The Ineos scheme will provide an incentive to keep municipal waste tips
open, with all their attendant local problems, and for us to keep
generating waste, rather than moving to zero waste, as we have to move
to zero carbon.
I think all this emphasis on liquid fuels is wrong - it is ultimately
there to save the oil industry. We should be moving to electric
vehicles, as advocated by zero carbon Britain report from Centre for
Alternative Technology <www.zerocarbonbritain.com>
Chris
Jonathan Ward wrote:
> I have seen two reports recently on alternatives to conventional
> biofuels, the first in today's guardian on algae oil, and one about
> Ineos who derive gases from municipal waste and produce ethanol from
> feeding bacteria the gases. At the moment though, at least in th e UK
> cars would need to blend this with some fossil fuels to run properly,
> limiting some of its impact to reduce GHGs.
>
> I am a little uneasy about how schemes are presented as carbon neutral
> in the media. for one thing, leaving the carbon unburnt would be
> preferable, but also how they account for this carbon neutrality.
>
> CHRIS KEENE wrote:
> > I think we need to research geo-engineering solutions, but we need to
> > be very careful, because they could make things even worse (as palm
> > oil has done - the emissions of carbon dioxide and methane from
> > clearing forests to grow it may well push us over the edge into
> > climate chaos).
> >
> > One thing that concerns me is that any 'solution' will only happen if
> > it makes money for multinational corporations, and they won't care
> > about any possible side effects, so will try to minimise them.
> > Chris
> >
> > Oliver Tickell wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> My own view (and that argued in Kyoto2 (the book)) is as follows:
> >>
> >> 1. The dangers of a runaway greenhouse effect taking hold are such
> >> that we
> >> need to be ready to deploy geo-engineering solutions in that event.
> >> 2. This means doing serious research on the subject now.
> >> 3. We need to look for several things in the solutions chosen:
> >> immediacy of
> >> impact; rapid reversibility; low wider environmental impact (and if
> >> possible
> >> beneficial collaterals); and low cost.
> >>
> >> I don't think we should confuse biochar projects with geo-engineering.
> >> Biochar production is something rather long term which does of course
> >> sequester carbon but whose main benefit is probably in the form of soil
> >> improvement, enhancing fertility and water retention qualities. What
> >> it will
> >> not do is to turn around a runaway greenhouse phenomenon, though in
> >> the long
> >> term it is part of the solution set that we need to deploy.
> >>
> >> For geo-engineering options, most can be dismissed as costly, hard to
> >> reverse or plain crazy. But one that appeals to me is the idea
> >> developed by
> >> John Latham of using wind-powered ocean yachts to create and disperse
> >> saline
> >> micro-droplets to act as cloud condensation nuclei and so make marine
> >> clouds
> >> brighter and more reflective. This approach scores high on all the
> >> criteria
> >> listed above.
> >> More on all this in Kyoto2 pp.196-197 (biochar) and pp.198-205
> >> (geo-engineering). Oliver.
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
> >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of CHRIS KEENE
> >> Sent: 31 July 2008 22:36
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: [Fwd: Edinburgh- Lecturer in Social policy for biochar and
> soil
> >> carbon storage]
> >>
> >> I would be interested in knowing what people think of
> >> geo-engineering? Is it to become the new biofuels?
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Find out how to make Messenger your very own TV! Try it Now!
> <http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/101719648/direct/01/>
|