Forskning og vitenskapen har i mange år (siden 1909) visst med sikkerhet at Karbondioksid (CO2) ikke utgjør en miljøtrussel, ikke er en farlig klimagass og at en økning ikke vil medføre målbare, eller farlige økninger i den globale temperaturen. Det er omfattende dokumentert. Peker på følgende, norske kilder til fakta;
Det er dessuten omfattende, nesten uendelig mye dokumentasjon tilgjengelig (på engelsk) som river bort, ikke bare grunnlaget for teorien, men også troverdigheten til de som har og fortsatt forfekter denne hypotesen, selv IPCC’s troverdighet er revet bort.
Det brukes daglig ca. 1 milliarder US dollar på diverse tiltak rundt om i verden, tiltak som er ment å skulle redusere utslipp av en gass som utgjør under 0,04% av atmosfæren, av den andelen utgjør utslipp fra fossile kilder under 5%
1300 – 2400 barn (0 – 4 år) dør daglig som en direkte følge av at “food to biofuel–politikken” ble innført. En politikk hvor store landareal gikk fra å produsere mat over til å produsere biofuel. På forholdsvis kort tid ble dette innført i en rekke land rundt omkring i verden, med en dobling av matprisene som konsekvens. Dette pågår fortsatt.
Bl.a. Bellona, Natur og Ungdom, Zero og Greenpeace har spilt en rolle i denne svindelen. Det er ikke tvil om at alle disse aktørene i dag vet at vitenskapen ikke har funnet noen bevis for menneskeskapt klimaendring, ei heller noen spor i dataene, globalt, på at menneskelig aktivitet og forbrenning av fossilt brensel har hatt noen innvirkning. Siden de vet dette og har visst dette i lang tid, mest sannsynlig i flere år, samtidig som de fortsatt forfekter en teori det ikke er grunnlag for, må man ha lov til å spørre hva årsaken kan være?
Årsaken er naturligvis penger, mye penger! Kyniske lederfigurer utnytter naive og gjerne genuint bekymrede, idealistisk og interessert ungdom, i første rekke gjennom statstøtteordningene for betalende medlemmer, en stor inntektskilde om man har mange nok medlemmer. Bevisst å holde de samme ungdommene bak lyset hindrer frafall og sikrer videre inntekter. Massive “kampanjer for miljøet” er egentlig ikke annet en massive vervekampanjer hvor media går i flokk som nyttige idioter og sikrer massive dekning (reklame). Andre årsaker er naturligvis at denne “grønne” industriens bruker mye penger på de samme avisene. Betalte annonser og betalte “redaksjonelle omtaler”.
Dette kommer i tillegg til de massive subsidiene denne “grønne” industrien hvert år får i fra fellesskapet til “fornybar” som vindmøller, solceller, biofuels osv. “.. bioenergy—that is, wood, ethanol made from corn or sugar cane, or diesel made from palm oil—is proving an ecological disaster: It encourages deforestation and food-price hikes that cause devastation among the world’s poor, and per unit of energy produced, it creates even more carbon dioxide than coal.”
Konklusjon; Massiv svindel, hvor de ansvarlige bør stilles til ansvar!
OK, can we please stop pretending biofuel made from corn is helping the planet and the environment? The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released two of its Working Group reports at the end of last month (WGI and WGIII), and their short discussion of biofuels has ignited a fierce debate as to whether they’re of any environmental benefit at all.
The IPCC was quite diplomatic in its discussion, saying “Biofuels have direct, fuel‐cycle GHG emissions that are typically 30–90% lower than those for gasoline or diesel fuels. However, since for some biofuels indirect emissions—including from land use change—can lead to greater total emissions than when using petroleum products, policy support needs to be considered on a case by case basis” (IPCC 2014 Chapter 8).
The summary in the new report also states, “Increasing bioenergy crop cultivation poses risks to ecosystems and biodiversity” (WGIII).
The report lists many potential negative risks of development, such as direct conflicts between land for fuels and land for food, other land-use changes, water scarcity, loss of biodiversity and nitrogen pollution through the excessive use of fertilizers (Scientific American).
The International Institute for Sustainable Development was not so diplomatic, and estimates that the CO2 and climate benefits from replacing petroleum fuels with biofuels like ethanol are basically zero (IISD). They claim that it would be almost 100 times more effective, and much less costly, to significantly reduce vehicle emissions through more stringent standards, and to increase CAFE standards on all cars and light trucks to over 40 miles per gallon as was done in Japan just a few years ago.
With more than 60 nations having biofuel mandates, the competition between ethanol and food has become a moral issue. Groups like Oxfam and the Environmental Working Group oppose biofuels because they push up food prices and disproportionately affect the poor.
Most importantly, the new IPCC report is a complete about-face for the UN’s Panel. Its 2007 report was broadly condemned by some environmentalists for giving the green light to large-scale biofuel production, resulting in environmental and food supply problems.
The general discussion on biofuels has changed over the last few years. In December, Senators Feinstein (D-CA) and Coburn (R-OK) introduced a bill that would eliminate the corn ethanol mandate within the Federal Renewable Fuel Standard (Oil&Gas Journal) that requires blending ethanol into gasoline at increasing levels over the next decade. It was met with stiff opposition from heavily agricultural states, but had strong support from the petroleum industry. However, now that the tax credit and import tariffs have expired and ethanol is holding its own economically, it remains to be seen if the industry can stand up to this pressure.
So where is the U.S. today in corn ethanol space?
In 2000, over 90% of the U.S. corn crop went to feed people and livestock, many in undeveloped countries, with less than 5% used to produce ethanol. In 2013, however, 40% went to produce ethanol, 45% was used to feed livestock, and only 15% was used for food and beverage (AgMRC).
The United States will use over 130 billion gallons of gasoline this year, and over 50 billion gallons of diesel. On average, one bushel of corn can be used to produce just under three gallons of ethanol. If all of the present production of corn in the U.S. were converted into ethanol, it would only displace 25% of that 130 billion.
But it would completely disrupt food supplies, livestock feed, and many poor economies in the Western Hemisphere because the U.S. produces 40% of the world’s corn. Seventy percent of all corn imports worldwide come from the U.S. Simply implementing mandatory vehicle fuel efficiencies of 40 mpg would accomplish much more, much faster, with no collateral damage.
In 2014, the U.S. will use almost 5 billion bushels of corn to produce over 13 billion gallons of ethanol fuel. The grain required to fill a 25-gallon gas tank with ethanol can feed one person for a year, so the amount of corn used to make that 13 billion gallons of ethanol will not feed the almost 500 million people it was feeding in 2000. This is the entire population of the Western Hemisphere outside of the United States.
In 2007, the global price of corn doubled as a result of an explosion in ethanol production in the U.S. Because corn is the most common animal feed and has many other uses in the food industry, the price of milk, cheese, eggs, meat, corn-based sweeteners and cereals increased as well. World grain reserves dwindled to less than two months, the lowest level in over 30 years.
Additional unintended effects from the increase in ethanol production include the dramatic rise in land rents, the increase in natural gas and chemicals used for fertilizers, over-pumping of aquifers like the Ogallala that serve many mid-western states, clear-cutting forests to plant fuel crops, and the revival of destructive practices such as edge tillage. Edge tillage is planting right up to the edge of the field thereby removing protective bordering lands and increasing soil erosion, chemical runoff and other problems. It took us 40 years to end edge tillage in this country, and overnight ethanol brought it back with a vengeance.
Most fuel crops, such as sugar cane, have problems similar to corn. Because Brazil relied heavily on imported oil for transportation, but can attain high yields from crops in their tropical climate, the government developed the largest fuel ethanol program in the world in the 1990s based on sugar cane and soybeans.
Unfortunately, Brazil is clear-cutting almost a million acres of tropical forest per year to produce biofuel from these crops, and shipping much of the fuel all the way to Europe. The net effect is about 50% more carbon emitted by using these biofuels than using petroleum fuels (Eric Holt-Giménez, The Politics of Food). These unintended effects are why energy policy and development must proceed holistically, considering all effects on global environments and economies.
So why have we pushed corn ethanol so heavily here in the U.S.? Primarily because it was the only crop that had the existing infrastructure to easily modify for this purpose, especially when initially incentivized with tax credits, subsidies and import tariffs. Production, transportation and fermentation could be adapted quickly by the corn industry, unlike any other crop.
We should remember that humans originally switched from biomass to fossil fuels because biomass was so inefficient, and took so much energy and space to produce. So far technology has not reversed these problems sufficiently to make widespread use beneficial.
What else can we use to produce biofuel?
Two leading strategies involve ethanol production from the degradation of cellulosics, and biodiesel production from algae.
The common alcohol, ethanol, has been harnessed by humans for millennia, made through the microbial conversion of biomass materials, typically sugars, through fermentation. The process starts with a solution of fermentable sugars, fermented to ethanol by microbes, and then the ethanol is separated and purified by distillation.
Fermentation involves microorganisms, typically yeasts, that evolved billions of years ago before Earth’s atmosphere contained oxygen, to use sugars for food and in the process produced ethanol, CO2 and other byproducts:
(sugar) C6H12O6 → 2 CH3CH2OH + 2 CO2 (ethanol + carbon dioxide)
Microorganisms typically use 6-carbon sugars and their precursors, glucose and sucrose. But because sugars and starches are foods, a better alternative for ethanol production should be from non-food cellulosic materials, such as paper, cardboard, wood, and other fibrous plant material. Switchgrass and napier grass have been studied extensively as the best alternatives.
Cellulosics are abundant and much of the supply is considered waste. Cellulosics are comprised of lignin, hemicellulose, and cellulose. Lignin provides structural support for the plant and encloses the cellulose and hemicellulose molecules, making it more difficult to process for fuel.
Thus, efficiently making ethanol out of cellulosics requires a different approach than for corn. They can either be reacted with acid (sulfuric is most common), degraded using enzymes produced from microbes, or heated to a gas and reacted with chemical catalysts (thermo-chemical). Each has its variations, some can be combined, and all are attempting to be commercialized. Still, these processes are stuck at about twice the price per gallon produced compared to corn. Recently, special microorganisms have been genetically engineered to ferment these materials into ethanol with relatively high efficiency.
It’s no wonder we just went with corn!
Another less discussed biofuel strategy is biodiesel replacing petroleum diesel. Biodiesel is made by combining almost any oil or fat with an alcohol such as ethanol or methanol.
Biodiesel can be run in any diesel engine without modification and produces less toxic emissions and particulates than petroleum diesel. It causes less wear and tear on engines, and increases lubricity and engine efficiency, and releases about 60% less CO2 emissions than petroleum diesel.
Rudolf Diesel originally developed the diesel engine to run on diesel from food oils such as peanut and soybean, but animal fats and any other natural oil can be used. However, almost a hundred years ago, the need for fuel outstripped the supply of natural oils and petroleum become the only abundant source available.
The most common natural oils used are rapeseed and canola oil, but a particularly promising candidate is oil from algae. Algae production uses non-productive land and brine water and produces over 20 times the oil production of any food crop. An acre of algae can produce almost 5,000 gallons of biodiesel. It does not compete with food crops for arable land or potable water and could produce over 60 billion gallons/yr that would replace all petroleum-based diesel in the U.S.
However, all algae production facilities presently sell their crops to the food and cosmetic industry at a much greater profit than they would get from the fuel industry.
I guess for biofuels, as for any other source, there’s just no such thing as a free lunch.
[Note: Thanks to Eric and other commenters for pointing out some errors, especially my failing to mention the tax credits and tariffs have expired]
“Biofuels have long been hailed as a clean, green, renewable alternative to fossil fuels, tailor made for the transport sector. Although the USA has promoted biofuels since the 1970s, things really took off in the new millennium when US policy mandated adding biofuels to conventional fuels. Montford notes “By 2012… some estimates suggest that 40 percent of the US corn crop was being used for ethanol production.”
Diverting crops away from the food market inevitably drove up food prices; both the World Trade Organisation and the US Development Agency have linked high food prices to biofuel mandates. “One study has estimated that biofuels could be causing as many as 192,000 excess deaths per year”, Montford says. The UN’s special rapporteur on the right to food called biofuels a “crime against humanity”.
From 2011: America must stop promoting the production of biofuels if there is to be any real progress in addressing spiking global food prices and famine, such as seen in the Horn of Africa, an authoritative thinktank has warned.
A new report, the Global Hunger Index, warned that US government support for corn ethanol was a major factor behind this year’s food price spikes – and was projected to fuel further volatility in food prices over the next decade.
Although the report noted some improvements over the past 20 years, 26 countries, mainly in sub-Saharan Africa, are still at extreme risk of hungerincluding Burundi, Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Eritrea.
The hunger situation worsened most dramatically in the DRC with a 63% increase in hunger and undernourishment since 1990, the report warned. Burundi’s hunger index rose by 21% and North Korea’s by 18%. Read more ..
Hold deg oppdatert på saken Michael Mann (Mr. Hockey Stick) vs Mark Steyn;