[Sosfbay-discuss] FWD: talking points on climate change

[JamBoi]

From: alsmith at hvgreens.org 
To: usgp-media at gp-us.org
Subject: [usgp-media] talking points on climate change
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 01:47:36 -0500 (EST)

(This) comes from Robert Wicke.  There is a lot of interest in the
topics of climate change and ethanol in our state party of late.

Sincerely,
Aimee Smith
GPMI



* The IPCC (Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change) will shortly be
bringing out a new report, which will put the effect of human
activities
on the production of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the greater than 90%
range. The Bush administration has up to very recently chosen to ignore
this relationship and and refused to even endorse the Kyoto treaty,
increasingly viewed by many climate scientists and others involved with
the issue, as markedly insufficient for actually counteracting climate
change.

*Atmospheric CO2 concentration is currently at about 380 parts per
million.  It is expected to reach 450 parts per million or even 550
later this century. Either figure would be disastrous.  At this
juncture, the United States, with a population of less than 5% of the
world total, contributes at least one quarter of the CO2 in the
atmosphere.

*This is a result of many factors, but they certainly include suburban
sprawl and the prodigious use of autos burning gasoline and the use of
semi-trailers, which burn diesel fuel, to move goods to market, . It
doesn't stop there, however, since about all of our activities,
including agriculture, construction, etc. are heavily oil-intensive, as
they originated in a cheap-oil framework.

*In addition to climate change, we are either at or nearing the stage
of
peak oil, when production has or will reach its maximum and from that
point on production will go down.  Recent advances in recovery have
only
accentuated this, due to the fact that we are draining fields faster
and
more completely; so that the decreasing side of the production curve
may
prove to be steeper than formerly thought.

* There are important ways that these twin emergencies should be
indicating similar courses of action, involving both conservation and
increased usage of renewables for the remainder of our energy use.

* During the eighties and nineties, funding for research into renewable
energy technologies was lower than necessary for timely development
that
would also possibly answer many of the as yet unanswered questions and
unsolved problems. A few of these technologies, such as plug-in hybrid
autos, may become an important part of the mix, anyway.  However, any
alternate technology must eventually meet the test of inputs and
outputs, which in energy research involves the formula, EROEI, energy
returned on energy invested.  It is especially important in applying
this formula to take into consideration the entire range of energy
invested

* Application of this formula reveals that one of the technologies
receiving the most attention, including prominent mention of it in the
annual state of the union address, namely, biofuels, is one that does
not really meet that test, has untenable ethical problems, and may
decrease over-all sustainability, especially if simply inserted into
the
oil-intensive large-scale system as we now have it.

* An article written by Brian Tokar, found in the online edition of
Counterpunch at <http://www.counterpunch.org/tokar11012006.html > is
based on two of the larger studies done on biofuels, at the University
of Minnesota and the University of Connecticut.  The first notes a
modest net energy gain, but also that the entire corn and soybean crop
would only displace "5.3% of current fuel needs."  (That's if one's
calculation takes into account the energy required of production of the
biofuels. And, why wouldn't that be taken into account?)

*The other study  found that "in balance, making ethanol from corn
requires 29% more fossil fuels than the net energy produced and
biodiesel from soy results in a net energy loss of 27%."

*However, Energy Bulletin, at
<http://www.energybulletin.net/24169.html>
has published an article by Sharon Astyk, entitled "Ethics of
Biofuels,"
that is wonderfully multi-factored, considering such factors as
industrial agriculture vs. small-scale, and vs. organic, meat-eating
vs.
vegetarianism, the needs for citizens in poorer nations vs. those in
richer ones, etc.  It's truly remarkable how different that analysis is
from the one found in the President's speech. The latter assumes so
many
givens and examines so few factors, and is so political in the worst
sense, by focussing on one aspect of the coming emergencies crossed
with
satisfying industrial agriculture's drive for more profits.

___________________

JamBoi
Jammy The Sacred Cow Slayer

"Live humbly, laugh often and love unconditionally" (anon)
http://dailyJam.blogspot.com


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com