Climate Change & Global Warming

[Bluestone]

Thought this was worth adding to the discussion: it's an article from the Guardian yesterday (again by George Monbiot) about the negative impacts of biofuel production.

 

Here's an extract:

 

Since the beginning of last year, the price of maize has doubled. The price of wheat has also reached a 10-year high, while global stockpiles of both grains have reached 25-year lows. Already there have been food riots in Mexico and reports that the poor are feeling the strain all over the world. The US department of agriculture warns that “if we have a drought or a very poor harvest, we could see the sort of volatility we saw in the 1970s, and if it does not happen this year, we are also forecasting lower stockpiles next year.†According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, the main reason is the demand for ethanol: the alcohol used for motor fuel, which can be made from both maize and wheat.

 

Another key point is that, due to deforestation, biodiesel produced from palm oil is responsible for ten times as much climate change as ordinary diesel.

 

The full article is available here:

 

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/27/a-lethal-solution/#more-1051

 

I didn't listen to the whole budget speech last week, but this point is certainly relevant:

 

In the budget last week, Gordon Brown announced that he would extend the tax rebate for biofuels until 2010. From next year all suppliers in the UK will have to ensure that 2.5% of the fuel they sell is made from plants – if not, they must pay a penalty of 15p a litre. The obligation rises to 5% in 2010.

[Ghostrider]

Thought this was worth adding to the discussion: it's an article from the Guardian yesterday (again by George Monbiot) about the negative impacts of biofuel production.

 

Here's an extract:

 

Since the beginning of last year, the price of maize has doubled. The price of wheat has also reached a 10-year high, while global stockpiles of both grains have reached 25-year lows. Already there have been food riots in Mexico and reports that the poor are feeling the strain all over the world. The US department of agriculture warns that “if we have a drought or a very poor harvest, we could see the sort of volatility we saw in the 1970s, and if it does not happen this year, we are also forecasting lower stockpiles next year.†According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, the main reason is the demand for ethanol: the alcohol used for motor fuel, which can be made from both maize and wheat.

 

Another key point is that, due to deforestation, biodiesel produced from palm oil is responsible for ten times as much climate change as ordinary diesel.

 

The full article is available here:

 

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/27/a-lethal-solution/#more-1051

 

I didn't listen to the whole budget speech last week, but this point is certainly relevant:

 

In the budget last week, Gordon Brown announced that he would extend the tax rebate for biofuels until 2010. From next year all suppliers in the UK will have to ensure that 2.5% of the fuel they sell is made from plants – if not, they must pay a penalty of 15p a litre. The obligation rises to 5% in 2010.

 

Meanwhile EU farmers are being paid to leave prefectly good arable land fallow in the form of Set Aside, a great deal of it perfectly capable of wheat production. Others are being penalised in the form of being threatened with having their eligibility for all subsidies withdrawn, if they bring arable back in to production if it has been fallow for a number of years.

[sheepshagger]

we already pay carbon footprint tax , the more fuel you burn etc, the more tax you pay. I am suspicious of oil companies just now for reducing the price of oil again at the moment as I feel they do this to keeep us all burning and slow down the development of clean energy?

Also I get the feeling that even thoughit is in the news everyday , there is still a general state of apathy towards global warming.

I think there has to be more incentives to make people change , and also the government would need to get tough on this issue and bring in some new rules I suppose?

Ban 4x4's from cities ?

put tight restrictions on the amount of food packaging used ?

double the price of car fuel for private use?

Of course the trouble is anything like this wont be popular and people would start shouting about freedoms and human rights etc..?

 

the oil companies dont reduce the price of oil the market forces of supply and demand do that If shell, bp etc could get opec to cut production and get the price over $100/barrel they would. At the moment though the saudias cant get it out the ground any quicker so they dont have any control over lowering prices but they could most certainly put it up. dont blame the corporations for the oil price they will diversify when market forces dictate that they have to but opec only have oil and without exception are dictatorships

[Styles]

(** mod edit - merged this post with existing climate change / global warming thread **)

 

Climate change is in the news the whole time at the moment and seems to be the hot topic, for example http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6532323.stm

 

Not everyone belives that it is mankind that is causeing it. But most folk seem to think they are.

 

But all this talk about Co2 emissions etc and carbon footprints, it strikes me that no matter how much humanity cuts back its still no good.

 

If the forecasts are true and millions apone millions will die or be terribley effected maybe if its true then its time for drastic measures if its ment to the the biggest threat to humanity that people say.

 

Surley starting by banning all flights unless for important uses would be a start. As it was not even that long ago that most people had never flown or it was far to expensive. Surley flying for holidays should be totally banned, or some sort of quota like you got so many miles each year that you could save up or sell.

 

The main problem seems to me is that the human race is expanding at such an alarming rate, useing more resources and that more societies are going to industrial revolution level or beyond. So surley the only extreme way to control it in the worst case scenario needs some sort of world wide cull of human levels and some sort of control on birth rates.

[aWordinyourEar]

I agree with the sentiment expressed earlier in this thread that bio-fuels will not provide a solution, and that reduction of unnecessary transportation is a necessity. I can still see the possibility of its value in some countries however.

 

Trying to limit plane travel and other popular fuel waste is a political nightmare. I like Monbiot's idea of a ration system whereby we each get a certain quota for our carbon emissions. Combined with measurement of the carbon emissions we make, it could make us think twice about that unnecessary flight, car trip, and inefficient appliances about the home.

 

Nudging consumers towards greener technologies will speed along industry.

[crofter]

... in the worst case scenario needs some sort of world wide cull of human levels and some sort of control on birth rates.

 

But Styles, in the "abortion" thread you claim to be anti-abortion!

[Fjool]

Law challenge to Gore school film

 

The government faces a legal challenge for sending every secondary school in England a copy of Al Gore's climate change film An Inconvenient Truth.

 

I wonder what this guy is objecting to? The article doesn't seem to say.

[Flaming Mo]

I think its to do with the fact the guy copied the cd's at home on his computer before distributing them to the schools.

 

.... Of course his argument is that it saved him resources and benefited the planet accordingly from his otherwise CO2 attributed emmisions of going to the HMV megastore out of town centre by car to buy the cd's, stopping at ASDA wallmart on the way home to purchase some red snapper and paw paw (or prickly pear) and then finding out he'd left his t.v on stand by.

[Carlos]

Quick guide to 26 common climate change myths.

New Scientist

[Styumpie]

I think global warming is probably one of the least of our worries, something much bigger is approaching rapidly, and that is peak energy. Oil gives us our modern lives, it rules the way we all live. Everything we own, near everything material we have is a result of oil, nearly all our employment is a result of oil. Oil is running out, many people believe oil production has now peaked, while demand continues to get higher and higher.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

 

If anything is going to give us a Mad Max beyond thunder dome scenario, its going to be post peak energy and the effects of global warming is only going to add fuel to the fire.

[Pooks]

Surely the Mad Max scenario would be the decline of Peak Oil and not Peak Oil itself?

 

Edit -> My post doesn't really make sense now that Styumpie has edited their post. Never mind.

[Styumpie]

Its the decline in available energy that might result in a mad max scenario, peak oil is the beginning of the ever steeper slippery slope!

[Njugle]

The national Geographic ran an excellent piece on Peak Oil last year. One source within it, if i recall correctly, suggested that the price of oil needed to be $182 /barrel now to eek out reserves long enough to provide global alternatives.

 

Anyway try googling or Asking on the article and you'll see what a stir it caused, if the article itself is not immediately apparent.

 

Here's one of the replies it drew:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/05/0520_040520_oil.html

[Styles]

Im worried in the future with the ammount of people increaseing and resources such as water not, wont take long for wars to start over resources. It allready happens on a small scale in places such as Africa. Imagine what a place like China will do once its population reaches such levels it cannot live without the resources it needs, I say watch out if you are nearby and have such resources!

[crofter]

wont take long for wars to start over resources. It allready happens on a small scale in places such as Africa.

 

Every war to date has been fought for control of one resource or another. Does anybody seriously believe the US wanted to "liberate" Iraq?