[Greenbuilding] Geroge Monbiot: A Lethal Solution / The Guardian

Tim Vireo Keating t.keating at rainforestrelief.org
Sun Apr 8 10:35:04 CDT 2007 

Many of us have been chanting this mantra for years, but it's like 
whispering in the gale. Seems everyone wants their techno-fixes. 
Heck, I can't even get my girlfriend to call me before she buys a 
piece of furniture. Her sister, who chronically leaves the lights on 
in every room she's *ever* in, wants to check with her alternative 
health care provider before she allows the installation of compact 
flourescents. Meanwhile, they each have their matching SUVs, one of 
which is driven to Manhattan from Westchester every day, even though 
the train goes there twice an hour. And this is someone who professes 
to be 'green'. We are way beyond over-the-edge and yet, people can't 
seem to see how good it can be to embrace integrity, to give a little 
extra time to the future, to say no to the most convenient for the 
sake of the Others. The sadness and frustration I feel around this is 
epic. I just can't understand how people can have eyes and ears and 
noses, yet can't seem to see, hear and smell the horrors we've 
wrought.

tim keating

At 12:30 PM -0400 4/4/07, Divvyaan wrote:
>its time the western world realises these technologies are not there to
>protect their lifestyle. less than 400 million people's consumption pattern
>will bring the whole east, west, north south 7 billion people to disaster.
>Why doesn't ANY policy in UK, US, Europe ever talk about changing the way we
>live, work and eat? create less garbage, work closer to home and encourage
>walking/cycling.
>
>this is again one those emails to like-minded people.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Racheli Gai" <racheli at sonoracohousing.com>
>To: "Greenbuilding Building" <GREENBUILDING at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 12:20 PM
>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
>companies that the average carbon emission from new cars in 2012 would
>be 120 grams per kilometre. After heavy lobbying by Angela Merkel on
>behalf of her car manufacturers, it caved in and raised the limit to
>130 grams. It announced that it would make up the shortfall by
>increasing the contribution from biofuel(14).
>
>The British government says it "will require transport fuel suppliers
>to report on the carbon saving and sustainability of the biofuels they
>supply."(15) But it will not require them to do anything. It can't: its
>consultants have already shown that if it tries to impose wider
>environmental standards on biofuels, it will fall foul of world trade
>rules(16). And even "sustainable" biofuels merely occupy the space that
>other crops now fill, displacing them into new habitats. It promises
>that one day there will be a "second generation" of biofuels, made from
>straw or grass or wood. But there are still major technical
>obstacles(17). By the time the new fuels are ready, the damage will
>have been done.
>
>We need a moratorium on all targets and incentives for biofuels, until
>a second generation of fuels can be produced for less than it costs to
>make fuel from palm oil or sugarcane. Even then, the targets should be
>set low and increased only cautiously. I suggest a five-year freeze.
>
>This would require a huge campaign, tougher than the one which helped
>to win a five-year freeze on growing genetically modified crops in the
>UK. That was important - GM crops give big companies unprecedented
>control over the foodchain. But most of their effects are indirect,
>while the devastation caused by biofuel is immediate and already
>visible.
>
>This is why it will be harder to stop: encouraged by government policy,
>vast investments are now being made by farmers and chemical companies.
>Stopping them requires one heck of a battle. But it has to be fought.
>
>You can join the campaign at www.biofuelwatch.org.uk.
>
>www.monbiot.com
>
>References:
>
>1. HM Treasury, March 2007. Budget 2007, Chapter 7.
>
>2. Department for Transport, 21st December 2005. Renewable Transport
>Fuel Obligation (RTFO) feasibility report. Executive Summary.
>
>http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/environment/rtfo/secrtfoprogdocs/
>renewabletransportfuelobliga3849?page=1
>
>3. George W. Bush. 23rd January 2007. State of the Union Address.
>http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070123-2.html
>
>4. The US Energy Information Administration gives US gasoline
>consumption for October 2006 (the latest available date) at 287,857,000
>barrels. If this month is typical, annual consumption amounts to 3.45
>billion barrels, or 145 billion gallons.
>http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc_nus_mbbl_m.htm
>
>In the state of the union address, Bush proposed a mandatory annual
>target of 35 billion gallons.
>
>5. George Monbiot, 23rd November 2004. Feeding Cars, Not People. The
>Guardian.
>http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11/23/feeding-cars-not-people/
>
>6. Nils Blythe, 23rd March 2007. Biofuel demand makes food expensive.
>BBC Online. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/business/6481029.stm7. Eoin
>Callan and Kevin Morrison, 5th March 2007. Food prices to rise as
>biofuel demand keeps grains costly. Financial Times.8. Keith Collins,
>chief economist, US Department of Agriculture. Quoted by Eoin Callan
>and Kevin Morrison, 5th March 2007, ibid.
>
>9. Food and Agriculture Organisation, December 2006. Food Outlook 2.
>http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/j8126e/j8126e01a.htm
>
>10. UNEP and UNESCO, February 2007. The Last Stand of the Orangutan.
>State of Emergency: Illegal Logging, Fire and Palm Oil in Indonesia's
>National Parks.
>http://www.unep-wcmc.org/resources/PDFs/LastStand/
>full_orangutanreport.pdf
>
>11. Wetlands International, 8th December 2006. Bio-fuel less
>sustainable than realised
>http://www.wetlands.org/news.aspx?ID=804eddfb-4492-4749-85a9
>-5db67c2f1bb812. http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/resources.php#2007Jan31
>
>
>13. David Miliband, 14th July 2006. Malaysian Diary.
>
>http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/blogs/ministerial_blog/archive/
>2006/07/14/1497.aspx
>
>14. Commission Of The European Communities, 7th February 2007. Results
>of the review of the Community Strategy to reduce CO2 emissions from
>passenger cars and light-commercial vehicles. COM 19 final.
>http://ec.europa.eu/environment/co2/pdf/com_2007_19_en.pdf15. HM
>Treasury, ibid.
>
>16. E4Tech, ECCM and Imperial College, London, June 2005. Feasibility
>Study on Certification for a Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation. Final
>Report.
>
>17. Robert F. Service, et al, 16th March 2007. Cellulosic Ethanol:
>Biofuel Researchers
>
>Prepare to Reap a New Harvest. Science 315, 1488. DOI:
>10.1126/science.315.5818.1488
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Greenbuilding email list
>List info:
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.org
>List email: Greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org
>Managed by BuildingGreen, Inc. http://www.buildinggreen.com
>       publisher of Environmental Building News and GreenSpec(r)
>Hosted and archived by REPP / CREST http://www.crest.org
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Greenbuilding email list
>List info: 
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.org
>List email: Greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org
>Managed by BuildingGreen, Inc. http://www.buildinggreen.com
>       publisher of Environmental Building News and GreenSpec(r)
>Hosted and archived by REPP / CREST http://www.crest.org


-- 


"The Earth and myself are of one mind. The measure of the land and the
measure of our bodies are the same..."
     	                               - Hinmaton Yalatkit, Nez Perce chief
____________________________________________

R   A   I   N   F   O   R   E   S   T        R   E   L   I   E   F

Sparing  the  World's  Rainforests  from  Consumption

Rainforest Relief works to protect the world's remaining tropical
and temperate rainforests by reducing the demand for the products
and materials of rainforest destruction such as timber and paper,
industrial agricultural products such as bananas, beef, coffee,
chocolate and cut flowers, and mining products
such as oil, gold and aluminum.

New York, NY: phone: (917) 543-4064
Portland, OR: (503) 236-3031
http://www.rainforestrelief.org
info at rainforestrelief.org

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

More information about the Greenbuilding mailing list