Healthy soil and sustainable growing

[<activism98201@verizon.net>]

The point, or rather question is: what is the question/problem that we're 
trying to address?

Rapidly liberating biomass that is "already in the cycle" isn't any solution 
to the problem of CO2 emissions.  We already know that it isn't an answer to 
our energy needs.  The only question that it's applicable to is: how to make 
the rich even richer?

The agrofuels mania WILL make things worse.  It threatens our ability to grow 
food as it creates large-scale monoculture plantations, which mine our 
topsoils as it wipes out our (CO2 sequestering) forests.

If the question is about energy, then that's an issue that's better left off 
to another group.  But suffice it to say, our ability to grow food shouldn't 
be sacrificed by our _desire_ (read "non need") for fuel to run machines.

The following clearly identifies agrofuels as the big scam that it is, that 
it clearly is NOT an acceptable solution for sustaining life: 
http://www.grain.org/seedling_files/seed-07-07-en.pdf


-Mark Nagel
Everett, WA


=====================
From: Phil Bunch <pbunch@cox.net>

I think the difference is that CO2 in existing biomass is already in the 
cycle and at some point will be released anyway. Most of it reaches 
equilibrium. 

Carbon in fossil fuels is sequestered and currently is not in the cycle. Each 
ton of CO2 from this source is new.

Better to keep this genie in the bottle. The immediate problem is to stop the 
bleeding. We are way past the point of perfect solutions.

-----Original Message-----
From: livingontheland-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org 
[mailto:livingontheland-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of 
activism98201@verizon.net
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 8:09 PM
To: Healthy soil and sustainable growing
Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] Biofuels could increase global warmingwith 
laughing gas

Thanks for the article Dan.

This is exactly what I've been learning.

The most optimistic numbers are that agrofuels* would result in a reduction 
of 13%, but this, aside from the N2O issue, misses the issue of CO2 releases 
from opening up new crop lands.  Much of this land clearing activity isn't 
choked up to the agrofuels business, as the agrofuels business takes over 
existing cleared lands, pushing livestock and other operations into areas 
that need to be cleared.

According to a recent report from GRAIN.org agriculture contributes 14% to 
overall emissions, while activities associated with land clearing amount to 
18%: all of transportation results in a 14% slice.  It should be pretty 
clear, then, that moving toward more large-scale agricultural activities will 
only exacerbate the problem.


* GRAIN.org promotes the term agrofuels over biofuels, as it more clearly 
indicates that this is an agricultural activity (teaming big AG with big 
energy companies [as well as chemical companies]).


“The chief cause of problems is solutions.” - Eric Sevareid


-Mark Nagel
Everett, WA


=====================
From: Dan Conine <dconine@bertramwireless.com>

http://www.physorg.com/news109581631.html

Biofuels could increase global warming with laughing gas, says Nobel 
prize-winning chemist Discussion at PhysOrgForum
Growing and burning many biofuel crops may actually raise, rather than 
lower, greenhouse gas emissions. That’s the conclusion of a new study 
led by Nobel prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen, best known for his work 
on the ozone layer.

[snop]
_______________________________________________
Livingontheland mailing list
Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: 9/20/2007 
12:07 PM
 

_______________________________________________
Livingontheland mailing list
Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland