Deforestation in the name of conservation and enviromentalism!!!

[HOZ]

Enviro-loonies and their snake-oil salesmen just don't understand that there is always give and takes when it comes to economies. Mind you snake-oil salesmen like Gore DO know that. Hence his big scam.


The EU recently agreed to replace 10% of its transport fuel with biofuels, including palm oil, by 2020.

Losing Land to Palm Oil in Kalimantan



Higher and higher food costs just for Canada to just it's goal of 5%!!
When the ethanol market caused the price of corn tortillas to climb by 55 per cent last summer, tens of thousands of demonstrators protested in Mexico City.

Hence we should help out inthe deforestationof Brazil!

Grain Prices!

[Flash Walken]

Your 'left wing' baiting is incredibly tiresome.

Biofuels is a joke taken advantage of by both parties, including republican heaveyweights like Bob Dole

[redforever]

Your 'left wing' baiting is incredibly tiresome.

Biofuels is a joke taken advantage of by both parties, including republican heaveyweights like Bob Dole

Here is an article along the same lines and is a good read if you have the time.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics..._boondoggles/1

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Your 'left wing' baiting is incredibly tiresome.

Biofuels is a joke taken advantage of by both parties, including republican heaveyweights like Bob Dole

Well, yeah...of course Bob Dole supports biofuels programs. Not because he's a conservative or liberal but because he's from Kansas.

I think this party thing is out of control. People need to understand that not every single position taken by an American politician is based on party affiliation. (yes, far too many are).

That said, Hoz does bring up an interesting point. Environmental extremism is often supportive of contradictory causes.

Environmental extremism may not be the right term...it makes me think of ELF and similar groups which is not what I meant. I'll just say that some environmental causes are destructive to others.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Your 'left wing' baiting is incredibly tiresome.

Biofuels is a joke taken advantage of by both parties, including republican heaveyweights like Bob Dole

Parties? I am not American nor do I live there.

I'll give you your pips though. This enviromental-mental state that a lot of people are under has been and is being taking advantage of from people of all walks of life. Leftwing, rightwing, centrists and whatever.

2 biggests scams going...

Biofuels
and
Carbon Offsets

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Gotta question the comprehension of the article or the topic in general. Grab the most sensationalistic part of the article and uses that as the premise for rabble rousing rather than taking the whole topic and article into context. Consider this from the same article.

"I went to my land one morning, and found it had been cleared. All my rubber trees, my plants had been destroyed," he says, fighting back the tears."

Seems one indigineous crop was bulldozed in favor of another, so this impacts the environment in what way? Seems environmentalists have nothing to do with this at all and are actually not in favor of the move at all.

"A report in July by Friends of the Earth Netherlands (Milieu Defensie) and two Indonesian NGOs strongly criticised Wilmar, a Singapore-listed company, thought to be the world's biggest palm oil company. It accused Wilmar of illegal forest clearances in West Kalimantan, inadequate Environmental Impact Assessments and clearing land outside its concessions. Wilmar denies the allegation."

This appears to be a move by corporate interests, not environmentalism, and acting upon their own greed and not the wishes of the environmentalist community, or those working the lands themselves. Seems the corporate intersts are ignoring the customary claims to the lands and exercizing their ability to crush the peasant of the region.

"The company, a subsidiary of the Indonesian Duta Palma group, did offer Alexander compensation for his land. But Alexander says it is not enough, and that he is yet to receive anything. "Deep in my heart I feel I don't want to let go of my land, but if I have to, they have to pay me," he adds. The villagers say about 25 of their plots were cleared for palm-oil expansion without their consent."

It seems that the people of the region, and the local government itself understands the issue a lot better than the individual who started this thread with evidence that counters his claims.

"There are a lot of greedy companies in the world," adds Agus Purnomo. "We mustn't allow the bad companies to set the tone. We need the good ones to come and set the standard."

And someone had the balls to toss the term "snake oil" on the table? That person should consider the way they twisted the context of the article and used one line in it, which was really irrelevant to the article itself, to try and sell an argument.

On the topic of bio fuels, I think the concept is good one, but in reality it causes more problems than it solves. It may work in North America, where farmers could actually stop being subsidized and paid to plow crops under, but in other parts of the world it is not feasible. When some parts of the world cannot even grow enough crops to sustain their people, bios fuels is not the answer. IMO, bio fuels are only part of the solution, not the whole answer to our energy problems. I still contend that a single consumer energy source (electricity) is the most tangible solution, and would all waste products from food crops (biomass) to be used in energy production. This process is taking something that already exists, and processing or reprocessing it. No extra land is required, other than the power site, and it is even more friendly to environment as we clean up much of the waste products we leave lying around. Also, biomass is useable with almost any waste product, so it can be adapted to any environment and market.

IMO, the greatest problem with environmentalism and corporate interests today is the lack of vision by both sides. They continue to work against each other, rather than with each other and finding solutions to problems that work for a given region and economy. To me, environmentalism is regional, as it impacts the local biosphere first, then the global biosphere. We all have to clean up our act first, and that means become self sufficient in all ways (food production, energy production, etc.). Unfortunately, the all mighty dollar gets involved, and the good in ideas gets corrupted as greed finds its way into the equation.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Gotta question the comprehension of the article or the topic in general. Grab the most sensationalistic part of the article and uses that as the premise for rabble rousing rather than taking the whole topic and article into context. Consider this from the same article.

"I went to my land one morning, and found it had been cleared. All my rubber trees, my plants had been destroyed," he says, fighting back the tears."

Seems one indigineous crop was bulldozed in favor of another, so this impacts the environment in what way? Seems environmentalists have nothing to do with this at all and are actually not in favor of the move at all.

"A report in July by Friends of the Earth Netherlands (Milieu Defensie) and two Indonesian NGOs strongly criticised Wilmar, a Singapore-listed company, thought to be the world's biggest palm oil company. It accused Wilmar of illegal forest clearances in West Kalimantan, inadequate Environmental Impact Assessments and clearing land outside its concessions. Wilmar denies the allegation."

This appears to be a move by corporate interests, not environmentalism, and acting upon their own greed and not the wishes of the environmentalist community, or those working the lands themselves. Seems the corporate intersts are ignoring the customary claims to the lands and exercizing their ability to crush the peasant of the region.

"The company, a subsidiary of the Indonesian Duta Palma group, did offer Alexander compensation for his land. But Alexander says it is not enough, and that he is yet to receive anything. "Deep in my heart I feel I don't want to let go of my land, but if I have to, they have to pay me," he adds. The villagers say about 25 of their plots were cleared for palm-oil expansion without their consent."

It seems that the people of the region, and the local government itself understands the issue a lot better than the individual who started this thread with evidence that counters his claims.

"There are a lot of greedy companies in the world," adds Agus Purnomo. "We mustn't allow the bad companies to set the tone. We need the good ones to come and set the standard."

And someone had the balls to toss the term "snake oil" on the table? That person should consider the way they twisted the context of the article and used one line in it, which was really irrelevant to the article itself, to try and sell an argument.

On the topic of bio fuels, I think the concept is good one, but in reality it causes more problems than it solves. It may work in North America, where farmers could actually stop being subsidized and paid to plow crops under, but in other parts of the world it is not feasible. When some parts of the world cannot even grow enough crops to sustain their people, bios fuels is not the answer. IMO, bio fuels are only part of the solution, not the whole answer to our energy problems. I still contend that a single consumer energy source (electricity) is the most tangible solution, and would all waste products from food crops (biomass) to be used in energy production. This process is taking something that already exists, and processing or reprocessing it. No extra land is required, other than the power site, and it is even more friendly to environment as we clean up much of the waste products we leave lying around. Also, biomass is useable with almost any waste product, so it can be adapted to any environment and market.

IMO, the greatest problem with environmentalism and corporate interests today is the lack of vision by both sides. They continue to work against each other, rather than with each other and finding solutions to problems that work for a given region and economy. To me, environmentalism is regional, as it impacts the local biosphere first, then the global biosphere. We all have to clean up our act first, and that means become self sufficient in all ways (food production, energy production, etc.). Unfortunately, the all mighty dollar gets involved, and the good in ideas gets corrupted as greed finds its way into the equation.

Corporate interest is also fueling the policy makers, as shocking as that may seem (LANCE BASS!). Here in BC, where we enjoy a good to very good transit system in the lower mainland, have just had it mandated that transit funding will be cut in favour of more highways to the suburban area. This all coming after a 70 percent or so increase in fuel in the last year. On top of it all, this is coming from the Province who have all but legislated ignoring the local communities about their transit needs and desires.

Hell, if American livestock didn't consume over half their corn production, maybe you could make biomass work...or you could feed a lot of people.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Hell, if American livestock didn't consume over half their corn production, maybe you could make biomass work...or you could feed a lot of people.

Plenty of room to increase corn production in the US. If prices went up, which a thriving biomass industry would do, more farmers would be producing it and more abandoned farmland would be reclaimed and used.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Plenty of room to increase corn production in the US. If prices went up, which a thriving biomass industry would do, more farmers would be producing it and more abandoned farmland would be reclaimed and used.

The point isn't increasing production to drive further consumption, the idea is to use the existing production in a more efficient manor.

Why devote half of US corn production to livestock feed? That is an incredible figure. it's a reduction of energy. You can do more with the feed than you can with the meat that consumes it. It screws farmers AND traditional ranchers and other small scale livestock producers, and their local economies.

Personally, I'd like to see the abandoned farmland left abandoned, maybe even cleaned up, not reclaimed to produce even more food that won't be eaten by humans.

Let it become hunting grounds.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The point isn't increasing production to drive further consumption, the idea is to use the existing production in a more efficient manor.

Why devote half of US corn production to livestock feed? That is an incredible figure. it's a reduction of energy. You can do more with the feed than you can with the meat that consumes it. It screws farmers AND traditional ranchers and other small scale livestock producers, and their local economies.

Personally, I'd like to see the abandoned farmland left abandoned, maybe even cleaned up, not reclaimed to produce even more food that won't be eaten by humans.

Let it become hunting grounds.

I wasn't arguing for or against biomass fuels, was just stating why the corn goes where it does and what could change that.

Since most of the farmland in question is private property it is a little difficult to determine what happens to it.

That is, however, the main action taken by the RMEF (Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation). They buy up land and ensure that land remains elk habitat (along with all of the other species who share their range). We're a long way from bringing elk back to the plains though and that is where most of this land is. Just pointing out that there is a group out there doing exactly what you suggest.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I wasn't arguing for or against biomass fuels, was just stating why the corn goes where it does and what could change that.

Since most of the farmland in question is private property it is a little difficult to determine what happens to it.

That is, however, the main action taken by the RMEF (Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation). They buy up land and ensure that land remains elk habitat (along with all of the other species who share their range). We're a long way from bringing elk back to the plains though and that is where most of this land is. Just pointing out that there is a group out there doing exactly what you suggest.

Ya, I don't mean to sound combative, I just think these groups have a needless uphill battle when meat producers give it to the government right up the wazoo and give it to the few remaining farmers and ranchers left in the same fashion.

An easy way to fix it would be to stop looking the other way on the environmental damage of these large industrial meat 'farms', and quite literally stop taking bribes from those industries. Hell, even enforcing work place conditions and immigration status would be enough to get the ball rolling.

[badnarik]

Sugarcane is a better source of ethanol than corn. I say get rid of sugar and ethanol tariffs and let people enjoy their cornfed beef.

[ShaolinFlame]

A little OT but i read a very interesting Western Standard article a month ago. It was regarding an expensive UN program telling every participating country that they had to plant X number of trees. The goal for the whole program was to have 1 billion trees planted this year, to combat global warming. Couple funny points:

1- Planting trees in any country as North as Canada would actually serve to heat up the environment. Since we have white snow around for most of the year, a lot of energy gets reflected back when it hits the snow. The higher albedo (I always get it confused if high means more absorbed or less, sorry if im wrong) of the green trees would absorb a lot more energy. Enough in fact, that it would offset the carbon reduction of trees, and heat Canada up more. So yeah, maybe deforestation in the name of environmentalism in Canada might work! (Not that it really needs to get any colder - bring on the trees)


2- Other interesting thing from the article was that Canada's forestry industry plants over 500 million trees a year. Way more than Canadas quota, and half the world quota. The best part is, they are making money while planting said trees, instead of frivolously spending our tax dollars on planting some expensive garden in Ottawa in the name of saving the world.

[Flame On]

I wonder Hoz, have you ever pointed out a flaw in the looni right or those under their unbrella? There's plenty to choose from. Just curious.

[HOZ]

Big, BIG business!! Please read.

Biofuel Myths

• Biofuels are clean and green.
• Biofuels will not result in deforestation.
• Biofuels will bring rural development
• Biofuels will not cause hunger.

Strong, enforceable standards based on limiting land planted for biofuels are urgently needed, as are antitrust laws powerful enough to prevent the corporate concentration of market power in the industry. Sustainable benefits to the countryside will only accrue if biofuels are a complement to plans for sustainable rural development, not the centerpiece.
A global moratorium on the expansion of biofuels is needed to develop regulatory structures and foster conservation and development alternatives to the transition. We need the time to make a better transition to food and fuel sovereignty.

Eric Holt-Giménez is executive director of the Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy. This article was distributed by Agence Global.

More Myths! They need more energy to produce than they give!

[Dan02]

biofuels are funny, and thats all i got to say about that.