Fri 23 Oct 2009
Copenhagen: a unique opportunity or destined to fail?
Posted by Norway / ronwer224 under Balkers
[28] Comments
A lot has been said about reduction of CO2-emissions the past decades. Little has been done in effect.
There is strong scientific evidence that continued CO2-emissions at current levels -or even increased emissions- might harm global climate.
In my opinion the discussion has been far too narrow-minded.
We are talking about depletion of resources with applications that might be crucial for future technology.
We are talking about introducing large amounts of a biologically active substance into an evolutionary balanced system of co-existing species that took thousands to millions of years to develop.
Apart from climatological concerns, I see many compelling reasons to reduce the use of fossil fuels ASAP!
Already now we can see that carbon-technology has an enormous potential as future building material. Houses, offices, roads, bridges, cars, trains, planes etc etc. can be manufactured from carbon-based technology. Such building materials could easily become several orders of magnitude stronger and lighter than currently used materials. Just think what this could mean for areas with high probability of severe earthquakes!
But if we are to base our future infrastructure on carbon-technology, we better make sure we have sufficiently large reserves of cheap coal.
Our current use of coal is irresponsible and short-sighted.
Another argument is food-production. If we are to limit the detrimental effects of life-stock on our global climate, we better find new ways to produce proteins. Oil and maybe also gas could be used by bacteria or algea to do exactly this job!
Burning such resources is madness!
We often hear the argument that increased CO2-levels are good for argiculture.
Yes, but those increased levels are equally good for virusses, bacteria, algea, insects etc.
We risk giving evolution a vitamine shot that will harm us in the worst possible way. Just think of all the new pandemics that can break out. By raising CO2-levels, you raise biological activity, so you raise the rate of mutations. This is seriously bad news!
Another point is, that climate science is still in its infancy. We just don’t know enough to be 100% sure what the result will be of any given change.
We might need to emit huge amounts of CO2 or soot in the atmosfere one day in the future to stabilize global climate. If we burn up most of it now, we deprive future generations of access to a resource that might be very hard to replace.
I really do hope that Copenhagen will be a break-through, but I doubt it. Humanity has never shown signs of foresight, unless confronted with an immediate crisis.
I am very happy not to have produced children. I foresee that current stupidity will have serious negative effects for future generations.
Welcome aboard ronwer224 – excellent Balk.
For those not yet in the loop, Copenhagen will host the next UN Climate Change Conference, 7-18 Dec 2009
http://en.cop15.dk
Your approach above to the global warming issue, is one I share and which has been echoed by several B/P’ers. It should be a more holistic matter regarding the elimination of fossil fuels, than a narrow debate about climate effects from their use.
Very simply, the industrial First World – and then the emerging Third World, can and should convert to biofuels / biopower :
– biodiesel from algae and other non-food chain plants
– wind / solar / geothermal / hydroelectric
– later on, the fledgling technology of hydrogen fuel cells
It will allow nations to become energy-independent. No more worrying what happens to the world economy if a few major oil nations shut off supply. No more causing of military conflicts out of that risk.
It keeps those energy dollars in their home nations, boosting those economies and creating jobs from the new energy types + their distribution. It reduces air and water pollution dramatically, even if their is no change had in planetary temperature.
However if the world ever did get too warm, that could indeed be a problem… ;^)
I believe that man has arrived to the point of self destruction with his immense technological
knowledge that he has developed, if he is not capable to use this valuable knowledge for his
constructive use, rather than for the destruction of his fellow man.
Much wasteful energy is being used for building arms of mass destruction to dominate others,
or to maintain superiority over his opponet, or presumed enemies that profess idiologies that
do not conform with his.
All of this waste of valuable resorces could be used to benefit mankind, rather than for its
destruction, if world leaders would realize how important it is to open communications, dialogue,
and simple honest sincere diplomacy to settle our controverses, disputes, and differences, among
nations.
Eliminating the element of fear from one another, a peaceful coexistence can be achieved among
nations, and in this way all of our natural resources can be directed to benefit mankind, new
building materials can be produced to build safer homes, workplace, factories. pubblic buildings, etc. etc.
We can make use of our precious solar energy, which would be essential to lessen our depentence
upon fossil fuel. Certainly this would reduce drastically the CO2 gas levels. Of course I am a layman on
this topic, but I believe with a little common, sense, and the use of simple logic, any one can arrive
to a simple solution that there is too much waste of our precious resorces going on, for the mere use
of profitable gains for those corporations, or wealthy individuals that their only concern is to obtain profits
at any cost, to satisfy their personal egoistic ego, rather than working for the benefit of mankind in general.
We have more “HAVE” than we have “HAVE NOT” on this planet of ours. Mind you; I am not propagandizing
to rob the rich and give to the poor, but in my opinion this gap between the wealthy nations and the poor
ones is getting wider and wider each day.
Many people are dying of hunger, or for lack of medical care, are homeless, while some of
the wealthy nations are benefitting by robbing the poorer countries of their resources, or taking advantage
of their cheap labor to produce their products at a low cost, and then selling them in wealthy countries, making
all the profits, and I believe they call these corporations, “The multinationals” who in one way they help these
poor nations, but their capital gain is more than the help that the give to the people whom they use for their
benefit, and at the same time commercializing that country’s natural resources for their benefit, and leaving
the country poorer than it was before their entering in it. and as a vicious circle they go looking for another
country to move in and play the same game of legalized robbing, at times bribing corrupt government officials
to obtain the unobtainable, because as we all know, money is power, as well as being the international language
that eveyone understands.
Sammy from Sicily
I have seen that carbon building material on a science documentary. It comes out of a mold in the shape of a side panel on a car for example. They tested that thing trying to break it over and over with a sledge hammer. And it never even cracked. And it’s a very lightweight panel so it wouldn’t need as big of a car engine inside it.
Sammy I saw a science show on solar power also. One company is working on shingles that are solar conductive. Another guy has a paint that will generate electricity when the sun hits it.
Beliefs and predicting species failure is highly religious and doomsaying which leads to a self fulfilling prophesy. Instead, the poster ought to fight back against religious insanity and irrationality. When we demand of all world governments science and sanity, there is a greater liklihood our species will be more resilient and cooperative. The enemy is war profiteers, polluters and religionists/theocrats who keep people stupid instead of learning and practicing good science. Peace, Larry Carter Center USA 843-926-1750 Dial An Atheist
As long as people think drinking grape juice and eating crackers is going to give them some post mortem reward, they are no different than the suicide bomber muslims promised 72 virgins to impregnate post mortem. Religions fighting for real estate must be exposed, ridiculed and disarmed. People need to consider life precious, not expendable & we must end the enslavement & brutality of religions based on sex. No baby boy should be mutilated on his penis nor any young girl be circumized for any reason, as violent and stupid as this practice is against millions each month on this planet. Demand proof of all alleged deities, without such proof, no religious power broker should be allowed to harm anyone or make money through such fraud and violence.
If all the delegates to Copenhagen in December put some teeth into their collective voices, countries that do most the polluting can be confronted & pressured to abate carbon emissions.
AmericanAtheistVET
I agree with your post, you have brought some basic truth to some of the main problems
that civilized society is facing today, through a very religious dominance, as most religions
keep their captive audience in a state of trance, by repeating their religious philosophy to
capture the minds of the naive, and the gullible for their financial interests, as well as its religious expansion, and at times through the use of force towards those that are un-believers to their dogmatic teaching, and preaching.
If we really analyze the wealth of various religious confessions, we can ad hoc say: That the
financial wealth of most religions is more than that of any government on this planet. Infact some
religions can simply bankrupt any country on this planet by simply shifting their wealth from
one country to another, so that they can control its economy and its people, to promote their religious indoctrination. as well. And at times I begin to believe that religions have a fixed territory to operate in.
Something like the criminals have, and generally conflicts begin when there are territorial disputes among them, promoting religious wars, and this is what is going on at the present in many parts of this planet.
And I believe this is what is happening in the Muslim world, where the religious influence is
dominant upon its people that their people are not able to think for themselves, without
consulting their religious leaders to obtain their advise, as to what to eat, how to dress, how
to treat their women, and as you have stated: Even on how to mutilate their children through
imposed circumcision for young boys, and female genital cutting, for young girls. In which
many young girls in their adult lives suffer the consequences that effects their sex lives, making
them less sensitive to sex, and not enjoying the full pleasure of it. And I believe that this is a crime
against humanity, as well as breaking the individuals freedom of choice, in this very delicate personal matter.
And then we must not forget the archaic religious laws that are against a persons basic human
rights, as well as legalizing the stoning to death, of individuals, and the funny thing is: That these religious laws are above the civil laws of most Muslim
countries, or who knows if they have any civil laws at all, that protect the freedom of choice of their people as well as the visitors to their country.
Aome other religions practice the forced celebacy, which in many cases may lead to
paedophilia.
Well I do believe that some of these religions and their practices must conform
to the basic human rights that all men are born with, and those religious leaders that base
their religions which breaks the basic human rights of man must be expelled from the civilized
world community. And religions in general should be subjected to respect civil laws. But this
can only be achieved when there will be a complete separation between religion and state world-wide, as well as religions should not meddle into government affairs, as long as governments respect human rights. But if governments do not respect human rights, religions have the obligation to force governments to guarantee, the basic human rights for mankind. But to do this religions must practice what they preach first.
Because a man’s religion is a personal matter, that each is to choose his own personal
religion, and change his religion as he wishes, or like in your case is free not to practice any
religion at all, as you indicate as being an Atheist, and that his your personal choice which
no one can deny it to you in a free society.
Sammy from Sicily
Welcome to B/P AmericanAtheistVET. Republicans will implode trying to fathom the guy who is all 3 of those things… ;^)
Prospects of coming away from Copenhagen with any consensus on actions to combat climate change, is our Balker ronwer224’s point I believe. Action would happen with consensus, but you have about 4 different factions involved;
a) European nations ready for tough new measures, willing to regulate their industries for it
b) A Progressive U.S. president, on board in concept, but limited in his ability to get a pro-corporate U.S. Congress to pass anything achieving carbon emission cutbacks
c) Emerging economic giants like China and India, totally opposed to limits on traditional industrial expansion which the West built wealth upon, and they now follow
d) Third World nations whom are the smallest polluters, but take some of the biggest hits from the environmental changes supposedly caused by global warming.
The recent winters in Ohio aren’t warmer, they’re colder. So I don’t find the climate change debate particularly useful in itself. I don’t much care who is right in that specific argument. I’m interested in a 100% conversion from fossil fuels to biofuels / biopower in any case, for all nations that will benefit from doing so.
Which is most nations. The First World economies which will prosper most in this century, will be those whose innovators develop, harness and export those emerging green-energy technologies.
Sammy; one of the main pulls on NATO countries to support the U.S. in Afghanistan in trying to defeat the Taliban, is exactly the intollerant aspect you brought up. For freedom of religious choices, freedom and equality for women, on and on. It isn’t very hard for people in countries all over the West to see how restrictive that kind of legal system is, compared to open societies based on personal rights.
The taliban use the extreme form of Sharia law which is Hanbali. Which renders basically a religious dictatorship and cancellation of many personal freedoms. Western peoples haven’t had to live like that since the Middle Ages. But back to my point, that would have been the internal business of Afghanistan had the Taliban not been harboring a terror organization striking out at targets all over the free world. And staging the attacks with a motive of disagreeing with that openness and free choice we live under.
Canada has pitched in a lot in Afghanistan and done a lot internally to ferret out the terror cells. Not all Canadians want our troops there, but by my view it comes down to opposing religious extremism that Westerners would never agree to live under or keep getting attacked because of.
Hello! Pat;
My main point is to have religious freedom, but religions should be subject to laws that respect
human rights, and the religious laws should not be binding to people that are non-religious. These
religious laws should not be against a person’s basic human rights, freedom of choice, freedon to dress
as one pleases, freedom of assosiation with the opposite sex, the right to live, no death penalty, no
corporal punishment, and all of the basic priciples that guarantee a person’s existence, as a free human
being.
For this main reason, the international community should establish laws that bind all freedom loving
nations to keep a separation between religion and state.
State laws are the ones that should be legally binding, and not the religious laws that are drummed into
people’s heads, by religious leaders that promote their abusive fanatical laws, upon their captive followers,
which denies through force, and fear their basic human rights in the name of their religion. And at times
conditioning them to even kill in the name of their religion, to promote its expansion upon un-believers, thus
legalizing to kill, another human.
I do not know much about this “Sharia law” but surely this religious law is against all human rights
that man is born with. And I certainly believe this type of law would not have been practiced if there
was a separation between religious laws, and civil laws, in these cases, I believe that Afghani, and
those who live in Muslim dominated countries do not know, the difference, between sharia laws, and
civil laws. Because they never had that choice.
I do not believe in the use of force. But as I understand these Talibans, get their money to sustain their
religious war, from their opium trade, and as I have heard that 90% of the world’s opium production is
in Afghanistan.
So would it not be wise to cut the Talibans main source of income, that supports their
religious wars, by totally destroying their opium crops that grow in Afghanistan, instead of bombing, and
killing, where many innocent lives are being lost each day, and let us do not forget that all lives that
are lost are innocent human lives. Yes even the Talibans are humans, and they are sick human beings
because they do not know what they are doing, because they have not been exposed to, respect the
rights of others, and to practice the basic principles that each one of us is free to choose as he wishes
to live, and establish a free society where force is not the determining factor to impose the law of the
jungle, and I believe that this “sharia” is the law of the jungle, where people have no choice but to follow it.
And then, many countries are benefitting by this religious war by selling arms, legally or illegally to
support this religious war, that will have no ending as long as the opium poppy grows in Afghanistan.
Because this is the poppy of death, in all sense of the word. It kills many innocents troughout this
planet, as well as those in the Afghani war zone. Just think: How many drug addicts die each day, and how
many, criminals, law enforcement officers, die to stop, or promote the flow of opium, that is destroying many,
many people. It is an endless circle.
And a financial income for organized crime, as well as the Talibans, and their religious leaders, and who knows
if there is some type of underhanded accord by organized criminal groups and fanatical religious leaders to keep
this human genocide going, where it has become a goldmine for the arms manufacturers, the criminal elements,
and the religious fanatics, at the expense of the loss of innocent human lives.
Sammy from Sicily
Church of Scientology Convicted in France
By NICOLAS VAUX-MONTAGNY
PARIS (Oct. 27) — A Paris court convicted the Church of Scientology of fraud and fined it more than $900,000 (euro600,000) on Tuesday but stopped short of banning the group as prosecutors had demanded.
The group’s French branch immediately announced it would appeal the verdict.
The court convicted the Church of Scientology’s French office, its library and six of its leaders of organized fraud. Investigators said the group pressured members into paying large sums of money for questionable financial gain and used “commercial harassment” against recruits.
The group was fined $600,000 (euro400,000) and the library euro200,000. Four of the leaders were given suspended sentences of 10 months to two years. The other two were given fines of euro1,000 and euro2,000.
However, the court did not order the Church of Scientology to shut down, ruling that it would be likely to continue its activities anyway “outside any legal framework.”
Prosecutors had urged that the group be dissolved in France and fined $3 million (euro2 million).
The verdict is “an Inquisition of modern times,” said Scientology spokeswoman Agnes Bron, referring to efforts to rout out heretics of the Roman Catholic Church in centuries past.
The head of an association that helps victims of sects, Catherine Picard, called the verdict “intelligent.”
“Scientology can no longer hide behind freedom of conscience,” she said.
The Los Angeles-based Church of Scientology, founded in 1954 by the late science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, has been active for decades in Europe but has struggled to gain status as a religion. It is considered a sect in France and has faced prosecution and difficulties in registering its activities in many countries.
Defense lawyer Patrick Maisonneuve said during the trial that neither the Church of Scientology nor the six leaders on trial had gained financially from the group’s practices.
The original complaint in the case dates back more than a decade, when a young woman said she took out loans and spent the equivalent of euro21,000 on books, courses and “purification packages” after being recruited in 1998. When she sought reimbursement and to leave the group, its leadership refused. She was among three eventual plaintiffs.
Olivier Morice, lawyer for civil parties in the case, said the verdict was “historic” because it was the first time in France that the Church of Scientology has been convicted of organized fraud.
Investigating judge Jean-Christophe Hullin spent years examining the group’s activities, and in his indictment criticized what he called the Scientologists’ “obsession” with financial gain and practices he said were aimed at plunging members into a “state of subjection.”
The Church of Scientology teaches that technology can expand the mind and help solve problems. It claims 10 million members around the world, including celebrity devotees Tom Cruise and John Travolta.
Belgium, Germany and other European countries have been criticized by the U.S. State Department for labeling Scientology as a cult or sect and enacting laws to restrict its operations.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. Don’t repost on Balkingpoints…
I do not like the military occupation either, one bit. I fear though how the Taliban may return to power and let bin Laden get back to open operations there, like he had going before.
Getting at their opium crop and money would definetly be a good approach if possible. I think the NATO effort does that as it can. I also read recently how the Taliban get money donated to them from outside Afghanistan from sympathetic people or groups. People who agree with the idea of Islamic rule and fundamentalism I suppose. That is never going to make any sense to free nations like ours. As we blog, they are reportedly threatening people with death if they particiate in the runoff election coming up there in about a week!
Roy G; the article gets directly at the topic of complete separation of church and state. I think on this continent Scientology is seen as nearly a cult, so it’s no surprise it would be declared one outright in Europe. The U.S. State dept is right to criticize that veiwpoint, yet it’s government declares cults also like it did with the Branch Davidians in the 1990’s
But complete separation is a protection both ways. People can’t be forced to believe, and believers can’t be forced out of the church they choose. Sammy put it well in his post.
U.S. set to pay Taliban members to switch sides
By Ed Hornick
October 29, 2009
(CNN) — There is a well-known saying in Afghanistan: “You can rent an Afghan, but you can’t buy him.”
Some experts on the region believe a U.S. program to pay Taliban fighters to quit the organization is buying temporary loyalty.
President Obama on Wednesday signed a $680 billion defense appropriations bill, which will pay for military operations in the 2010 fiscal year. The bill includes a Taliban reintegration provision under the Commander’s Emergency Response Program, which is now receiving $1.3 billion. CERP funding also is intended for humanitarian relief and reconstruction projects at commanders’ discretion.
The buyout idea, according to the Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is to separate local Taliban from their leaders, replicating a program used to neutralize the insurgency against Americans in Iraq.
“Afghan leaders and our military say that local Taliban fighters are motivated largely by the need for a job or loyalty to the local leader who pays them and not by ideology or religious zeal,” Levin said in a Senate floor speech on September 11. “They believe an effort to attract these fighters to the government’s side could succeed, if they are offered security for themselves and their families, and if there is no penalty for previous activity against us.”
But Nicholas Schmidle, an expert on the Afghanistan-Pakistan region for the non-partisan New America Foundation, said that while the plan has a “reasonable chance for some success,” the old Afghan saying will eventually be borne out.
“So long as the Americans are keenly aware of this, you’re buying a very, very, very temporary allegiance,” he said. “If that’s the foundation for moving forward, it’s a shaky foundation.”
The bill comes as an uptick in violence claimed the lives of several American troops in Afghanistan over the past few months. In the most recent attack on Tuesday, eight soldiers were killed in what officials are calling a well-coordinated attack in southern Afghanistan involving improvised explosive devices and small-arms fire.
CNN Security Analyst Peter Bergen said the idea of offering amnesty to Taliban members is nothing new — but paying them is.
“There’s been an amnesty program for low-level Taliban in place for many years now and thousands of people have taken advantage of it,” he said. “So this is not entirely a new idea. The idea of bribing people, local guys, to come over. … It’s one of the most cost-effective ways to get people to lay down their arms, either to negotiate a peace or coerce them.”
Levin touted the plan, using the ‘Sons of Iraq’ plan to drive home his point.
“Large numbers of young Iraqis, who had been attacking us switched over to our side and became the ‘Sons of Iraq,’” he added. “They were drawn in part by the promise of jobs and amnesty for past attacks, and in part by the recognition that the status quo was creating horrific violence in their own communities. In their own interests and the interests of their nation, they switched sides and became a positive force.”
But Bergen argues the comparisons are not analogous.
“In Iraq, they turned their guns on al Qaeda in Iraq, which was a foreign-led organization that was imposing Taliban-style rule. And that didn’t go down very well with the local Iraqi Sunnis,” he said. But in Afghanistan, “The Taliban is the guy you grew up with. They’re not some foreigners who came in and to be part of the jihad. … The values they [Taliban] have are not far off from what rural Pashtuns have.”
He added that al Qaeda in Iraq made a lot of mistakes – which was instrumental in getting Iraqis to “switch sides and get on the American payroll.”
The top commander in Afghanistan has backed the plan for the Taliban.
“Most of the fighters we see in Afghanistan are Afghans, some with [a] foreign cadre with them,” said Gen. Stanley McChrystal in a July 28 Los Angeles Times interview. Most are not ideologically or even politically motivated, he said in the interview. “Most are operating for pay; some are under a commanders charismatic leadership; some are frustrated with local leaders.”
© 2009 Cable News Network. Don’t do it…
Things never change, because uncle Sam is always there to come to the rescue, he just dishes
out money all over the world, and this time this money is funneled to the Afghani turn-coats, and
as the article clearly states “You can rent him, but you cannot buy him” and I believe that these
are very wise words, because when the money runs out his loyalty will stop.
This meathod has been used all over the world towards a lot of nations, who switch sides very often
depending in which way the money is coming from. Indicating the simple human factor that you
cannot buy people, or impose your way of life through the use of money indefinately, but as a
temporary remedy yes, it will work. And I believe this temporary remedy to go all over the world
buying false friends is breaking the American economy, which has reduced Uncle Sam, to be
the biggest money borrower on this planet, using the concept to borrow to help others. But in
the long run, some do appreciate this man’s enormous generosity, and become obligated to him.
While others, use this scheme to mooch more money, and become addicted to a good way to
make a living, by changing sides, depending in which way the money wind blows, and Uncle Sam
to keep a peaceful harmony keeps on dishing out his taxpayer’s borowed dollars.
We do hope that in the long run, even part of these Afghani will recognize this fact, and will become
our true friends, and will not turn our back upon us, hoping to practice the concept of not “Biting the
the hand that feeds them”, but then there is always the fear that they might eat the hand and all
the rest of us. But this is the gamble that Mr. Obana is taking, hoping to find loyalty across the
money that we spend in Afghanistan.
And I believe that some taxpayers are not happy to have others gamble
with their hard earned money. Because our national debt is rising, and rising each day, supporting
this game of Russian roulette, that is being played in Afghanistan, Iraq, as well as other parts of
this planet.
While the people back at home are being kept barefooted (litterly speaking) or like
saying; That the natives are getting restless, with all of the economic cuts that the American economy
is having back at home to support this canned freedom that we want to impose all over the world. Where
in some places it has been working, as well as it has stimulated people to practice it for their convinience.
While in other places it is being energetically rejected through the use of terrorism,
Sammy from Sicily
@AmericanAtheistVET
Thanks for your comment. I consider myself to be an atheist, and distantiate myself from any form of religion and ideology.
I think there is little religion in my assertions regarding the possibility of a major global crisis.
I have only done the math. I see no possible way to make the human adventure sustainable if we continue on the present path.
Sure, there might be “some” hope, but considering the insanity of most of our leaders, I think chances are marginal that they will decide to do the right thing.
I resent the remark that I “ought to fight back against religious insanity and irrationality”. That is exactly what I am doing.
I dedicate my life to exactly this goal. Even though I don’t work at the highest levels and don’t have much influence, I still do everything I can to participate in the struggle for survival of the species. You can call my contribution futile, while I am only making museum displays focussing on the relation of our mineral resources with our (modern, high-tech) society. I can only hope that young people become aware of our dependance of these resources and will start to act more responsible then past generations.
Welcome back ronwer224 – well balanced reply. (You may have also wondered how your Balk turned to religious freedom, and how to counteract the Taliban… ;^)
I think for many people it’s difficult to get tuned in to the various eco-system perils presented by fossil fuels. But a strong case can still be made to those people on more elementary grounds like pollution, eventual depletion, and the massive transfer of wealth from oil consuming nations
to oil producing nations.
Many are waking up now to those motivations to convert to green energy, plus the geopolitical benefits. We simply shouldn’t be running the world economy on a volatile oil supply. That concept is a fast arriving one IMO.
You can post links to those museum displays if you’d like. I wouldn’t consider any service to society as futile. Our ability to speak up as individuals on the planet, and publicize our knowledge & views, is just dawning with this century. Like Kyoto, Copenhagen is important on the symbolic level – as in, recognition of a problem. Technology evolution got
us into this situation / technology evolution will get us out…
Global Warming debate – even for world’s best environmentalists… ;^)
___
Tribe’s environmental fight
Coal mines and power plant give Navajos income, controversy
Nov. 2, 2009
The Arizona Republic
WINDOW ROCK – A green controversy fueled by coal-fired power plants is raging on America’s largest Indian reservation.
On one side is Joe Shirley Jr., president of the Navajo Nation, who rejects the notion of climate change even though he recently won an international award for environmentalism. On the other are environmentalists opposed to power plants in Indian Country and to the coal mines that provide their fuel. Caught in the middle are tribal members concerned with economic survival and the protection of sacred lands.
The dispute centers on fundamental questions of religion and heritage, as well as tribal finances.
The Navajo Generating Station near Page, which uses coal from mines on Black Mesa, employs hundreds of tribal members and helps finance the tribal government. The Desert Rock Energy Project, proposed in western New Mexico, has been under consideration for years. The $3 billion plant would be fueled by coal from a new mine, bringing more jobs and revenue to the Navajos.
The Environmental Protection Agency wants the Navajo Generating Station to install costly air-scrubbing equipment, an expense the tribe and some Arizona utility companies say could lead to the plant’s closure. Environmental groups, which have targeted the plant for years because of the emissions-related haze that builds up over the Grand Canyon, applaud the scrubbers.
Andy Bessler, Sierra Club regional representative in the Southwest, said coal-fired power plants account for about 30 to 40 percent of carbon emissions worldwide. The Navajo Generating Station, the nation’s third-largest emitter of nitrogen oxides, spews 19.9 million tons of carbon emissions each year and uses 9.1 billion gallons of water – enough to fill Saguaro Lake twice with water left over. The nearby Four Corners Power Plant is the second-largest emitter of nitrogen oxides.
“If we want to take care of global warming, coal power plants are the low-hanging fruit,” Bessler said. “We can’t just continue with business as usual if we want to protect the planet.”
But Shirley, who last week was suspended by the tribal council amid an unrelated Navajo power struggle, challenges the very theory of worldwide climate change.
“There’s no signs that have told me it’s a problem,” he said. “There’s a lot of people running around out there saying, ‘The sky is going to fall down. It’s going to be the end of the world.’ I don’t believe that. I don’t know what global warming is about. . . . Maybe I’m blind, I don’t know. Maybe I don’t have the intelligence. But where are the signs?”
Shirley, whose father-in-law is a medicine man, acknowledged that some Navajo traditionalists recognize climate change as a threat and have joined tribal conservation groups such as Diné CARE in claiming he sold out Native heritage to big business. Those critics, he said, have been sucked in by environmentalist propaganda.
Last month, Shirley criticized the Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Trust and other green organizations for interfering with Navajo sovereignty and caring more about insects or fish than the lives of Native Americans. The rebuke was especially stunning from the leader of a tribe that has for years aligned itself with green groups in political causes.
Six months ago, Shirley accepted the Nuclear-Free Future Award in Norway for collaborating with environmental groups to fight uranium mines near the Grand Canyon. Shirley, a Christian, said he consulted with Navajo traditionalists before deciding that carbon-spewing power plants and open-pit coal mines do not damage the Earth.
But Tony Skrelunas, a Navajo who works as Native American program coordinator for the Grand Canyon Trust, expressed dismay that Shirley spoke of resources without emphasizing stewardship.
“Even sheep herders learn to protect land from overgrazing,” he said, “and to do the right thing so rains will come. . . . The thing that I find shocking is that, as Navajos, we are taught that there are different monsters in creation that try to destroy us. I think one of those that is really rising up is climate change.”
More than 1,500 United Nations climate scientists agree that Earth’s temperature has begun to rise at a potentially disastrous rate, and that carbon emissions are the major cause. Skrelunas noted a study issued this spring by Jayne Belnap, a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey, which says global warming is expected to increase temperatures in the Four Corners area 10 degrees by 2100. Already, Belnap reports, drought has tripled the number of dust storms swirling from the high desert into the Colorado Rockies.
“I grew up on Big Mountain. We raised sheep,” said Skrelunas. “It’s massively different now. . . . Not as green. It doesn’t rain anymore. There are lots of dust storms.”
The Navajo reservation sprawls over portions of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah, with an estimated population over 250,000.
Anna Frazier, coordinator for Diné CARE, said the mines and electric plants have wrecked the land, sucked springs dry and polluted skies. She said Shirley ignores those facts, trading heritage for short-term cash.
“He’s ignoring the fundamental laws of the Navajo people,” Frazier said. “Our traditions tell us we have to protect and preserve all living things.”
Shirley said his priority is to help the Navajo people, who suffer from an unemployment rate over 50 percent, with average annual incomes under $15,000.
Environmentalists have exacerbated the financial woes, he added, forcing the closure of a tribal sawmill and helping to shut down another power plant – the Mohave Generating Station near Laughlin, Nev. – that received coal from Black Mesa.
“They came onto our land,” Shirley said. “They didn’t tell me, ‘Here, Mr. President. Here are other green jobs.’ They just shut us down, put more people into impoverishment. You want me to accept that?
“I’m working on independence, period,” he said. “If it takes green jobs to get us back to standing on our own two feet, I’m for green jobs. If it takes Desert Rock or Navajo Generating Station . . . I’m for Desert Rock and Navajo Generating Station.”
Copyright © 2009, azcentral.com. All rights reserved. Not for repost on Balkingpoints…
Winters in Kansas have been warmer , but I don’t believe that’s an indicator of what direction, anymore the fact the Winters in other States have been colder. The article is similar to my my belief petroleum is too valuable, to consume as a motor vehicle fuel on the scale has been is now consumed. That’s is not to say aren’t applications that fuel from petroleum is a logical fuel. As it is many Americans believe that tapping the meager remaining US petroleum reserves can delay reality, they also hear that the US has coal reserves that will last 400 years, I doubt we will find any support for conservation from them. Not to mention that the Jevons paradox is brought up to argue that increasing conversation is futile, without fully discussing the Jevons paradox, because discussing it may that it may not apply, when other real world factors are considered. No we will need to consume coal for electrical power generation, but we need to change how we use it for that purpose to serve the greater good for the larger number of persons over the longest time period. Coal and natural gas should be used to supplement electrical power generation using solar thermal, wind or other renewable means.
Welcome to B/P kansan, good remarks.
Fossil fuels would play transitional and then supplemental roles, but
America needs an Apollo Project to become energy independent by 2020. The technology is there to accomplish it with bio-fuels / bio-power – which makes win-win-win geopolitically, economically and environmentally.
But the tax credits and other coordination need to come from Washington, and specifically from presidential leadership. It won’t happen IMO simply with haphazard reliance on market forces, as we have done throughout the last century.
Copenhagen police detain 900 in climate change rally
BBC
updated at 21:30 GMT, Saturday, 12 December 2009
Police in the Danish capital Copenhagen say 900 protesters have been detained following a huge climate change rally.
The move came after youths threw bricks and smashed windows as more than 30,000 demonstrators marched to demand action at the UN climate change summit.
Similar marches have been held in cities around the world, calling for decisive action on global warming.
Meanwhile, ministers have started arriving to join other delegates at the UN summit which runs for another week.
Documents prepared by the conference’s leaders call on developed nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions by between 25% and 45% of 1990 levels by 2020.
EU leaders are offering developing countries a three-year deal that would pay them 7.2bn euros (£6.5bn; $10.6bn) to help cope with climate change.
The exact target for limiting temperature rise is unclear amid disputes between various blocs.
‘Restrictive’ policing
Danish police estimate that some 30,000 people joined the march while organisers put the number at 100,000.
They marched 6km (four miles) across the city to the conference centre where negotiators and ministers are meeting.
After violence erupted, large numbers of mainly young people were detained.
TV pictures showed the police putting the demonstrators in seated lines on the street with their hands tied behind their backs. They were later removed on buses.
Henrek Suhr, of Copenhagen police, told the BBC that their intelligence had suggested a small group of people had planned violence.
“We thought… these people would make a lot of trouble in Copenhagen had we not arrested them, and we arrested them because they had done a lot of things before our arrests. They smashed some windows at the foreign ministry,” he said.
He rejected claims by climate protesters that some of those being held had been mistreated and denied access to basic needs.
Simon Sheikh, of the Australian social and political network “Get Up”, said he had witnessed the detentions from his apartment in the centre of the city.
“The police rounded up protesters in a pre-planned manoeuvre,” he told the BBC.
“It was unprovoked. They rounded up a group, including women and children, and pushed them into a store, before splitting them into groups and handcuffing them.”
Activists are arguing for an ambitious, legally binding agreement on emissions cuts to be signed by world leaders at the summit’s conclusion at the end of next week.
“This is the right time to shout out and let leaders know this is serious business for us all. Lets hope they listen,” Lin Che, a 28-year-old student from Taiwan, told Reuters news agency.
A number of famous figures said they would join the protest, among them Bollywood actor Rahul Bose, model and photographer Helena Christensen and former UN human rights commissioner Mary Robinson.
‘Safe climate’
In Australia, where events were held as part of the country’s fifth Walk Against Warming, the largest protest was held in Melbourne.
The march closed with protesters spelling out the message “Safe Climate – Do It!” on the ground.
Organisers said aerial photographs had been taken and would be sent to delegates at the talks in Copenhagen.
In Adelaide, activist James Dannenberg told state radio: “We want [world leaders] to bring home a treaty, we want them to stand by the Pacific and our neighbours there.
“And we want them to deliver and ensure a safe climate future for us all.”
Thousands of demonstrators also gathered in front of Australia’s parliament house in the capital, Canberra.
BBC © MMIX
With the COP15 now concluded, indeed the emerging tilt of assessment is one of wallpapering, spin and effective failure.
As we’ve noted in this Balk, the matter is a hard one to resolve to any sort of global consensus. The factions are distinct, and the risks are still in potential more than realized form.
I have a Times UK critique presented below.
Something that happened yesterday I do like; the negotiators were at impasses and the conference was heading towards total failure. Obama was scheduled to leave and the Chinese delegation was already at the airport. But faced with the prospect of leaving with nothing the U.S., China, India, Brazil and South Africa heads of state directly negotiated a 3-page document that the conference signed off on earlier today.
I think we can all see how that underscores what we need to get to – a legitimate community of nations. The world will never realize the progress it’s people need, with it’s leaders in George Bush mode. You’re not resolving any issue without the commitment to dialog. The face time amongst world leaders, is a form of practice-makes-perfect that in some ways we are only now beginning in this century.
So the more repetitions with these summits, the better IMO
—
From The Sunday Times
December 20, 2009
Barack Obama’s climate deal unravels at last moment
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor
The United Nations climate change conference ended in recrimination yesterday without reaching a clear deal on emissions targets.
After a stormy session in Copenhagen, in which a vociferous anti-American minority brought the talks close to collapse, most countries agreed simply to “take note” of a watered-down agreement brokered by President Barack Obama and supported by Britain.
This accord — which had been drawn up in discussions with China and 30 or so other countries on Friday — sets a target of limiting global warming to a maximum of 2C above pre-industrial times.
Above this temperature, scientists say, the world would start to experience dangerous changes, including floods, droughts and rising seas.
Critics pointed out, however, that the agreement failed to say how this limit on rising temperatures would be achieved. It pushed into the future decisions on core problems such as emissions cuts, and did not specify where a proposed $100 billion (£62 billion) in annual aid for developing nations would come from.
Yvo de Boer, the head of the UN climate change secretariat, called it “basically a letter of intent … the ingredients of an architecture that can respond to the long-term challenge of climate change”.
Jeremy Hobbs, executive director of Oxfam International, dismissed it as “a triumph of spin over substance. It recognises the need to keep warming below 2C but does not commit to do so. It kicks back the big decisions on emissions cuts and fudges the issue of climate cash”.
The deal was denounced when put early yesterday to a plenary session of the conference after Obama and other heads of state had flown home.
Delegates from Sudan, Nicaragua, Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia — who form an anti-American front — led the attack.
A Sudanese delegate, Lumumba Di-Aping, caused uproar when he compared the plan with the Holocaust. It was, he said, “a solution based on the same very values, in our opinion, that piled 6m people into furnaces in Europe”.
“The reference to the Holocaust is … absolutely despicable,” said Anders Turesson, Sweden’s chief negotiator.
Copyright 2009 Times Newspapers Ltd. Not for reposting on Balkingpoints…
Well, I thought the Copenhagen failure was a big success. We saved 100 billion dollars so our printing press back home could take a break for a day or two.
But we did find out that there is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity. If you were actually listening however, that did not stop the politicians from pushing ahead to try to get something done anyway.
Throughout the earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.
CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, 4 out of 10,000 particles of atmosphere, unlike water vapor which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can not even pretend to control.
Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain to observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Just a side note it is pretty darn cold (record breaking) in most of the Northern hemisphere, large section of several continents not a small localized events this Dec-Jan.
IPCC climate-gate has shown how a 60 scientists, have manipulated data, deleted the raw data, save the “tricked” data, attempted to cover up, controlled who would be published to scientific journal, and mocked up computer model to prove “their so call scientific theory.” Don’t worry about these ponzi schemers getting their day in court they have powerful political allies that protect them from that.
“Ponzi schemers” now that sounds a bit harsh. If you have not been listening to what it means if we implement this type of legislation you will be paying through the nose forever to these well connected politicians who have set up businesses to manage these cap and trade dealing. Europe has already doing so and overall effect is a light increase .7 percent in CO2 emissions.
If you would like to still believe there is global warming coming hard and coming fast to a planet that you live upon that is fine. Just understand it is a belief in a dis-proven climate-change theory. No need to discuss the issue any further. It is time to act on your faith.
It was great to see “failure” at this meeting, in my books this means success! For goal warming is a fraud that many are using to get rich!!! I live in Canada, lower portion of Ontario. This area use to be covered by thousands of feet of ice…no more and we (man) were not even here to melt it!!!
Global warming is all about “money” – taking money from wealthy countries to give to poor dictator states so they can line their personal bank accounts.
The UN IPCC is such a sham!!! The recent exposed emails and documents are more proof of the fraud being committed by socialists.
These people (Al Gore and others) should be charged with fraud and sent to jail!!
Welcome to B/P Greg – nice to see another Canadian onboard!
As much difference in opinion as there is between Progressives and Conservatives on economic and social issues, the matter of climate change actually affords a lot of concurrence – or should.
By sidestepping the direct question of scientific proof or disproof, and focusing on the many positives waiting to be had by oil-dependent nations whom break that dependency via conversion to renewables – biodiesel, solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric and eventually hydrogen fuel cells;
– burns clean, reducing air and water pollution, and the industry expenditures to comply with present environmental regulations
– self-sufficiency – no more putting the economy at risk of skyrocketing gasoline pricing, and supply cutoffs from OPEC
– stops the massive transfer of wealth to oil-producing nations, meaning those dollars stay at home for a major boost to the indigenous economy
– stops the need for military involvements connected to protecting the oil supply. Military budgets can be reduced accordingly and used for deficit reduction and/or refunded to taxpayers
– energy efficient homes powered by renewables, ultimately save consumers money. Already has for those who’ve done it
– all of these products and fledgling industries related to green energy, represent the next big engine for economic growth in the nations on the forefront of same
Which is why China, some European nations, and mega-corps like Exxon and Shell, are moving on it already.
Roy -
I agree with your position that we should agree that we should be moving away from our oil dependency.
I’m sure we would disagree on how to implement that solution.
First to I would start drilling into the oil field that know about that are on our boarders that are currently being drill by other countries. Might as well not give away that oil for nothing. This would also lower the oil price world wide.
Bio diesel I would drop completely as it has not been cost effective, has not reduce carbon output, and has raise the price of food in the world and has cause people to starve because of such program. Plus as the government here in the USA has promoted it it has shovel money out the door to large corporations here and aboard. That is why you see the mega corporation have moved this way but they will snap back as soon as there is not outrageous profit to be gained. Bio diesel has been show to ware out engine sooner as well.
Wind power sounds nice but just can not produce the power yet without subsidies. So keep working on this as an experiment until we can make it more affordable.
Solar I think is reaching the point that it will be profitable if use in the correct context. Solar does not generate a huge amount of energy so keeping it local (on the building) does realize an energy savings. Large fields of solar power collectors will lose much of energy in transfer to the point of use. All energy transfers suffer from this.
Geothermal I do not know much about how productive it is. Scotland is using wave power with a number of different designs and is getting some of there energy from that.
Nuclear power is good source of energy that we have taken off the shelf to use but the rest of the world has not. We have some of the best designs for plants as well.
Let’s get more companies producing energy rather than less.
Nr. 26 USA/Vardune
I disagree with you regarding solar power, and many other scientist too.
Solar power is not “reaching the point of profitability”, it has already reached that point.
You really need to do more study! Read the Scientific American of November 2009, page 38-46.
I refer of course to CSP-technology, NOT to photovoltaic.
Geothermal, hydroelectric, wind and wave energy score even better.
And NO, nuclear energy is NOT a good source of energy. The hidden costs are much larger than officially published. You in the USA don’t seem to be able to come up with a viable solution for long-term storage, do you!? What about long-term security. What about proliferation? What about all kind of immature states getting their hands on technologies that eventually might be used against us? How many more Iran’s do we need???
Please, use your common sense. We have plenty technology to generate all the power we need in a sustainable way.
The problem? Vested interests. Greed, egoism, and -I am sorry to say- plain stupidity amongst our political and industrial leaders. They lack both intelligence and ethics.
Let’s hope Mexico will be better than Copenhagen, but I fear for the worst…
Welcome back ronwer224 & Vardune. I like these summits even when they don’t produce, because IMO they are still producing. Cross-border dialog, and more attempts at coordination – we’ll need a lot of it in the global economy of this century.
I would think the emerging viable biopower industries will pull the world into the renewables era, before our governments will ever concur enough to do it through mandates. But for me that doesn’t mean individual nations can just throw up their hands and leave conversion to the whims of the market.
We’ve had that approach in the U.S. for decades, and it always defaults to the bust cycles of oil – which makes it dirt cheap again and snuffs out things like wind, solar and ethanol.
And we have screwed ourselves in the process. Half our disposable wealth is in the hands of a few principals of OPEC, and we’ve left our whole economy hostage to the next runup to $5 gasoline / gallon. And we had to protect the Saudi oil fields from Sadam’s army, and have to keep naval carrier groups at sea in the region. On and on.
You give these promising renewables a nudge with seed-corn grants and
tax credits, which Obama did with part of the U.S. stimulus of ‘09, and proposes now a 2nd round of. It’s a pennies-on-the-dollar investment in a better future.
The below article summarizes the possibilities I’ve been reading about biodiesel (or biofuel), from algae. (I maintain we can all get in the effort with an algae pond at home… ;^)
—
September 15, 2009
Algae Biofuels: From Pond Scum to Jet Fuel
Exxon Mobil and genome expert Craig Venter hope to strike it green with oilgae, but a few obstacles remain on the path to commercialization of biofuel from algae.
by Chris Tachibana, Science Writer
RenewableEnergyWorld.com
Earlier this summer, Exxon Mobil announced that it plans to produce algae-based biofuels in partnership with Synthetic Genomics, a biotechnology company founded by human genome pioneer Dr. J. Craig Venter. Yet even with its US $600 million investment, Exxon representatives have said that large-scale production of algal biofuels is still “5-10 years away.” Indeed, there are many pros and cons to using algae as a biofuel feedstock, as well as hurdles to its commercialization.
“Generally, only a portion of the crude algal oil is suitable for making biodiesel, but all of it can be used to make gasoline and jet fuel.”
–Dr. Yusuf Chisti, Professor of Biochemical Engineering, Massey University
The Algal Advantage
Algae have indisputable advantages as a biofuel feedstock. Of all the green fuel options, “only algae appear to have the potential to provide the huge quantities of renewable oil required for substantially displacing petroleum-based transport fuels,” said Dr. Yusuf Chisti, Professor of Biochemical Engineering at Massey University in New Zealand, whose laboratory researches the cultivation and processing of algae for biofuel production.
Microscopic algae yield up to 100 times more oil per acre than soybeans and other common biodiesel feedstocks, according to Mary Rosenthal, Executive Director of the Algal Biomass Organization. Microalgae can be up to 80% oil by dry weight, although that number is for wild strains that are slow growers, according to Dr. Margaret McCormick of the technology company Targeted Growth. Genetically engineered microalgae, such as those created by Targeted Growth, approach 35%-45% oil by dry weight, but achieve dense cultures in one day. Through genetic manipulation, scientists can also control the oil composition, and generate strains specialized for particular growth conditions, such as high salinity or temperature extremes.
When grown photosynthetically, microalgae are a two-for-one environmental benefit — CO2 mitigation plus a renewable energy source. Microalgae can capture sunlight 20-40 times more efficiently than plants, and unlike corn- or soy-based feedstocks, they do not create a “food or fuel” dilemma. Some can be cultured using seawater. Finally, much of the groundwork for algal biofuels was done by the United States Department of Energy Aquatic Species Program, which developed strains, techniques and pilot programs from 1978-1996.
From Cells to Oil: Many Paths
The versatility of microalgae means it’s hard to predict the most promising avenue for harvest, processing and finally commercialization. While more than 40,000 wild algal species exist, algal biofuel leaders like Solazyme and Sapphire Energy use genetically selected or engineered strains for oil production, according to company representatives.
In addition to growing photosynthetically, with sunlight as an energy source and CO2 as a carbon source, microalgae can be grown heterotrophically, using sugar, glycerol or cellulosic biomass for energy and carbon. Solazyme uses the latter technique, which gives up the solar advantage in exchange for faster growth, a higher culture density for easier harvesting and a process that fits the existing industrial fermentation infrastructure. Solazyme’s heterotrophic cultivation requires growth in a closed tank system, or bioreactor. Other companies like Sapphire Energy and Solix Biofuels grow microalgae photosynthetically, Solix in photobioreactors and Sapphire Energy in ponds on non-arable land.
Once the microalgae are cultivated, biofuel manufacturers are faced with two major technical hurdles: harvesting and dewatering. Microalgae cultures can be 80%-90% water, so cells must be collected by settling, which is time-consuming, although this can be hastened with flocculating agents that cause cells to clump and precipitate. More high-tech methods like centrifugation and filtering are faster, but are more costly in both dollars and energy.
Once harvested, cells may be air- or sun-dried, requiring a large surface area and significant time, or they can be dried using heat or a vacuum, again increasing the cost and reducing energy efficiency.
Finally, extracting the oils is another challenge. Options include extraction with solvents like hexane, enzymatic digestion of cell walls, or physical disruption with ultrasonic sound waves or microwaves.
(Image left, shows Solazyme’s fermentation process. Credit: Solazyme)
The Exxon-Synthetic Genomics partnership genetically engineers strains to continuously secrete oil. Professor Chisti explains that in the future, microalgae might be engineered to “rupture at a certain age and release their oil content.” In either method, the complexities of collecting, drying and breaking open the algal cells would be bypassed since the oil could be harvested by simply skimming the culture.
Powering Trucks and Jets
Oil obtained from microalgae can be used as a straight vegetable oil fuel, but this requires a modified engine. Dr. Eric Jarvis, a scientist at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), said that while the home hobbyist might enjoy modifying engines to use algae biofuel, “no one wants to do it at the commercial level.”
Biodiesel can be used in existing diesel engines and is produced by straightforward and established transesterification technology. This chemical reaction starts with simple triglyceride lipids, which are fats and oils from plants, waste foods or algae. The triacylglycerols are chemically reacted with alcohol, with the help of enzymatic or chemical catalysts. The resulting biodiesel has the characteristics of petroleum diesel and can be used alone or in a blend.
The big pay-off in algae biofuels will be as drop-in replacements for gasoline or jet fuel. Successful test flights have already been run on mixtures of petroleum and algal-based jet fuels. Chisti says, “generally, only a portion of the crude algal oil is suitable for making biodiesel, but all of it can be used to make gasoline and jet fuel.” For this, the fatty acids in the algal oils are refined by hydrogenation and hydrocracking.
NREL’s Jarvis believes the refinery pathway has the most flexibility, in part because the techniques are already established for petroleum. He says that “oil chemists know how to do the cracking and hydrogenation, so they can change the fatty acids into what they need.” Also, refining is necessary “to get the energy-dense targets like jet fuels. You can’t use ethanol on airplanes.” In addition, less refined products have problems with gelling, which Jarvis cautions, “you don’t want happening at 30,000 feet.”
Even with the proven potential of algal biofuels, cost-effectiveness is an issue. Biofuels currently compete with petrochemical fuels, which have economy of scale. A 2007 analysis of the economics of algal biofuels by Chisti suggested that a five-fold reduction in production costs was needed to compete with plant- or petroleum-based diesel. Now, Chisti says, “issues relating to climate change may leave us with no choice but to replace petroleum fuels with renewable, carbon-neutral algal fuels, despite a somewhat higher cost.”
Algal-based Biofuel Manufacturing Yields Valuable Coproducts
Algal biofuel manufacturers have another ace up their sleeves: coproducts. Algae excel at making complex organic compounds like B and C vitamins and beta-carotene that are used as fragrances, flavorings, pigments and supplements. These can sell for hundreds of dollars a kilogram, so harvesting both the coproducts and feedstock oils can potentially offer manufacturers another revenue stream and make cultivating and processing microalgae more economical.
Even after lipid and coproduct extraction, the remaining proteins and carbohydrates in the biomass can be used as animal feed, or fermented by anaerobic bacteria to generate methane. The coproduct strategy lets algae manufacturers achieve economic feasibility. Plus, the Exxon-Synthetic Genomics partnership gives algal biofuels a big publicity boost. Dr. McCormick of Targeted Growth says it’s “great for the industry…this shows that companies are looking to see how they can make algae work for them, and we welcome that investment.”
Chris Tachibana, Ph.D, is a science writer based in Seattle and Copenhagen, Denmark. Visit her website here