UN Warns Of Biofuels' Environmental Risk

[Galong]

Finally, biofuel is a complete joke, economic and otherwise, because it costs more fuel to produce than it delivers as a final product. The fact that the fuel used to produce it is petroleum-based makes it all the more ironic. It takes more petroleum to produce the equivalent biofuel than the energy the biofuel itself is capable of producing. Only by government force, koolaid drinking and general pretzel logic could some crazy scenario like this even be possible.

1. Changing World Technologies thermal depolymerization process produced fuels use a small portion of the fuel they create from the input feedstock to power the process. At the current price of crude they be profitable even without the government tax breaks. The feedstock since I doubt you are familiar with the it is turkey and pig guts from the ConAgra processing plant in Carthage, Missouri. The process can turn garbage, sewage, plastic waste, used tires and a host of other materials into crude.

2. The US Department of Energy over an 18 year period established that producing biodiesel from algae would be profitable if crude prices were double what they were in 1998. Crude prices are now triple what they were at that time hence all of the companies opening algae farms.

Biofuel can't be profitable if it takes more energy to produce it than the process yields.

Stop listening to and repeating Rush and Hannity and do some research.

:D Good one buddy! Rush needs to concentrate on filling his head full of pills and leave the real thinkin' to the rest of us, ya know.

Gary A, thanks for your bit about Brazil. I don't see why that's not proof enough in itself... geez, what a great example!

I find it disturbing, frustrating, enlightening and often amusing the way some folks can't filter out the BS from the science. Sure, there are doubts about global warming and the rednecks do have some points, but overall it seems rather obvious that something needs to be done AND the time is RIGHT NOW.

The status quo cannot continue on the path that it's obviously leading to: full dependence on oil and small handfuls of oil barons raping the land and our wallets.

[Gary A]

Quote;

"I also find it very strange that people who tend to be the biggest proponents of alternative fuels and conservation of fossil fuels also tend to be stridently anti-nuclear technology, which is by far the most economical means for mass-production of electricity (thereby also making it the most pro fossil fuel conservation."

End quote.

That may be the only point we agree on. It was the "Not In My Backyard" crowd that killed the nuclear programs.

Many governments pay farmers to NOT produce anything. That's the type of subsidies you should work to eliminate. Subsidizing new technology is a good thing. I have often said that I hope to live to see the day when we can tell OPEC to eat their oil. T. Boone Pickens, the Texas oilman is in the process of building the biggest wind farm in the USA. I would hope that the government sees fit to help that program along.

Cheaper solar panels will never be produced without subsidies. New generation nuclear technology will never be discovered without government help.

[Plus]

I'm not sure about Brazil's success. On one hand everyone mentions they run their cars on ethanol, on the other hand they are known to destroy large swathes of Amazonian rain forest.

Overall their development model is unsustainable, how much ethanol contributes to that I do not know, but something tells me it's part of a problem, not part of a solution.

[Galong]

There seems to be a strong "it'll never happen... people don't want to and won't accept change" contingency on this forum and elsewhere.

Major things that have changed in my lifetime... just off the top of my head, Black people in the US having equal rights by law (still problems of course, but overall it's been greatly improved since the 50s and 60s), Apartheid in South Africa, automobile and factory emission standards in the US have radically improved and the litter in the US thanks to the "don't be a litterbug campaign" has almost eliminated roadside trash.

Education and a responsible news system are responsible in large part. I fear that the news to a great degree and the educational process to a lesser degree are working against positive change thanks to corporate interests getting deeply involved. There's still accurate news getting out, you just have to be intelligent enough to know where to find it (not on the O'reilly Factor) and how to filter the science from the unqualified opinions.

Peace

[Gary A]

I'm not sure about Brazil's success. On one hand everyone mentions they run their cars on ethanol, on the other hand they are known to destroy large swathes of Amazonian rain forest.

Overall their development model is unsustainable, how much ethanol contributes to that I do not know, but something tells me it's part of a problem, not part of a solution.

Amazingly enough, Rain forest land is of little use for commercial agriculture. Check out the below link and learn some facts.

http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm

From the above link;

"Commercial logging is the single largest cause of rainforest destruction, both directly and indirectly. Other activities destroying the rainforest, including clearing land for grazing animals and subsistence farming. The simple fact is that people are destroying the Amazon rainforest and the rest of the rainforests of the world because "they can't see the forest for the trees."

[Plus]

Excuse me, Garry, how do you mean "clearing land for grazing animals" is not "for commercial agriculture"???

I've read that argument ages ago in the context of their expanding beef industry, that was before introduction of ethanol, so I don't know what impact it had on rainforests.

Basically as long as it needs land, forests will be destroyed.

[Gary A]

Excuse me, Garry, how do you mean "clearing land for grazing animals" is not "for commercial agriculture"???

I've read that argument ages ago in the context of their expanding beef industry, that was before introduction of ethanol, so I don't know what impact it had on rainforests.

Basically as long as it needs land, forests will be destroyed.

I thought we were talking about ethanol and sugar cane for feed stock and not about subsistence farming.

[Plus]

My question is - do they clear rainforests to plant sugar cane for ethanol production or not?

Where do they plant it? If there's demand for extra land - where does it come from?

[Galong]

Excuse me, Garry, how do you mean "clearing land for grazing animals" is not "for commercial agriculture"???

I've read that argument ages ago in the context of their expanding beef industry, that was before introduction of ethanol, so I don't know what impact it had on rainforests.

Basically as long as it needs land, forests will be destroyed.

Hey there Plus,

Biodiesel does not automatically mean jungles/rain forest must be cut down. That's where plants like Jatrhopa and algae farming could shine. Jathropa can grow on marginal land. Algae can be grown almost anywhere. Like has been pointed out by several posters on this thread, farmers in many countries are paid NOT to grow anything. There is land available, now whether it's enough to satisfy our greed for fuel is doubtful, but there's more land that some might think.

Yes, the easiest way is to clear new land, but the premise that it definitely will or somehow should mean the clearing of new land isn't the only outcome.

And, if engines were made to be more efficient the amount of fuel needed would be less. If humans really care, huge SUVs, big trucks and the like should be a thing of the past or they should use a different fuel source... or they should be taxed to high heaven (easy to say since I don't have an SUV ) Anyway, my point is that options are already available and the technology is here to support the change. Vested interests will keep it all from coming to fruition most likely.

Edited July 23, 2008 by Galong

[Gary A]

My question is - do they clear rainforests to plant sugar cane for ethanol production or not?

Where do they plant it? If there's demand for extra land - where does it come from?

The below is from the link I furnished above;

The present approach to rainforest cultivation produces wealth for a few, but only for a short time, because farming burned-off tracts of Amazon rainforest seldom works for long. Less than 10 percent of Amazonian soils are suitable for sustained conventional agriculture. However lush they look, rainforests often flourish on such nutrient-poor soils that they are essentially "wet deserts," easier to damage and harder to cultivate than any other soil. Most are exhausted by the time they have produced three or four crops. Many of the thousands of homesteaders who migrated from Brazil's cities to the wilds of the rainforest, responding to the government's call of "land without men for men without land," have already had to abandon their depleted farms and move on, leaving behind fields of baked clay dotted with stagnant pools of polluted water. Experts agree that the path to conservation begins with helping these local residents meet their own daily needs. Because of the infertility of the soil, and the lack of knowledge of sustainable cultivation practices, this type of agriculture strips the soil of nutrients within a few harvests, and the farmers continue to move farther into the rainforest in search of new land. They must be helped and educated to break free of the need to continually clear rainforest in search of fresh, fertile land if the rainforest is to be saved.

[TAWP]

"Land grabs"...um, there's a little war going on in Iraq because big oil companies can't accept the fact that our oil is under their country. There were no weapons of mass destruction and Osama wasn't there either... the only thing there is oil.

Holy sh*t on a pogo-stick...

The war in Iraq has never been about oil. It was a much more sinister plan on how to forcefully create a light-beacon of democracy that would spread and de-stabilize the hostile nations in the region. Unfortunately the planners of it where theorists and not educated enough about the region to see that the project was doomed to fail from the beginning when dealing with a culture with extremely strong clan-structures.

Now back to you ranting on how wonderful socialism and subsidized ethanol is...

(Ps. The production and shipping of it releases more pollution into the air than it would be saving for several countries due to distances between crop, refineries and consumers [cars], see for example north Europe. It's so obvious that even one the socialistic government mouth-piece of a news paper in my country ran a series on it... Ds.)

[Plus]

Biodiesel does not automatically mean jungles/rain forest must be cut down. That's where plants like Jatrhopa and algae farming could shine.

Theoretically it sounds convinvincing. In reality Thailand is not going to use neither Jarthropa nor algae so it's a moot point.

If Thai government studied the issue in detail and came up with a comprehensive plan that covered all long term effects of ethanol production, it would have been a lot more convincing than their Tuesday afternoon decision to plunge into it headfirst.

With this kind of approach whatever they decide is likely to be wrong and subject to critisism and serious questioning.

>>>

Gary, I still don't know what land they use for their sugar cane. Even if it's abandoned land, it wouldn't be there if not for the forest destruction.

So, perhaps they can produce enough ethanol for their cars only because they cut down their rainforests. If that is so, the whole approach is unsustainable.

[Galong]

Holy sh*t on a pogo-stick...

The war in Iraq has never been about oil. It was a much more sinister plan on how to forcefully create a light-beacon of democracy that would spread and de-stabilize the hostile nations in the region. Unfortunately the planners of it where theorists and not educated enough about the region to see that the project was doomed to fail from the beginning when dealing with a culture with extremely strong clan-structures.

Now back to you ranting on how wonderful socialism and subsidized ethanol is...

Well, it wasn't about weapons of mass destruction. Wasn't that the primary reason for going in there... at least on paper? I think you're right about the deeper more sinister plan, but oil is certainly part of the master plan. The fact that there wasn't a master plan to deal with the clans makes this war all the more pathetic. Walk in take over and leave a mess behind... there's some heavy duty thinkin'.

"Socialism and subsidized ethanol"? Not me. I'm for bio diesel as a fuel, not ethanol. You pegged me wrong there, matey. Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression

Socialism - well if it means all of us working toward a cleaner planet that will ultimately make life on earth better for ALL of us, then I reckon I'm one of them thar socialists. Now where did I put my red hat and my copy of the Communist Manifesto?

[Spee]

That may be the only point we agree on. It was the "Not In My Backyard" crowd that killed the nuclear programs.

The "NIMBY" crowds have killed many a potential success, including wind farms such as the one that was proposed off Martha's Vineyard (aka, home of the east coast wealthy liberal elite). NIMBY's are a classic example of how the vocal minority can over-rule initiatives that may have a long term benefit to the silent majority.

[Spee]

Biofuel can't be profitable if it takes more energy to produce it than the process yields.

To respond to both your and GaryA's misquotes, what I said was that it takes more energy to produce biofuel than the energy the biofuel itself produces during consumption. Whether or not this ends up being profitable is anybody's guess. However, no one will ever know for sure if it is a valid business model until the government gets their fingers out of the pie by removing all subsidies and allows market economics to make that determination.

Stop listening to and repeating Rush and Hannity and do some research.

Stop blasting out rants and read what is written before responding.

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

Biofuel can't be profitable if it takes more energy to produce it than the process yields.

To respond to both your and GaryA's misquotes, what I said was that it takes more energy to produce biofuel than the energy the biofuel itself produces during consumption. Whether or not this ends up being profitable is anybody's guess. However, no one will ever know for sure if it is a valid business model until the government gets their fingers out of the pie by removing all subsidies and allows market economics to make that determination.

Stop listening to and repeating Rush and Hannity and do some research.

Stop blasting out rants and read what is written before responding.

This is what you said.

"Finally, biofuel is a complete joke, economic and otherwise, because it costs more fuel to produce than it delivers as a final product. The fact that the fuel used to produce it is petroleum-based makes it all the more ironic. It takes more petroleum to produce the equivalent biofuel than the energy the biofuel itself is capable of producing. Only by government force, koolaid drinking and general pretzel logic could some crazy scenario like this even be possible."

If a process takes more energy to produce than it yields as you claim then it is not profitable. Unless you are counting the energy from the sun, the production of many biofuels such as those produced by Changing World Technologies and biodiesel pressed from vegetation do not use more energy to produce the fuel than it yields. Further, until 2005 Changing World Technologies was not eligible for the biofuels tax credit yet it earned a profit. Changing World Technologies produces the energy the process uses and yields a substantial surplus. Today the price of crude makes the process even more profitable. You also fail to mention tax credits the petroleum oil industry receives. I suppose those are ok but biodfuels tax credits aren't.

Again, stop listing to Rush and Hannity. Unless you like deep recessions the free market nonsense they preach and the people who believe it got us into the mess the world is in today. Look at the housing and credit mess in the US. Lack of regulation allowed it to mushroom. Yes the market it correcting it but at what cost to society?

Edited July 24, 2008 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[Galong]

...what I said was that it takes more energy to produce biofuel than the energy the biofuel itself produces during consumption.

Hi Spee. Where did you get your (this) information? Can you prove that this is the case in all instances?

[Spee]

Again, stop listing to Rush and Hannity. Unless you like deep recessions the free market nonsense they preach and the people who believe it got us into the mess the world is in today. Look at the housing and credit mess in the US. Lack of regulation allowed it to mushroom. Yes the market it correcting it but at what cost to society? [/color]

Ah, it's all clear now as yet another closet lefty emerges from the woodwork to divert another thread into an anti-Bush rant.

The "housing and credit mess" as you call it, has been caused by precisely the reasons I've been talking about. Government mandates and subsidies mixed in with corporate greed have resulted in the corruption of sound lending and business practices. It was caused BY regulation, specifically regulations pushed down from the federal government (Congress), not the lack of regulation.

It is only when the free market is left unobstructed by government interference that it prospers to the benefit of all. For example:

Think back to the "crash" of 1987 which happened toward the end of the Reagan era. When the inevitable calls came for government intervention, Reagan said ABSOLUTELY NOT and compelled the Congress to keep the government out of it. And what happened? Only 20+ years of the largest economic growth in the history of mankind, resulting in massive increases in prosperity for the American people (as well as many countries and billions of people around the civilized world).

Compare this to the "crash" of 1929, which was caused by government inaction (failure to act by the treasury and federal reserve to stablize the supply of money) and made worse by the onset of endless taxpayer funded social program debacles that today prevents the US, its people and businesses from reaching their full potential.

You appear to have a severely warped and convoluted understanding of these facts. Big corrupt restrictive governments caused countries to fail and citizens to suffer. Small, ethical, less restrictive governments allow countries and peoples to prosper.

Getting back on topic, there is absolutely nothing wrong with alternative fuel initiatives and companies trying to invent new products like alternative fuel that they can sell at a profit and consumers can gain the benefit that they want from them. It is altogether wrong for governments to subsidize one segment of an industry to the detriment of another. No one benefits form this kind of scenario, except the people who are willing to be corrupted for a price. As this kind of graft and corruption is already rampant in Thailand, I do not see any net benefit from continuing to feed the beast.

Edited July 24, 2008 by Spee

[Galong]

...what I said was that it takes more energy to produce biofuel than the energy the biofuel itself produces during consumption.

Hi Spee,

I just ran across this manual oil press machine on YouTube. This, of course, is too small for mass production, but if a press can extract oil, couldn't it be wind generated or electrically generated from wind powered batteries? I'm being rhetorical, as I know the answer is yes.

Here's another site on oil presses

Don't you think that if we can put a man on the moon (or do a great job of faking it! ), we can get oil out of a bean/seed without using a petroleum product in the process?

Edited July 24, 2008 by Galong

[Spee]

Here's another site on oil presses

It's interesting and all, but doesn't appear to the iPod of the automotive and transportation industries. While vegetable oils as fuels certainly work, they obviously make engines much more high maintenance, not to mention being quite a bit down on torque and horsepower, relative to petroleum based fuels.

I did find it much more interesting to learn that the inventor of the diesel engine actually designed it with grain oil in mind as the fuel source. I was not previously aware of that fact.

However, I am all ears for explanations as to why this intended design feature has remained effectively dormant (relative to mass produced pettroleum based fuels) among the mass population for over one hundred years.

[Galong]

Here's another site on oil presses

It's interesting and all, but doesn't appear to the iPod of the automotive and transportation industries. While vegetable oils as fuels certainly work, they obviously make engines much more high maintenance, not to mention being quite a bit down on torque and horsepower, relative to petroleum based fuels.

I did find it much more interesting to learn that the inventor of the diesel engine actually designed it with grain oil in mind as the fuel source. I was not previously aware of that fact.

However, I am all ears for explanations as to why this intended design feature has remained effectively dormant (relative to mass produced pettroleum based fuels) among the mass population for over one hundred years.

I'm in no hurry, so the very slight decrease in HP and torque aren't really that important to me. Besides, the decrease in power is very small. The benefits outweigh this issue... to me at least.

One of the other big benefits of biodiesel is the decrease in harmful emissions. There is no net carbon dioxide or sulfur to the atmosphere, and is low in other particulate emissions. You can read more on this site.

Higher maintenance issues? I'm reading just the opposite. Like here and here.

From everything that I read I get the same answer: when you switch to biodiesel you need to change your fuel filter fairly often at first as biodiesel cleans out some of the sludge that regular diesel leaves behind. Once you've run biodiesel for a while, there are no issue.

There is a problem in colder weather, but that's a moot point here in the tropics.

Well, like you pointed out, Mr. Diesel originally designed his engine to run on vegetable oil (peanut). The reason why is didn't take off is most likely due to the very strong petro oil companies influence. Marketing, marketing, marketing! That's what it boils down to. The petro oil industry has the money to put their version of reality out to the world, whether it's founded is strong science or their business-related bias.

[Galong]

However, I am all ears for explanations as to why this intended design feature has remained effectively dormant (relative to mass produced pettroleum based fuels) among the mass population for over one hundred years.

Furthermore, just because people don't "buy" it, that doesn't mean the product isn't better, healthier, more earth-friendly, more economically viable, etc.

People are sometimes surprisingly ignorant when it comes to deciphering the truth. That's how the tobacco industry has managed to prosper for so long. The alcohol industry prospers, while pot, a much less damaging drug, has remained illegal (though some countries are realizing this and lowering the penalty for being caught with the weed). The format of VHS that 'made it', apparently wasn't as good as the one that didn't catch on.

In other words, I wouldn't put too much faith in human intelligence when it comes to rationalizing important issues, especially where BIG business has strong financial interests and has the ability to control the media to a certain extent (i.e. Rupert the redneck ).

[Gary A]

It's interesting and all, but doesn't appear to the iPod of the automotive and transportation industries. While vegetable oils as fuels certainly work, they obviously make engines much more high maintenance, not to mention being quite a bit down on torque and horsepower, relative to petroleum based fuels.

Where do you get your erroneous information? Do you actually believe what you are stating is factual?

The fact is that vegetable oil is a good detergent and it actually keeps the diesel fuel system cleaner and less prone to problems. There is NO difference in power or efficiency.

[TAWP]

One thing to note is that it's usually the Left-Green that talk about conservatism as a way out. Forgetting that the western world spent the last hundred years growing out of poverty farming by having the industry and there is no way in hel_l any euro-liberal is going to convince a emerging economy in Asia to stop improving their quality of life so They can sleep better at night.

Besides, one thing that is overlooked by the the Left-Green is the fact that during these last 100 years the marketplace has forced itself to become much more effective. One unit of product releases 90+% less pollution today than it did to produce 100 years ago and this is due to research and market forces, not due to government regulations and forced conservatism.

I don't know about you, but I'm not planning to go back to living in a cave just because some hippy says so. Even if he says he invented the internet...

What we need is support for R&D for re-newable fuel, for instance reusing nuclear waste. (Research is already on the way in some parts.)

In some socialist states in Europe it's even illegal to research into this area...due to a wish to remove nuclear plants to all costs.

[Galong]

One thing to note is that it's usually the Left-Green that talk about conservatism as a way out. Forgetting that the western world spent the last hundred years growing out of poverty farming by having the industry and there is no way in hel_l any euro-liberal is going to convince a emerging economy in Asia to stop improving their quality of life so They can sleep better at night.

Besides, one thing that is overlooked by the the Left-Green is the fact that during these last 100 years the marketplace has forced itself to become much more effective. One unit of product releases 90+% less pollution today than it did to produce 100 years ago and this is due to research and market forces, not due to government regulations and forced conservatism.

I don't know about you, but I'm not planning to go back to living in a cave just because some hippy says so. Even if he says he invented the internet...

What we need is support for R&D for re-newable fuel, for instance reusing nuclear waste. (Research is already on the way in some parts.)

In some socialist states in Europe it's even illegal to research into this area...due to a wish to remove nuclear plants to all costs.

Holy Cow dude, way to take something and twist it completely around to suit your jaded, fictitious view of Left-wing Greenies (like me ), which is based on false information or a very sloppy grasp on the reality of the what our camp is all about. Do you really think that what you said is fair?

I know of absolutely no one off all of my "lefty - tree hugging" friends who wants anyone to live in poverty or step backwards economically. On the contrary, we see a need to clean up the earth and conserve natural resources so that everyone has the opportunity to live a clean, healthy and prosperous life! Humans, whether you know it or not or whether you like it or not, cannot live without a clean environment. We can't make water, we can't make air and we can't keep going down the path that we're heading down without severe consquences. This is especially for the poorer people who lack clean air, clean water and basic sanitary needs right now.

Sorry, but you are insult those of us who truly care about the plight of our shared planet and our shared humanity! Of course there could be a small pocket of individuals who want to regress, but you apparently feel that it's fair to paint every single person with the same brush... and that's unfortunate, unfair and untrue.

Now, having said all of this, I don't know as much about the Euro version of 'the Left', but I suspect that what I've said above at least partly applies to them too.

Peace, through higher education...

Edited July 25, 2008 by Galong

[Gary A]

One thing to note is that it's usually the Left-Green that talk about conservatism as a way out. Forgetting that the western world spent the last hundred years growing out of poverty farming by having the industry and there is no way in hel_l any euro-liberal is going to convince a emerging economy in Asia to stop improving their quality of life so They can sleep better at night.

Besides, one thing that is overlooked by the the Left-Green is the fact that during these last 100 years the marketplace has forced itself to become much more effective. One unit of product releases 90+% less pollution today than it did to produce 100 years ago and this is due to research and market forces, not due to government regulations and forced conservatism.

I don't know about you, but I'm not planning to go back to living in a cave just because some hippy says so. Even if he says he invented the internet...

What we need is support for R&D for re-newable fuel, for instance reusing nuclear waste. (Research is already on the way in some parts.)

In some socialist states in Europe it's even illegal to research into this area...due to a wish to remove nuclear plants to all costs.

I was reading an article about spent nuclear fuel. It said that the fuel is hot, about 300 degrees F. It will remain hot for approximately 200 years. Since water boils at 212 degrees F, we could go back to steam engines that use no fuel. This nuclear waste that is considered a liability could be productively used. No way could it be used for weapons other than being a radioactive hazard.

[Galong]

I was reading an article about spent nuclear fuel. It said that the fuel is hot, about 300 degrees F. It will remain hot for approximately 200 years. Since water boils at 212 degrees F, we could go back to steam engines that use no fuel. This nuclear waste that is considered a liability could be productively used. No way could it be used for weapons other than being a radioactive hazard.

Howdy Gary,

Well, that sure sounds interesting and promising. It makes ya wonder why no one thought of this before. [insert a head-scratching smiley face]

Were there any downsides?

Was the article online? If so, would you send the link, please.

[Gary A]

I was reading an article about spent nuclear fuel. It said that the fuel is hot, about 300 degrees F. It will remain hot for approximately 200 years. Since water boils at 212 degrees F, we could go back to steam engines that use no fuel. This nuclear waste that is considered a liability could be productively used. No way could it be used for weapons other than being a radioactive hazard.

Howdy Gary,

Well, that sure sounds interesting and promising. It makes ya wonder why no one thought of this before. [insert a head-scratching smiley face]

Were there any downsides?

Was the article online? If so, would you send the link, please.

I don't remember where I found it but the biggest problem was that it is a strictly controlled substance and the government is not likely to release any of it for research.

[plachon]

One thing to note is that it's usually the Left-Green that talk about conservatism as a way out. Forgetting that the western world spent the last hundred years growing out of poverty farming by having the industry and there is no way in hel_l any euro-liberal is going to convince a emerging economy in Asia to stop improving their quality of life so They can sleep better at night.

Besides, one thing that is overlooked by the the Left-Green is the fact that during these last 100 years the marketplace has forced itself to become much more effective. One unit of product releases 90+% less pollution today than it did to produce 100 years ago and this is due to research and market forces, not due to government regulations and forced conservatism.

I don't know about you, but I'm not planning to go back to living in a cave just because some hippy says so. Even if he says he invented the internet...

What we need is support for R&D for re-newable fuel, for instance reusing nuclear waste. (Research is already on the way in some parts.)

In some socialist states in Europe it's even illegal to research into this area...due to a wish to remove nuclear plants to all costs.

Holy Cow dude, way to take something and twist it completely around to suit your jaded, fictitious view of Left-wing Greenies (like me ), which is based on false information or a very sloppy grasp on the reality of the what our camp is all about. Do you really think that what you said is fair?

I know of absolutely no one off all of my "lefty - tree hugging" friends who wants anyone to live in poverty or step backwards economically. On the contrary, we see a need to clean up the earth and conserve natural resources so that everyone has the opportunity to live a clean, healthy and prosperous life! Humans, whether you know it or not or whether you like it or not, cannot live without a clean environment. We can't make water, we can't make air and we can't keep going down the path that we're heading down without severe consquences. This is especially for the poorer people who lack clean air, clean water and basic sanitary needs right now.

Sorry, but you are insult those of us who truly care about the plight of our shared planet and our shared humanity! Of course there could be a small pocket of individuals who want to regress, but you apparently feel that it's fair to paint every single person with the same brush... and that's unfortunate, unfair and untrue.

Now, having said all of this, I don't know as much about the Euro version of 'the Left', but I suspect that what I've said above at least partly applies to them too.

Peace, through higher education...

I'll second that Galong.

It's interesting, if not a little disturbing, that dinosuars like TAWP are still at the primitive stage of using that tired old line of those not of their rightwing/anti-green views will take the world back to cave-dwelling, as if this was some kind of sophisticated argument in their favour. Of course, I've been hearing that line since I first got interested in green issues 25 years ago and it never ceases to amaze me that people think this is the case. For christsakes, there is a liberal green in as German foreign minister and the Greens are forming ever large parts of govt at each election in both Europe and Australia/NZ, and it only seems like the US that wallows in 20th century politics of ignorance and backwardness. I'm tempted to say people like TAWP and Spee live in virtual caves, but want to move on past this redundant metaphor to something more positive and twenty first century.

Thus, I would say that we could all be living in energy-efficient, low fossil fuel dependent communities, relying on local networks of food production and transport with a much higher standard of life and health in under 20 years time, if only the politicians and business sector could look beyond oil-dependency and WTO-style globalisation dreams and Move On before reality catches up with the present inherent unsustainability of our lifestyles and dominant economic system. A movement catching on fast in UK called Transition Towns provides sound pointers of the ways we should be developing.

Barak Obama provided a ray of hope during his trip to Middle East and Europe that he could reposition the US current self-destructive path.

[Galong]

I'll second that Galong.

It's interesting, if not a little disturbing, that dinosuars like TAWP are still at the primitive stage of using that tired old line of those not of their rightwing/anti-green views will take the world back to cave-dwelling, as if this was some kind of sophisticated argument in their favour. Of course, I've been hearing that line since I first got interested in green issues 25 years ago and it never ceases to amaze me that people think this is the case. For christsakes, there is a liberal green in as German foreign minister and the Greens are forming ever large parts of govt at each election in both Europe and Australia/NZ, and it only seems like the US that wallows in 20th century politics of ignorance and backwardness. I'm tempted to say people like TAWP and Spee live in virtual caves, but want to move on past this redundant metaphor to something more positive and twenty first century.

Thus, I would say that we could all be living in energy-efficient, low fossil fuel dependent communities, relying on local networks of food production and transport with a much higher standard of life and health in under 20 years time, if only the politicians and business sector could look beyond oil-dependency and WTO-style globalisation dreams and Move On before reality catches up with the present inherent unsustainability of our lifestyles and dominant economic system. A movement catching on fast in UK called Transition Towns provides sound pointers of the ways we should be developing.

Barak Obama provided a ray of hope during his trip to Middle East and Europe that he could reposition the US current self-destructive path.

Thanks for your support Plachon! I was a bit hesitant to even respond to the ridiculous accusations, but I did anyway.

I agree entirely with your position and believe wholeheartedly that there is hope if we can all work towards some common goals (not necessarily meaning socialism) and Move On (both this version and more importantly this version ) as you so correctly stated.

I too feel that Obama could offer some much-needed changes in the current political policies. The Middle East cannot be tamed or controlled with military force... obviously. Intelligent, respectful diplomacy is, in my opinion, the way to move past the past. I hope that Obama is more of a respectable leader than merely another politician. Of course, the likes of Fox News are trying their best to smear both Obama and his wife as can be witnessed on this hateful video. Gee, this seems fair and balanced.

TAWP, I do hope that you can take this as constructive criticism and not see it as a personal attack. I do believe that we all want the same results: a cleaner, healthier place to live with ample opportunity for economic growth and fairness in employment possibilities... right?

Edited July 25, 2008 by Galong