

  • Many, many years ago, I took some college classes that began with ENVL,  They were Environmental Studies classes (at LSU) and they were fascinating.  I remember the professor saying that in history it has always taken a society about half a century to begin fully using a new energy source.  In the past, it has always been economics that drove this change, and it has been the private sector (profit motivated) that brought it about.  Government would facilitate the change (for example, providing roads for vehicles that use fossil fuels).

    I tend to agree with you.  I think that we should expand our nuclear capacity and clean coal technology.  Nuclear is a fuel source in which we already have knowledge, training, equipment, capability, etc.  We just need to expand... get going.

    Research into "more distant" options is where government can be the most help.  The Soviet Union's Nikita Kruschev is given credit for the accelerated research advances in the United States that took place starting in the early sixties and extending for the next fifteen years or more, because he scared the bejeebers (sp) out of us and made government leaders see the need for scientific endeavor in this country.  Are we scared enough by all that is going on with fossil fuels (climate change, foreign dependencey, price fluctuations, shortages, etc.) to expand research into making known technologies more efficient (as you pointed out in your blog) and coming up with new ones?

    My apology for taking up so much comment room here.  I've never visited your site before, and I found your post extremely interesting.

  • @aviran - I don't have cable! *sniffle* But, I didn't take your comment as a rant, just a good contribution to an open conversation. (work in progress my mental state)

  • @PunkDiva - netflix?  You can get Living with Ed there... Its a great start, I've learned a lot from that show. 

  • Nevertheless certainly your own expressions are wise
    Florist Charlotte NC | how much does laser lipo cost | kansas nursing schools

  • I saw a lot of helpful data above! refinement . ad site refer here. Very useful piece of writing, much thanks for your post. ascribable . easement page reform check. Well, I do not actually imagine it is likely to have effect. sugar find concrete here repay here. Wow, there is a great deal of effective material above!

Comments are closed.

Post a Comment