[Greenbuilding] IKEA, Home Depot and Illegal Logging

Wed Apr 4 21:46:52 CDT 2007

And another interesting/depressing story in the Post
about illegal logging:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/31/AR2007033101287.html

A tragic reality of the U.S.'s demand for cheap
furniture...

--- arthur landerholm <art.landerholm at verizon.net>
wrote:

> There was an interesting opinion piece in the
> Washington Post recently that
> made many of the same points about ethanol and
> bio-diesel.  The article has
> some interesting figures and is work a look.  
> 
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301
> 625.html
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: greenbuilding-bounces at listserv.repp.org
> [mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On
> Behalf Of Racheli Gai
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 12:21 PM
> To: Greenbuilding Building
> Subject: [Greenbuilding] Geroge Monbiot: A Lethal
> Solution / The Guardian
> 
> To those who are excited about biofules:  read and
> ponder :(
> BTW, some local food prices are already rising as a
> result of this  
> competition,
> as I was told by a guy who sells chickens and eggs
> at the farmers  
> market (he said
> his eggs will cost more as of last Sunday for this
> reason).
> R.
> 
> 
> A Lethal Solution
> Posted March 27, 2007
> 
> 
> We need a five-year freeze on biofuels, before they
> wreck the planet.
> 
> By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 27th
> March 2007.
> 
> It used to be a matter of good intentions gone awry.
> Now it is plain  
> fraud. The governments using biofuel to tackle
> global warming know that  
> it causes more harm than good. But they plough on
> regardless.
> 
> In theory, fuels made from plants can reduce the
> amount of carbon  
> dioxide emitted by cars and trucks. Plants absorb
> carbon as they grow -  
> it is released again when the fuel is burnt. By
> encouraging oil  
> companies to switch from fossil plants to living
> ones, governments on  
> both sides of the Atlantic claim to be
> "decarbonising" our transport  
> networks.
> 
> In the budget last week, Gordon Brown announced that
> he would extend  
> the tax rebate for biofuels until 2010. From next
> year all suppliers in  
> the UK will have to ensure that 2.5% of the fuel
> they sell is made from  
> plants - if not, they must pay a penalty of 15p a
> litre. The obligation  
> rises to 5% in 2010(1). By 2050, the government
> hopes that 33% of our  
> fuel will come from crops(2). Last month George Bush
> announced that he  
> would quintuple the US target for biofuels(3): by
> 2017 they should be  
> supplying 24% of the nation's transport fuel(4).
> 
> So what's wrong with these programmes? Only that
> they are a formula for  
> environmental and humanitarian disaster. In 2004
> this column warned  
> that biofuels would set up a competition for food
> between cars and  
> people. The people would necessarily lose: those who
> can afford to  
> drive are, by definition, richer than those who are
> in danger of  
> starvation. It would also lead to the destruction of
> rainforests and  
> other important habitats(5). I received more abuse
> than I've had for  
> any other column, except when I attacked the 9/11
> conspiracists. I was  
> told my claims were ridiculous, laughable,
> impossible. Well in one  
> respect I was wrong. I thought these effects
> wouldn't materialise for  
> many years. They are happening already.
> 
> Since the beginning of last year, the price of maize
> has doubled(6).  
> The price of wheat has also reached a 10-year high,
> while global  
> stockpiles of both grains have reached 25-year
> lows(7). Already there  
> have been food riots in Mexico and reports that the
> poor are feeling  
> the strain all over the world. The US department of
> agriculture warns  
> that "if we have a drought or a very poor harvest,
> we could see the  
> sort of volatility we saw in the 1970s, and if it
> does not happen this  
> year, we are also forecasting lower stockpiles next
> year."(8) According  
> to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, the
> main reason is the  
> demand for ethanol: the alcohol used for motor fuel,
> which can be made  
> from both maize and wheat(9).
> 
> Farmers will respond to better prices by planting
> more, but it is not  
> clear that they can overtake the booming demand for
> biofuel. Even if  
> they do, they will catch up only by ploughing virgin
> habitat.
> 
> Already we know that biofuel is worse for the planet
> than petroleum.  
> The UN has just published a report suggesting that
> 98% of the natural  
> rainforest in Indonesia will be degraded or gone by
> 2022(10). Just five  
> years ago, the same agencies predicted that this
> wouldn't happen until  
> 2032. But they reckoned without the planting of palm
> oil to turn into  
> biodiesel for the European market. This is now the
> main cause of  
> deforestation there and it is likely soon to become
> responsible for the  
> extinction of the orang utan in the wild. But it
> gets worse. As the  
> forests are burnt, both the trees and the peat they
> sit on are turned  
> into carbon dioxide. A report by the Dutch
> consultancy Delft Hydraulics  
> shows that every tonne of palm oil results in 33
> tonnes of carbon  
> dioxide emissions, or ten times as much as petroleum
> produces(11). I  
> feel I need to say that again. Biodiesel from palm
> oil causes TEN TIMES  
> as much climate change as ordinary diesel.
> 
> There are similar impacts all over the world.
> Sugarcane producers are  
> moving into rare scrubland habitats (the cerrado) in
> Brazil and soya  
> farmers are ripping up the Amazon rainforests. As
> President Bush has  
> just signed a biofuel agreement with President Lula,
> it's likely to  
> become a lot worse. Indigenous people in South
> America, Asia and Africa  
> are starting to complain about incursions onto their
> land by fuel  
> planters. A petition launched by a group called
> biofuelwatch, begging  
> western governments to stop, has been signed by
> campaigners from 250  
> groups(12).
> 
> The British government is well aware that there's a
> problem. On his  
> blog last year the environment secretary David
> Miliband noted that palm  
> oil plantations "are destroying 0.7% of the
> Malaysian rain forest each  
> year, reducing a vital natural resource (and in the
> process, destroying  
> the natural habitat of the orang-utan). It is all
> connected."(13)  
> Unlike government policy.
> 
> The reason governments are so enthusiastic about
> biofuels is that they  
> don't upset drivers. They appear to reduce the
> amount of carbon from  
> our cars, without requiring new taxes. It's an
> illusion sustained by  
> the fact that only the emissions produced at home
> count towards our  
> national total. The forest clearance in Malaysia
> doesn't increase our  
> official impact by a gram.
> 
> In February the European Commission was faced with a
> straight choice  
> between fuel efficiency and biofuels. It had
> intended to tell car  
> 
=== message truncated ===

____________________________________________________________________________________
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. 
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html 