|
Post by curiousgeorge on Aug 31, 2011 11:38:39 GMT
Tree huggers beware - The biofuel industry wants your trees! I see a civil war brewing in the Eco Camp. LONDON Aug 30 (Reuters) - Rising global demand for cleaner energy from biomass could drive more land acquisition in poorer nations where food security and land rights are weak, an International Institute for Environment and Development report said on Tuesday.
"If left unchecked, the growing pressure on land access could undermine livelihoods and food security in some of the world's poorest countries," the London-based non-profit research group said, calling for more public scrutiny into global biomass expansion plans.
Biomass energy makes up 77 per cent of world renewable energy, and trees and woody plants account for 87 per cent of that biomass, the report said.
As governments attempt to move away from fossil fuel-based power, they are increasingly looking at biomass, as new technologies now allow it to be converted competitively into liquid fuels and electricity.
In Britain alone, plans to expand biomass energy will push demand for biomass up to as much as 60 million tonnes a year, compared with 1 million tonnes burnt or co-fired in the country's biomass power stations today, according to the IIED.
Local sourcing, such as using wood from forests near power plants, is favoured by countries such as Germany, France and the United States, the report said.
However, with demand for wood set to outstrip supply by up to 600 percent in some countries, and high tree growth rates in tropical countries, it is likely that some developed countries will look at non-traditional suppliers in the South to plug the biomass gap, the IIED added. Continued... af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL5E7JU27320110830?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 1, 2011 0:16:29 GMT
Just a few million green dollars added to the national debt with no return, $535 million. "Solar panel firm Solyndra to cease operations" "The Fremont, Calif., company, which had received a $535-million Energy Department loan guarantee and hosted a tour by President Obama, plans to seek bankruptcy protection. " www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-solar-shutdown-20110901,0,5045155.story
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 1, 2011 3:25:56 GMT
Mr. Green poisons the children. Not to worry they are exempt as its green. "Solar’s lead balloon of pollution in developing countries" "Lead pollution predicted to result from investments in solar power by 2022 is equivalent to one-third of current global lead production. The researchers, who relied on official government plans for deploying solar power to make these projections, also found that the countries have large amounts of lead leak into the environment from mining, smelting, battery manufacturing, and recycling—33 percent in China and 22 percent in India. Also, a large percentage of new solar power systems continues to be reliant on lead batteries for energy storage due to the inadequate power grid in these countries. The study’s release comes on the heels of reports of a large number of mass lead poisoning incidents around lead battery recycling and manufacturing plants in China and the announcement that the country recently closed 583 of these facilities." wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/31/solars-lead-balloon-of-pollution-in-developing-countries/#more-46441
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Sept 1, 2011 14:32:55 GMT
Question to ask of the next environment conscious person you meet: Is that an Apple I-phone, Ipad, or other Apple product? If the answer is 'yes' point them to this report, and inquire into their level of hypocrisy. Chinese environmental groups have accused Apple of turning a blind eye as its suppliers pollute the country, the latest criticism of the technology company's environmental record. Toxic discharges from "suspected Apple suppliers" have been encroaching on local communities and environments, a coalition of environmental organizations said today in a 46-page report alleging efforts to conceal pollution.
Widespread environmental degradation has accompanied China's breakneck economic growth, and the government has been criticized for failing to take steps to curb pollution.
"The large volume of discharge in Apple's supply chain greatly endangers the public's health and safety," said the report, issued on the Web site of the Beijing-based Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs.
The report alleges that 27 suspected Apple suppliers had severe pollution problems, from toxic gases to heavy metal sludge. In one case, the report said, a nearby village experienced a "phenomenal rise in cases of cancer."
Apple has decided to "take advantage of loopholes" in developing countries' environmental management systems to "grab super profits," it said.
Apple does not disclose who its suppliers are. The environmental groups said public documents and five months of research and field investigation led to the findings in the report.
"A large number of IT supplier violation records have already been publicized; however, Apple chooses not to face such information and continues to use these companies as suppliers. This can only be seen as a deliberate refusal of responsibility," the report said.
This is not the first time Apple has been targeted for environmental infractions and its secretive supply chain management in Chinese factories, where it assembles most of its products.
In January, several of the same non-governmental organizations issued a report alleging woeful environmental records for the iPad and iPhone maker's China-based contract manufacturers.
In February, workers at a Taiwanese-owned factory in eastern China making touch screens on contract for Apple aired their grievances over a chemical poisoning after using N-Hexane, a toxic solvent.
Apple says it maintains a rigorous auditing regime and all its suppliers are monitored and investigated regularly.
"Apple is committed to driving the highest standards of social responsibility throughout our supply base," Apple spokeswoman Carolyn Wu told Reuters.
"We require that our suppliers provide safe working conditions, treat workers with dignity and respect, and use environmentally responsible manufacturing processes wherever Apple products are made," she said.
Apple is not alone in drawing criticism from environmental groups. Some of the world's leading brands rely on Chinese suppliers that pollute the country's environment with chemicals banned in Europe and elsewhere.
Many Western multinationals--including toymaker Mattel, which suffered a toxic lead paint scandal in 2007--have struggled to regulate product quality across scores of suppliers in knotted Chinese supply chains.
Environmental degradation has emerged as one of the most potent fault lines in Chinese society.
Beijing has repeatedly promised to clean up its stressed environment. But it often fails to match that rhetoric with the resources and political will to enforce its mandates, as local officials put growth, revenue, and jobs ahead of environmental protection.
Read more: news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20099962-54/apple-criticized-for-china-supply-chain-pollution/#ixzz1Wi9vz489
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 3, 2011 16:09:54 GMT
Continue to spend that which we do not have! Mr. Green diligently at work getting the pork. "Leveraging a Hurricane" "Rahm Emanuel may have decamped to Chicago, but Democrats in Washington still won't let a good crisis go to waste. Their current gambit is to use Hurricane Irene as a pretext to prevent spending cuts to one of Washington's most notorious boondoggles. This week the left-wing press has been attacking House Majority Leader Eric Cantor for holding disaster relief funding "hostage." A more accurate way to put this is that Senate Democrats won't approve new funding for disasters unless they get the funding they want for corporations that make electric cars." online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904583204576542770484363328.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Sept 3, 2011 18:35:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Sept 3, 2011 19:49:40 GMT
Renewable energy will never be more than a niche player. Even the most optimistic projections don't expect more than 30% or so in the next few hundred years will come from renewable sources. Even being generous and saying that, with some miracle, 80% will come from renewable sources, that means a 20% decline in living standards from today forward, and/or a corresponding decline in the using population. Good luck trying to convince 7-9 billion people to accept that. The reality is that the strongest countries/cultures will do whatever it takes to ensure their population and society has access to as much fossil fuel as possible and the rest of the planet can go without. Tough cookies. Survival of the fittest. Same as it's been for the last 100,000 years. And all the bleeding heart liberals won't have a damn thing to say about it, other than whining about how cruel reality is. Yep, it sure is.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 6, 2011 1:56:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 6, 2011 2:01:25 GMT
This is the most corrupt administration in the history of the U.S.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Sept 6, 2011 12:45:16 GMT
This is the most corrupt administration in the history of the U.S. And the lovely MS Waters (we know her, right?) want's another $1Trillion or more pumped into a "Jobs Stimulus". politics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474980170904
If at first you don't succeed try, try again. If you fail miserably, try even more. Maxine Waters, CA Representative (Democrat), thinks just like any hard-core liberal. She wants $1 trillion (or more) in new stimulus. She claims it will create jobs.
President Obama told the nation that stimulus for "shovel ready" jobs would keep unemployment under 8 percent. At that time unemployment stood at 7.9 percent. Stimulus passed in February 2009. Unemployment then rose to 10 percent.
Representative Waters doesn't care. As job growth is still stagnant and unemployment is still high, she returns to the standard liberal playbook. Only the government can create success. Only the government creates jobs. When in doubt spend. When in doubt tax.
Stimulus failed. In fact, because of its part in over spending, it made the jobs situation worse. Maxine Waters wants more.
It's not a surprise. That's how liberalism works. Liberals say the roof is leaking. The people need to slam it with axes. They send the crews to the roof. The crews swing axes. It rains. The roof leaks. Liberals shout and shriek. "A ha! See, the roof does leak. We didn't have enough axes. Get more people up there with axes!"
Liberal policies based on liberal ideals keep failing. But liberals like Maxine Waters can't fathom that axes don't fix roof leaks, or that spending and taxing doesn't create jobs.
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Sept 7, 2011 14:48:50 GMT
Read closer. That's 26% of capacity. Since wind has a capacity factor of perhaps 20-40%, the actual percentage of wind power would be much less than 26%. It seems quite viable. Note that your link says they've been doing it without affecting rates. That sounds pretty impressive. Of course, the taxpayer probably has been subsidizing the effort to a degree, but then taxpayers subsidize fossil fuel generated power too.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 7, 2011 17:04:27 GMT
Read closer. That's 26% of capacity. Since wind has a capacity factor of perhaps 20-40%, the actual percentage of wind power would be much less than 26%. It seems quite viable. Note that your link says they've been doing it without affecting rates. That sounds pretty impressive. Of course, the taxpayer probably has been subsidizing the effort to a degree, but then taxpayers subsidize fossil fuel generated power too. Of course, the taxpayer probably has been subsidizing the effort to a degree, but then taxpayers subsidize fossil fuel generated power too. Subsidies for per unit of energy produced is 50:1 "fossil fuel" compared to wind/solar. So before posting Greenie articles on the absurd "subsidies" for Big Oil and Coal, take that into consideration first because it will be pounced on.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Sept 7, 2011 17:55:20 GMT
Read closer. That's 26% of capacity. Since wind has a capacity factor of perhaps 20-40%, the actual percentage of wind power would be much less than 26%. It seems quite viable. Note that your link says they've been doing it without affecting rates. That sounds pretty impressive. Of course, the taxpayer probably has been subsidizing the effort to a degree, but then taxpayers subsidize fossil fuel generated power too. It's a little pointless to even talk about subsidies. Practically everything is subsidized in one way or another. Hell, we subsidize the UN, a few dozen countries, welfare queens and kings, illegal aliens, education, agriculture, heavy industry, small businesses, everyone who has a mortgage, renters, street bums, ad nauseum.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Sept 7, 2011 18:01:39 GMT
The bottom line is that power from the grid generated from coal, natural gas or nuclear energy is still much cheaper than any of the alternatives. A few years ago I looked into solar panels and wind turbines and quickly found out that it is very difficult to beat the local power companies price.
It's economics 101.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 7, 2011 18:06:05 GMT
|
|