Biofuels Could Be Worse for the Environment Than Gasoline

[Wendigo]

God Emperor Baldur

Yes. Biofules made by corn. Corn Ethanol was a failed idea while there are better sources such as grass and algae.

Or methane, a waste gas produced naturally by decaying garbage and dung, which is itself a climate-altering greenhouse gas more powerful than CO2, but burns cleanly.

The whole reason so much interest was focused on corn was that corn is one of our most widely-planted crops - being a heavily subsidized feed grain. Yeah, using corn to produce ethanol is not a great plan going forward. (Ethanol itself has been a part of our plan for the future of energy since tetra-ethyl lead was abandoned as a gasoline additive decades ago.)

But, y'know, it's a subset of "biofuels," not the whole category of fuels.

[azulmagia]

God Emperor Baldur

The problem is that society is dependent on mobility. Without that said mobility, we could very well be much worse off than the effects of global warming could do. Our food is delivered by automobiles so the solution would be to reduce their emissions to inflict minimal damage. I already stated that corn is not viable for fuel. Not the stock, not the cob or the kernels are viable. Other plants such as algae and even lawn grass which is abundant produces CO2 at 20% of the rate that petroleum produces.

When you say that society is dependent on mobility, you have to be wary about hypostatizing your concepts, namely don't conflate how the present way society operates with some mental abstraction of society in general.

I agree we have to reduce their emissions in order to inflict minimal damage, but what that "miminal damage" is this context, must translate to not making the problem worse by one iota. In other words, nature dictates what we must do, and if the structure of our society, its transportation requirements for food and and so forth, are in conflict with how much we must reduce greenhouse gasses, then those societal requirements must be considered to be expendable. Or we as a species become the expendable ones.

To be honest, I do not think the problem can be shoehorned at all into the framework of capitalistic civilization of today, in the similar way that the culture of Easter Island was maladaptive. Whether we are talking the political system, the economic one or what have you. If it were, we'd be doing something substantive right now instead of talking about it. I don't the said non-action is due to a contingent lobby or industry trying to block action in its own self-interest, that's happening but is a pretty superficial phenomenon; the root cause is certainly something deeply imbedded in the kind of civilization Western man has been building since the Renaissance, and in its mode of rationality.

[God Emperor Baldur]

azulmagia

God Emperor Baldur

The problem is that society is dependent on mobility. Without that said mobility, we could very well be much worse off than the effects of global warming could do. Our food is delivered by automobiles so the solution would be to reduce their emissions to inflict minimal damage. I already stated that corn is not viable for fuel. Not the stock, not the cob or the kernels are viable. Other plants such as algae and even lawn grass which is abundant produces CO2 at 20% of the rate that petroleum produces.

When you say that society is dependent on mobility, you have to be wary about hypostatizing your concepts, namely don't conflate how the present way society operates with some mental abstraction of society in general.

I agree we have to reduce their emissions in order to inflict minimal damage, but what that "miminal damage" is this context, must translate to not making the problem worse by one iota. In other words, nature dictates what we must do, and if the structure of our society, its transportation requirements for food and and so forth, are in conflict with how much we must reduce greenhouse gasses, then those societal requirements must be considered to be expendable. Or we as a species become the expendable ones.

To be honest, I do not think the problem can be shoehorned at all into the framework of capitalistic civilization of today, in the similar way that the culture of Easter Island was maladaptive. Whether we are talking the political system, the economic one or what have you. If it were, we'd be doing something substantive right now instead of talking about it. I don't the said non-action is due to a contingent lobby or industry trying to block action in its own self-interest, that's happening but is a pretty superficial phenomenon; the root cause is certainly something deeply imbedded in the kind of civilization Western man has been building since the Renaissance, and in its mode of rationality.

The problem with your idea is that it is impractical as a means. When I say we are so reliant on mobility, it wasn't hyperbole. There are many states that have a population that has long exceeded the land's capability to provide food for. Taking away that type of transportation and we would be looking at over half of the world population dying of starvation. Abandoning all automobiles is an idea that is way too impractical. It is much better to find an alternative fuel so that we can remain the way we are with minimal impact on the environment. We need to invest in alternative power like solar and wind, we need more CO2 scrubbers and ideally one that can work in the atmosphere itself. We also need to set some land for the cultivation of this. The sad thing though is that we should be punished for this, but the irony is that the countries that produce the least will be the ones who get hit the hardest.

[azulmagia]

God Emperor Baldur

azulmagia

God Emperor Baldur

The problem is that society is dependent on mobility. Without that said mobility, we could very well be much worse off than the effects of global warming could do. Our food is delivered by automobiles so the solution would be to reduce their emissions to inflict minimal damage. I already stated that corn is not viable for fuel. Not the stock, not the cob or the kernels are viable. Other plants such as algae and even lawn grass which is abundant produces CO2 at 20% of the rate that petroleum produces.

When you say that society is dependent on mobility, you have to be wary about hypostatizing your concepts, namely don't conflate how the present way society operates with some mental abstraction of society in general.

I agree we have to reduce their emissions in order to inflict minimal damage, but what that "miminal damage" is this context, must translate to not making the problem worse by one iota. In other words, nature dictates what we must do, and if the structure of our society, its transportation requirements for food and and so forth, are in conflict with how much we must reduce greenhouse gasses, then those societal requirements must be considered to be expendable. Or we as a species become the expendable ones.

To be honest, I do not think the problem can be shoehorned at all into the framework of capitalistic civilization of today, in the similar way that the culture of Easter Island was maladaptive. Whether we are talking the political system, the economic one or what have you. If it were, we'd be doing something substantive right now instead of talking about it. I don't the said non-action is due to a contingent lobby or industry trying to block action in its own self-interest, that's happening but is a pretty superficial phenomenon; the root cause is certainly something deeply imbedded in the kind of civilization Western man has been building since the Renaissance, and in its mode of rationality.

The problem with your idea is that it is impractical as a means. When I say we are so reliant on mobility, it wasn't hyperbole. There are many states that have a population that has long exceeded the land's capability to provide food for. Taking away that type of transportation and we would be looking at over half of the world population dying of starvation. Abandoning all automobiles is an idea that is way too impractical. It is much better to find an alternative fuel so that we can remain the way we are with minimal impact on the environment. We need to invest in alternative power like solar and wind, we need more CO2 scrubbers and ideally one that can work in the atmosphere itself. We also need to set some land for the cultivation of this. The sad thing though is that we should be punished for this, but the irony is that the countries that produce the least will be the ones who get hit the hardest.

Well, I agree except I must state again that nature determines how much CO2 we must prevent being emitted, and that figure may not allow us to preserve the kind of mobility we're used to. That means unfortunately we cannot safely assume the crisis can be gotten through without these kind of casualities.

And I must reiterate that this is a syndrome of a larger problem in the way modern civilization is organized, runs, and thinks. There's no point, really, in relying on mere technological solutions if this deeper problem is not addressed.

[God Emperor Baldur]

azulmagia

God Emperor Baldur

azulmagia

God Emperor Baldur

The problem is that society is dependent on mobility. Without that said mobility, we could very well be much worse off than the effects of global warming could do. Our food is delivered by automobiles so the solution would be to reduce their emissions to inflict minimal damage. I already stated that corn is not viable for fuel. Not the stock, not the cob or the kernels are viable. Other plants such as algae and even lawn grass which is abundant produces CO2 at 20% of the rate that petroleum produces.

When you say that society is dependent on mobility, you have to be wary about hypostatizing your concepts, namely don't conflate how the present way society operates with some mental abstraction of society in general.

I agree we have to reduce their emissions in order to inflict minimal damage, but what that "miminal damage" is this context, must translate to not making the problem worse by one iota. In other words, nature dictates what we must do, and if the structure of our society, its transportation requirements for food and and so forth, are in conflict with how much we must reduce greenhouse gasses, then those societal requirements must be considered to be expendable. Or we as a species become the expendable ones.

To be honest, I do not think the problem can be shoehorned at all into the framework of capitalistic civilization of today, in the similar way that the culture of Easter Island was maladaptive. Whether we are talking the political system, the economic one or what have you. If it were, we'd be doing something substantive right now instead of talking about it. I don't the said non-action is due to a contingent lobby or industry trying to block action in its own self-interest, that's happening but is a pretty superficial phenomenon; the root cause is certainly something deeply imbedded in the kind of civilization Western man has been building since the Renaissance, and in its mode of rationality.

The problem with your idea is that it is impractical as a means. When I say we are so reliant on mobility, it wasn't hyperbole. There are many states that have a population that has long exceeded the land's capability to provide food for. Taking away that type of transportation and we would be looking at over half of the world population dying of starvation. Abandoning all automobiles is an idea that is way too impractical. It is much better to find an alternative fuel so that we can remain the way we are with minimal impact on the environment. We need to invest in alternative power like solar and wind, we need more CO2 scrubbers and ideally one that can work in the atmosphere itself. We also need to set some land for the cultivation of this. The sad thing though is that we should be punished for this, but the irony is that the countries that produce the least will be the ones who get hit the hardest.

Well, I agree except I must state again that nature determines how much CO2 we must prevent being emitted, and that figure may not allow us to preserve the kind of mobility we're used to. That means unfortunately we cannot safely assume the crisis can be gotten through without these kind of casualities.

And I must reiterate that this is a syndrome of a larger problem in the way modern civilization is organized, runs, and thinks. There's no point, really, in relying on mere technological solutions if this deeper problem is not addressed.

Even if we ignore the clear moral issue of killing off half the world population, it's simply not going to happen. The problem is humanity in general. As the world becomes more middle class, there will be more cars and more power consumption. If this trend cannot be stopped, then its impact has to be lessened. I am all for fewer cars. Many people don't need them. However as a society, they are a must. I do not believe that we should look past technology. A little over 100 years ago, humanity had the same type of problem. It boiled down to food and the population. Something that is really the main factor. The thing about this is that with the advancement of modern medicine in the 19th century, people stopped dying and the world grew drastically in population. This was eventually solved by a scientist who found a way to extract nitrogen from the atmosphere to make ammonia; AKA fertilizer. His research started because Germans found out that they had more mouths to feed than there was food. Already as a society, we have made leaps and bounds in conservation. Vehicles are more efficient, plants are more efficient, we are using more renewable resources, we are on the right track with technology. We just need to find a way to make things just a bit more clean because I'd rather fix it now than later where there will be a big problem.

[azulmagia]

God Emperor Baldur

azulmagia

God Emperor Baldur

azulmagia

God Emperor Baldur

The problem is that society is dependent on mobility. Without that said mobility, we could very well be much worse off than the effects of global warming could do. Our food is delivered by automobiles so the solution would be to reduce their emissions to inflict minimal damage. I already stated that corn is not viable for fuel. Not the stock, not the cob or the kernels are viable. Other plants such as algae and even lawn grass which is abundant produces CO2 at 20% of the rate that petroleum produces.

When you say that society is dependent on mobility, you have to be wary about hypostatizing your concepts, namely don't conflate how the present way society operates with some mental abstraction of society in general.

I agree we have to reduce their emissions in order to inflict minimal damage, but what that "miminal damage" is this context, must translate to not making the problem worse by one iota. In other words, nature dictates what we must do, and if the structure of our society, its transportation requirements for food and and so forth, are in conflict with how much we must reduce greenhouse gasses, then those societal requirements must be considered to be expendable. Or we as a species become the expendable ones.

To be honest, I do not think the problem can be shoehorned at all into the framework of capitalistic civilization of today, in the similar way that the culture of Easter Island was maladaptive. Whether we are talking the political system, the economic one or what have you. If it were, we'd be doing something substantive right now instead of talking about it. I don't the said non-action is due to a contingent lobby or industry trying to block action in its own self-interest, that's happening but is a pretty superficial phenomenon; the root cause is certainly something deeply imbedded in the kind of civilization Western man has been building since the Renaissance, and in its mode of rationality.

The problem with your idea is that it is impractical as a means. When I say we are so reliant on mobility, it wasn't hyperbole. There are many states that have a population that has long exceeded the land's capability to provide food for. Taking away that type of transportation and we would be looking at over half of the world population dying of starvation. Abandoning all automobiles is an idea that is way too impractical. It is much better to find an alternative fuel so that we can remain the way we are with minimal impact on the environment. We need to invest in alternative power like solar and wind, we need more CO2 scrubbers and ideally one that can work in the atmosphere itself. We also need to set some land for the cultivation of this. The sad thing though is that we should be punished for this, but the irony is that the countries that produce the least will be the ones who get hit the hardest.

Well, I agree except I must state again that nature determines how much CO2 we must prevent being emitted, and that figure may not allow us to preserve the kind of mobility we're used to. That means unfortunately we cannot safely assume the crisis can be gotten through without these kind of casualities.

And I must reiterate that this is a syndrome of a larger problem in the way modern civilization is organized, runs, and thinks. There's no point, really, in relying on mere technological solutions if this deeper problem is not addressed.

Even if we ignore the clear moral issue of killing off half the world population, it's simply not going to happen. The problem is humanity in general. As the world becomes more middle class, there will be more cars and more power consumption.

You're definitely not describing a problem with "humanity in general". You're reifying your concepts. It also doesn't fit your conclusions. It leads to John Zerzan's conclusions, not yours.

And the world can't become all "middle class" (whatever THAT is). We'll need two, maybe three Earths to sustain such a situation.

Quote:

If this trend cannot be stopped, then its impact has to be lessened. I am all for fewer cars. Many people don't need them. However as a society, they are a must.

This society, however, is by no means a must. Naturalizing a particular society in this way - i.e. something that is totally the work of human hands and minds - is the TEXTBOOK DEFINITION of ideology.

And I don't know what you mean by "if this trend can't be stopped, then its impact must be lessened." That's a little like fantasizing that if you can't prevent the guillotine blade from falling on your neck, if you just wiggle your head a bit you'll have a couple more seconds of consciousness after it's been sliced off.

Quote:

I do not believe that we should look past technology. A little over 100 years ago, humanity had the same type of problem. It boiled down to food and the population. Something that is really the main factor. The thing about this is that with the advancement of modern medicine in the 19th century, people stopped dying and the world grew drastically in population. This was eventually solved by a scientist who found a way to extract nitrogen from the atmosphere to make ammonia; AKA fertilizer. His research started because Germans found out that they had more mouths to feed than there was food. Already as a society, we have made leaps and bounds in conservation. Vehicles are more efficient, plants are more efficient, we are using more renewable resources, we are on the right track with technology. We just need to find a way to make things just a bit more clean because I'd rather fix it now than later where there will be a big problem.

Yes, they solved the problem technologically....and then pissed it totally away because it then led to yet more massive, uncontrolled world population growth.

All these technological solutions can do is buy time. And yes, things have gotten more efficient, but no matter how many labour-saving technologies come into existence, the working day doesn't shrink because wage-labour is still in effect. Technology, too, is adopted in a socially unconscious manner, as if by a compulsion. Without technological choice, the problem can't be mitigated, much less solved. People are not in the driver's seat, not individually, not collectively. The problem, stated in abstract philosophical terms, is one of alienation, and the other side of the coin is the instrumental rationalism/substantive rationalism dichotomy.

At some point we have to change our ways.

[David2074]

Lord Elwrind

Ratttking

God Emperor Baldur

Yes. Biofules made by corn. Corn Ethanol was a failed idea while there are better sources such as grass and algae.

Corn is a grass...

Rat is correct on this one. An evolved form of very tall grass (so I heard)

And here is another thing about ethanol I bet you all didn't know. If the ethanol sits in a tank at a gas station too long (I heard a news report recently as a matter of fact), it changes or something and you end up with water in your gas tank and etc.
It is yet another reason why this was a failed idea.
Not to mention it takes resources out of the food cycle (cattle feed etc)

I used to buy ethanol free gas for my small appliances (lawn mowers, chain saw etc) because it stores longer without the water problem. A few months back the remaining local gas stations all went to ethanol mixed gas. Now I don't know where to get ethanol free except in quart cans that are too expensive. I guess all start draining tanks in fall and/or get better about using fuel stabilizers. In cars (and most gas stations) not a problem because it gets consumed fairly quickly and has a decent turnover.

@article -
I thought the push for ethanol fuels was as much about not being (as) dependent on imported oil as it was about carbon emissions.

[Wendigo]

David2074

@article -
I thought the push for ethanol fuels was as much about not being (as) dependent on imported oil as it was about carbon emissions.

Mostly about think tanks pushing subsidies for our already-heavily-subsidized feed grains, I'm pretty sure. Cheap, plentiful crops like corn are as cheap and as plentiful as they are for a reason entirely unrelated to how much water, land, fertilizer and labor they take to grow.

[David2074]

Wendigo

David2074

@article -
I thought the push for ethanol fuels was as much about not being (as) dependent on imported oil as it was about carbon emissions.

Mostly about think tanks pushing subsidies for our already-heavily-subsidized feed grains, I'm pretty sure. Cheap, plentiful crops like corn are as cheap and as plentiful as they are for a reason entirely unrelated to how much water, land, fertilizer and labor they take to grow.

Actually the price of corn has gone up a lot since they started pushing its use for ethanol.
In season it was nothing to get 6 for a dollar in the stores and 10-12 for a dollar if you bought it from the road side stands by the fields. Now the stores call it a sale when they give you 2 ears for a dollar. One store recently had four for a dollar and that was the best price me or my friends had seen in years.