Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 9th May 2008

Evening News / Sony Centre Reverse Auction

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Biofuels will speed climate change, chief scientist says



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 25 March 2008
Scottish farmers criticise warning and government policy delays, but charities call for more research as food prices soar
FARMERS in Scotland last night criticised a warning from the UK's chief environmental scientist that an increased reliance on biofuels could send greenhouse gas emissions soaring.

Professor Robert Watson spoke out just days before Westminster is to introduce a policy dictating minimum levels of the fuels at the pumps.

He said it would "obviously be totally insane" to have a scheme aimed at reducing greenhouse gases by using biofuels, which instead led to an increase in emissions, and suggested a further review.

Prof Watson's calls for caution on implementation of the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO) angered Scottish farmers, who said the government should be pushing ahead with the promotion of biofuels.

John Picken, National Farmers Union Scotland combinable crops convener, said: "We are running out of time. I don't know where he has been over the last 20 years."

He described any government delays as a "shocking situation".

Dr Richard Tipper, technical director of the Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Management, said although there could be some truth in Prof Watson's comments, he felt biofuels should be pursued, with any issues dealt with as and when they arose.

"If we try to stop the whole thing in its tracks, the companies will go out of business," he said. "The way these issues will be solved is by moving forward and not by stopping it all together."

James Withers, of the National Farmers Union Scotland, said the country had "real potential" in biofuel and could be a "solution to climate change".

However, he admitted that action had to be "based on scientists saying it is a sustainable way to go".

The RTFO is due to take effect on 1 April, when biofuels will have to comprise at least 2.5 per cent of fuel at the pumps.

Biofuels, mainly ethanol and diesel made from plants, have been promoted as an alternative to the use of conventional fuels in transport, which account for about a quarter of global greenhouse emissions.

Their proponents say they are a sustainable solution to global warming. Crops such as palm oil, corn and sugar cane are grown as normal and processed for their energy.

They absorb carbon dioxide as they grow, meaning in principle fuels such as bioethanol and biodiesel should have lower overall emissions than fossil fuels such as oil or coal.

But in recent months, grain prices have rocketed, with much of the demand coming from biofuel producers. The impact is felt on supermarket shelves in the UK, but much more in the developing world.

There has been a drop in oilseed rape production in Scotland between the end of 2006 and end of 2007 of 14 per cent from 38,000 hectares to 33,000. Farmers in the past year have shifted back into wheat and barley production as world prices have increased, making the crops more attractive to grow.

Prof Watson, chief scientist at the Department for the Environment, said the environmental sustainability of the biofuels needed verification.

"I think it's now indeed clear that while some sources of biofuels do appear to be potentially sustainable from an environmental point of view, others certainly are not," he said. And he called for a "willingness now to re-examine the situation before we go any further".

Meanwhile yesterday, a coalition of the country's leading environmental and development groups wrote a collective letter to the government warning that its strategy risked doing more harm than good.

Oxfam, RSPB, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and others told Ruth Kelly, the Transport Secretary, there was "a very real risk that the RTFO will make climate change worse, not better".

Doug Parr, chief scientific adviser of Greenpeace, said:

"For one of the government's top scientists to describe these plans as potentially insane suggests that something has gone seriously wrong here."

Abigail Bunker, agriculture policy officer of the RSPB, said: "Biofuels threaten untold damage to unique wildlife habitats across the world.

"Their production is already causing the destruction of rainforest, peatlands and grasslands and the release of huge amounts of carbon stored by trees and soil."

Yellow fields grow into black gold as Scotland reaps the green benefits

IN LATE spring, when many of Scotland's fields are bereft of life, a dazzling slash of yellow light slices across Priorletham Farm.

It is oilseed rape, a crop which is ideally suited to the climate north of the Border and which is helping to power the UK government's plans for a biofuel revolution.

The owner of the St Andrews farm, John Picken – and many of his fellow farmers – believes its cultivation should be supported and encouraged, to help to sustain both his industry and the environment.

Oilseed rape, along with wheat and sugar, the UK's other biofuel crops, have been a beacon illuminating a sustainable future without fossil fuels.

Mr Picken said: "It's an arable farm. We've 600 acres, 500 arable. It's a family farm – very much a traditional farm. We have kind of specialised a bit into crops the farm does best.

"Scotland has a natural climate for oilseed rape," he added. "It's a relatively new crop to Scotland – in the last 20 years."

The oilseed rape is planted in rotation, once every five years, and Scottish farmers find it fits in well with their other crops. It had previously been more common south of the Border, but climate change has brought it north.

The long Scottish summer days help it to thrive, and last year Mr Picken achieved a 47 per cent oil content. The average is 40-42 per cent.

Once the vibrant yellow flowers die, farmers are left with the seed, which they extract when harvesting the plants with their combines. Mr Picken sells his seeds, which contain the oil, to merchants, who then pass it on to processing plants south of the Border.

The seeds are crushed and converted into products from cosmetics to fuel, before being sold on.

Mr Picken wishes there were more governmental incentives to grow the crop and is frustrated at the delays in promotion of biofuels.

However, it won't stop him planting the seeds again this August, for the brilliant flowers to flourish in his fields next May. "Black gold, it might be called," he adds.

THE OTHER OPTIONS…THE environmental benefits of biofuels may be questionable, but experts say current technology provides little alternative.

Potential routes to cutting carbon emissions through transport, from the most basic to the very advanced, include:

• Using public transport instead of the car, a move both the Scottish and UK governments have been pushing for with little success for years.

• Hydrogen power. The problem is this is produced from natural gas, which is basically a fossil fuel and has all the related environmental problems. The carbon is stripped off to leave hydrogen.

• Electric cars. Renewable electricity is still difficult and expensive to produce – and electric cars have yet to catch on.

• High-octane fuels. These are created by adding chemicals to fuel which allow cars to get more energy out of it. They are more expensive and benefits are minimal.

OWN ISSUES
WHILE biofuels may be billed as environmentally preferable to fossil fuels, some experts admit they bring their own problems. These include:

&149 Deforestation, which will lead to increased carbon emissions and loss of biodiversity;

&149 Loss of land for food crops, which could send prices higher;

• Environmental damage from lorries transporting the fuels.

The full article contains 1261 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 24 March 2008 11:59 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Climate change
 
1

,

25/03/2008 00:08:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

,

25/03/2008 00:56:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

Mr A Roy,

25/03/2008 01:06:08
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22866

Scienctists meeting in New York have issued the following declaration, and called upon governments to reject climate change scare stories and scrap all CO2 related taxes.
Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change

"Global warming" is not a global crisis
4

Navvy,

25/03/2008 03:04:09
Their proponents say they are a sustainable solution to global warming. Crops such as palm oil, corn and sugar cane are grown as normal and processed for their energy.

I think that most educated people dismmissed this as a government inspires quick fix. Politicians love quick fixes but they rarely exist in real life.

The country with most experience in this is Brasil wher they make ethanol from sugar cane. Our climate is great for sugar beat so let that be groen on setaside land. A better alternative would fbe for the Scottish population to halve their sugar intake the benefits of which would be lighter loads on vehicles so less fuel needed and the surplus sugar could make ethanol

Hydrogen should be made form seawater using the surplus power from "run of tide" stations in the Pentland firth, off the Mull (of Kintyre) etc

The swich of corn to ethanol production has hit the staple diet in Mexico. The demand for more palm oil is leading to more deforestation in Riau province of Indonesia. This land is peat land and during the deforestation and planting it is drained and dries and not only catches fire but releases the trapped methane. The Carbon payback period has been estimated as anything between 100 years and infinity

The real solution is less consumption and the best way to that is to have fewer people
5

T M,

LA, USA 25/03/2008 04:42:13
From the Australian two days ago..

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
6

John M,

Melbourne, Australia 25/03/2008 07:03:40
Professor Watson is just repeating what other scientists have shown. On what grounds do John Picken and James Withers think they know more than the scientists?

Actually the argument between the scientist and the farmers is pointless. There has never been any irrefutable proof that human activity has caused climate change. (By the way, there's no demonstrable consensus either, but as you and I know, science is not settled by a consensus.)
7

Iain fae Elgin,

25/03/2008 07:23:29
#2,

So people don't think your website is lamer than your forum advertising campaign, you may want to sort out the spelling, punctuation and general sentence structure.

8

HA,

Beith 25/03/2008 07:29:35
A new coal fired power station is opened in China every four days.
9

talius,

DUNDEE 25/03/2008 07:45:09
Lets be clear on a few facts

The government will not reach any of its renewable targets so allowing a chief scientists to cast doubt over biofuels ability to mitigate the effects of climate change makes good political sense.

High food prices are the result of poor harvests around the world in 2007 and successive governments unwillingness to maintain buffer stocks. USA now holds lowest wheat stocks for 60 years and EU have no buffer (intervention) stocks Using crops for biofuels is a red herring.

lets not talk about global warming, Climate change is a better term. Argentina had frosts 4 weeks before its wheat harvest which reduced the yield of its wheat crop. This is another reason we had less wheat for bread.

Crops sre vital to mankinds survival. Whether crops are for food or fuel they take in CO2 and give out oxygen. We do the opposite!

Sustainable Biofuels are a necessary part of our renewable enery mix, along with wind, solar, biomass electricity and CHP. No one will forgive the government of the day if light switches dont work or there is no fuel at the pumps.

10

paul o,

Wodonga 25/03/2008 07:53:56
#4, Navvy
I couldn't agree more. Too many people, too much pollution, too much demand on resources.

Any way, burning 'bio-fuels' is still burning hydrocarbons, the positive 'green-friendly' factor is probably found in the sixth or seventh decimal place which equals 3/5 x 5/8 of F.A. in the total equation of atomspheric pollutants.

If hydrogen became the worlds pre-eminent fuel someone would probably find a disastrous link between hydrogen fuel use and excess water vapor in the atomsphere.

Either way, we're doomed! The planet will divest it's self of the 'human plague', unless we take a note or two from the 'Lemings' and reduce our overall population ourselves, which is unlikely due to the need for large amounts of 'cannon fodder' for the anticipated golbal conflicts expected to decend upon us.

More money for the armement industries!
11

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 25/03/2008 08:06:30
Lovelock says the planet has eight times too many people.

A far smaller population would solve nearly all our problems and help us deal easily with climate change.

It's high time families willingly limited themselves to just replacing the parents.

The alternative of the horrors of land, resources, food and water etc wars will be entirely our own selfish, short-sighted, fault.
12

Dave from Barra ©,

Western Isles 25/03/2008 08:15:28
It is high time euthanasia was made compulsory for the over 60's to bring the population into line. After all, we are an ageing population and we are having to look after all these wasteful oldies with thier hunger for heat and taking Sunday drives.

Given that in Scotland, our birth rate is less than replacement rate i.e. under 2 children per couple, we need to turn our attention to the over 60's who are a drain on precious resources.
13

yockel,

25/03/2008 08:45:54
#12 Na Dave, get rid of the youngsters they have a longer consumption cycle ahead therefor much more carbon efficient to shoot anyone wearing a back to front baseball cap driving a car of less than 1600cc round and round the same limited number of streets playing Duff Duff music.
14

Patrick O'Shaunnessy,

25/03/2008 08:46:19
12

Yes, we could have Vietnam style lottery drafting.
Pensioners selected could have a lovely day out , finished off with a cream tea in Troon before signing of this mortal coil at wround , say , 6p.m.

As they draw their final breath, they can smile in the sure knowledge that their sacrafice means less pollution.
15

traprain,

25/03/2008 09:00:12
Biofuels are just another nonsense of the smug global warming brigade(GWB) being shown to be just that - a nonsense.
12 Dave. Great idea it would decimate the dafter posters on this forum.Just the sort of idea to which the authoritarian GWB will eventually resort, given the opportunity.
16

bumpkin,

25/03/2008 09:02:57
climate change or no climate change, biofuel has to be a step forward instead of burning fossil fuels.
as long as it is grown in britain and consumed in britain, it will be fine.
palm oil or sugar cane grown after felling rainforest must not be used.
ps. oilseed rape is not a new crop to scotland, it was grown 200 yrs ago to provide lamp oil.
shale oil extraction then made it uneconomic.
pps lay off the oldies, i,m 59!
17

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 25/03/2008 09:20:42
There is no peer-reviewed evidence that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are the cause of global warming. Most of America's states have just experienced their coldest winter in 50 years. China has just suffered a devastating winter that has killed 500,000 farm animals. Most of Asia has just had the coldest winter in decades. Arctic sea-ice is at almost maximum historical levels. Sunspot activity - normally associated with warming - hsa been zero this year. All the evidence - both scientific and experiential - is telling us that the world is NOT growing warmer. Despite this there is now a 'global warming industry' with tens if thousands of scientists, teachers and politicians, who are utterly committed to this new 'end of the world' theory - which has far more in commmon with religious cults than it does with science. Take a look at this site from a famous climatologist in the USA - it has all the graphs, all the satellite photos - all the evidence. But none of the press is listening.
Go to Anthony Watts site at:

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/
18

bogmon,

25/03/2008 09:29:31
Families who produce more than three children should be heavily penalised. Producing more than two children is a crime, given current problems and should be treated as such. Either that or there should be the disincentive of not being able to claim any child benefits.
19

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 25/03/2008 09:36:32
Tweedmouth- there is lots of peer reviewed evidence that man made CO2 emissions are causing warming. It is summarised in the IPCC report:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

As for sunspot activity- that is at a low because the sun cycle is at its lowest point...
Oh, and Anthony watts is not a famous climatologist in any way, shape or form.
20

Unimpressed one,

25/03/2008 09:42:47
Typical greenie ar*se about face logic. They may have got that one a bit wrong (!) but their other ideas viz., generating all our power from wind and waves, is sound. Aye, right. Thank Christ we didn't allow the bams to seed the oceans with iron oxide to absorb all this nasty CO2. God knows what havoc that gem of intellectual tripe would be creating by now. And if we'd listened to the previous generation of half-wits who thought we were heading for a new ice age, we'd have covered the polar ice in soot in a bid to melt the ice!

Perhaps if our former chief scientist hadn't run around shouting that the sky was falling in, politicians wouldn't have been promoting the eco-fuel crap quite so vigourously.
21

yockel,

25/03/2008 09:43:37
Bio fuels are just young fossil fuels but burning current production rather than depleting reserves sounds a reasonable thing to do regardless of global warming. However knowing what politicians are like we will probably finish up importing the bulk of our bio fuels and will reap no stratigic benefit, while food prises will spiral out of control as we burn the world's agricultural produce. There is a lot more to get right than just a simple switch of fuel.
22

Not Toobrite,

25/03/2008 09:45:33
The climate is controlled by the sun, man has nothing to do with the climate, a week of one good volcanic eruption can produce more Co2 than humans can in a decade.
I ask all that read this, to reflect one moment, it was originally 'Global Warming', but, now there is a 90% possibility that we are entering into a cooling period the Greens have changed the buzz word to 'Climate Change,'(which has been happening since the beginning of time ) the EU had in 1997 123 people employed in the environment today its in the 40,000 range, the carbon credit industry is a multi billion pound industry, producing nothing. (like the 40,000) Hundreds of billions of pounds a year is wasted on a 'scare' all this money does not produce the heat of one match, what fools we are,wake up people, we are being conned!
23

traprain,

25/03/2008 09:46:00
17 Tweedmouth
You are just not with the GWB. Our Easter snow,"China has just suffered a devastating winter" and similar, don't fit too well with a warming planet. Now we have to insist that it is "climate change" and it doesn't matter what the change is, it must be a "an environmental disaster".
24

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 25/03/2008 09:54:48
For a start, global warming does not exist---at least the so-called man-made variety does not.

Secondly, this so-called professor is talking out of the back of his hat. People like him would see us all live in the dark ages and rubbing sticks together to make a fire to keep warm. There is no place in their grand scheme for innovation or anything like it.

Ignore people like him. They are fools.
25

stainrod,

lennoxtown 25/03/2008 09:59:30
Why dont they get the third worlds farmers to grow bio-crops, then the west could buy that from them?monsanto could sell them the seeds, and they would be able to afford the higher prices of staple foods because of the fair price they would receive for the bio-fuel crops. Oh and this country currently only replaces its population, thats why they are trying to attract inward migration.Hopefully they will pay for the pension defecit.
26

G,

dundy 25/03/2008 09:59:57
"I think it's now indeed clear that while some sources of biofuels do appear to be potentially sustainable from an environmental point of view, others certainly are not," he said. And he called for a "willingness now to re-examine the situation before we go any further".
Not exactly damming , is it....some biofuels are better than others.....mmm, this chief scientist's job seems pretty easy...what's next ..some cars are bigger than others....black is darker than white.....
27

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 25/03/2008 10:04:27
More indicators of a colder than normal winter continuing in the northern hemisphere.

From the Daily Telegraph:

Britain is enduring its most miserable Easter for 25 years as Arctic winds sweep in, bringing snow, hail and sleet.

Easter Sunday temperatures could drop to as low as -3C at night with a band of snow and sleet forecast to move down from the North. The bad weather is most likely to affect the Midlands but snow could even reach London, forecasters said.

From the Sofia news agency:

Bulgaria Meets Vernal Equinox With Snow, Sun Gleams

From This is London:

It’s Bad Friday: Britain braced for worst Easter weather in 25 years as country is battered by gales and sleet.

From the Stars and Stripes:

Snow hits Germany military bases with more possible for Easter.

From CTV.ca

‘Spring’ weather nasty for Eastern Canada

Also from CTV.ca

Six more weeks of winter, top weatherman forecasts

From KDKA-TV:

Snow Advisory In Effect For Parts Of Western Pa

From RedOrbit:

Nebraskans and Iowans heading east for the Easter weekend were experiencing flight delays or snow-covered roads today, and the troubles could continue into Saturday.

From the Detroit Free Press:

Heavy snow across Michigan and points west meant increasing cancellations and delays at Metro Airport today, with things getting worse as snow piled up.

From swissinfo.ch

The Easter break has started with heavy snowfall and strong winds in Switzerland, causing some disruption to traffic.
28

Lock,

25/03/2008 10:06:23
A little more temperature in Scotland would be a good thing.
29

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 25/03/2008 10:06:39
#2 kally 12

I wonder why The Scotsman is allowing you to advertise a dating site in these columns.

We should all be on our guard against people trying to advertise in these comment columns and press the "Report Unsuitable" button as soon as we see one.
30

Neil,

Glasgow 25/03/2008 10:08:02
Bio-fuels are currently just a method of providing more hidden subsidy to farmers & the civil servants who run the system.
31

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 25/03/2008 10:44:33
The effects of this biofuel debacle has already hit the grocery shelves of Canada.

If you eat the stuff, Kraft Dinner has gone from between 79 - 99 centsCAN per box to $1.79 CAN.

I suppose all the little brats and university brats who survive on the stuff may have to prepare their own macaroni and cheese from "scratch". Highly unlikely.
32

Mad Jock,

East Lothian 25/03/2008 11:01:28
1/. We're having our coldest Easter for years because it's the earliest Easter for years, not because of climate change. Blame the vatican instead.
2/. If offshore wind farms were to be used to electrolyse seawater to produce Hydrogen, the net water produced is zero.
3/. I forget which university, possibly M.I.T. has produced a paper that suggets that an increased dependence on biofuels could have a negative effect on the atmosphere, with increased cases of Asthma and other respiratory problems, especially in cities.
4/. Stop building on greenfield sites. If the government is serious about climate change, no greenfield sites or agricultural land should be given to developers until all brownfield sites have been exhausted.
5/. It is the job of politicians to scare the electorate, so that they can then justify the rise in tax required to "solve" the problems that they have "identified".
33

Big Eddie,

Edinburgh 25/03/2008 11:02:04
I've been trying to find out the number for the Global Warming Brigade. Can I get them by dialling 999, same as for the Fire Brigade?

Another group I want to get hold of is the Doom and Gloom Merchants. I'm extremely disappointed to discover that they aren't listed in the Yellow Pages.

Posters on this site frequently mention both these groups, but so far I've been unable to confirm the existence of either of them. I'm beginning to think that they're made up, along with most of the nonsense posted here by the less rational members of our online community.
34

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 25/03/2008 11:16:40
Stop all this wittering about consequences when you should be checking the basic cause, Read post #11.

PS. Consider, too, that oil is not a fossil fuel. Like water, it has extra planetary origins.
35

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 25/03/2008 11:29:06
#33:

The Global Warming Brigade:

Otherwise known as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and other similar organisations. Contactable via their web sites. this group also encompasses organisations and individuals who are susceptable to propaganda and are at the stage where their thinking is chronically affected by it in defiance of logic and reasoned argument.

Doom and Gloom Merchants:

Generally a subset of the groups mentioned above, these people believe that the end of the world will arrive with hell, fire, brimstone and rising sea levels if we continue to drive our cars. They believe that no matter what technological advances are made that make us less dependant upon fossil fuels, the firey and watery end is inevitable. They believe that if anything, technological advances will make the situation worse and will go out of their way to point this out.

Both groups have a propensity to defend their arguments using illogical and patently incorrect buzz-words and phrases. Typical of these are "carbon footprint", "carbon emissions" and "carbon neutral". They should therefore be ignore and avoided at all costs.

Hope this helps!

;-)

36

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 25/03/2008 11:32:28
Rulesbutnotrulers:

How is McMurphy nowadays?
37

traprain,

25/03/2008 11:35:00
33 Big Eddie,
For the GWB just ring their cheer leader in chief, Al Bore, on his premium rate, £1.50/min, number. Poor hypocritical Al has only made an estimated $50m so far from the GWB if he is not careful he will be down to his last executive jet shortly.
38

traprain,

25/03/2008 11:42:26
34 Rulesbutnotrulers,
"PS. Consider, too, that oil is not a fossil fuel. Like water, it has extra planetary origins."
Just run that past me again Rules,did the Martians bring all that black gooey stuff?
39

drew 33,

25/03/2008 11:58:49
#33
Yes Ed where do these unbelievers come from? Are they just part of some conspiracy to kill off their descendants?
After all,only this month we have conclusive proof of Global Warming.
Over the past year "The total global cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C—a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years.
And yes, that is cooling not warming and it is fact.
40

E300,

tomich 25/03/2008 12:29:12
I wonder what the Global Warming Brigade and the Doom and Gloom Merchants make of the falling trend in global temperatures since 1998? 2007 is the coldest year since 1994. If I thought like the global warmers I should be interpreting the graphs as inverted golf clubs or the like and the obvious trend to a runaway global cooling disaster.
41

Dorian,

Edinburgh 25/03/2008 12:37:09
"It is oilseed rape, a crop which is ideally suited to the climate north of the Border and which is helping to power the UK government's plans for a biofuel revolution."

Scotland subsidising the UK.
42

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 25/03/2008 12:48:22
#38. Silly boy! Comets nearly all contain hydro carbons and ice. Oil and water to wherever they crash into. Go read it up! (And explain why whilst in coal fossils are quite common, none have ever been found in oil).
43

traprain,

25/03/2008 13:03:22
42
Thanks for that Rules. I always suspected that my Hons in Geology after 4 years at the King's Buildings was a waste of time, all that marine remains,temperature, pressure and migration through permeable rocks to accumulate in various primary and secondary geological traps was all bu****it.
44

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 25/03/2008 13:06:45
Rules- why would you expect to find fossils in a liquid?
And, what is the point of bringing up comets here?
45

greentea,

london 25/03/2008 13:29:26
the green party are leading the stupid government mp's around blindfolded .

Mp's obay their every command because they just blindly believe what they are told knowing all the pain inflicted to motorists in the name of greenness has no comeback so even if they are wrong they can say it was for the good of the planet.

A disaster far worse than global warming . Our civalisation dragged back to the dark ages by hooligans claiming they are saving us all. NO THANKS .
46

Hickory,

US 25/03/2008 13:36:21
Well now, I have some very bad news for the tree huggers. We are all doomed because the sun will eventually destroy the earth. Oh my! We're doomed!
Guess what? Another ice age will happen! Oh my! We're
doomed! I am an old man and have been listenin' and watchin' these chicken littles for many years. While they have been runnin' around and preachin' doom, I have observed in wonder at the miracle of God's earth and the fact..... we are a tiny part of it. No more, just a tiny part. Aye tree huggers, ye are purveyors of lies and practicin' thievery.
47

Niadh,

Edinburgh 25/03/2008 13:59:11
#22 Not toobrite. living up to your handle?
Does anyone here really believe that the Sun and only the Sun is responsible for changes to the planetary climate and weather patterns.
The climate is a far more complex and chaotic creature than that.
Here's a simple lesson/example.
Weather is caused by variations/changes in temperature( hot and cold air colliding).
So what happens when cold air meets the warm/hot air being generated by a city? You get a localised weather phenomena. The bigger the city the bigger the heat output and thereby the bigger the event.
But the effect is not just going to be localised. It is going to spread out and change the surrounding area.
What happens when the effects from 2 cities collide?

There are just too many variables in this problem for simple off the cuff explanations. This is why large amounts of runtime in super computers are devoted to the task of weather forecasting and a general understanding of the climate.

The same goes for biodiversity. Look at how much better the likes of Yellowstone Park is doing with the reintroduction of wolf packs. No one thought of the consequences of getting rid of the wolves.

I don't know who is right in this whole argument but in the interest in the continuation of the human race and everything else on this planet we should be prepared to take a more cautious line.

Of course if we can find that damned butterfly that keeps flapping its wings we might just solve alot of the weather problems
48

danielrober,

25/03/2008 14:29:49
I've been running my diesel on a 50/50 mix of mineral/bio diesel for 2 years now. Its made my exhaust, a little louder, but that's the only mechanical difference. However this 50/50 has many been for air quality issues rather than global warming. Lots of asmath kids and adults here in London, so i don't want to add to the problem while i'm here.

Still i don't see what the problem is. It is a rewneweable fuel. Famers have said grains have been to cheap for decades now and local air quality is improved. What the problem? This works.
49

danielrober,

25/03/2008 14:44:44
Just a point on stats, foor population numbers. The problem is not realy families that have more than one or two children. In fact it's parents aged 16 - 20, on a planetary scale.

My fist child at 30, therefore my children are likely to have first child at 30. Therefore it is only possible to three generations at any one time. I would have to live until 90 for a great grand child. Four generations.

On the other hand if you have your first child at 20, therefore your children are likely to have their first child at 20. Therefore it is possible to four generations at any one time. If you lived to 90 you might see a great great grand child. Five generations.

Modesty in child numbers and family planning for times should allow most people to have three children if the wish, but they would have to have them after 30.

Delaying child birth only 5 years would reduce the planets population by hundreds of millins, without families having to suffer imposed controls.
50

danielrober,

25/03/2008 14:46:20
The guy that did the work was a relative of Charles Darwins. I can't remember his name, sorry.

P.S buy bio-diesel and SAVE THE PLANET.
51

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 25/03/2008 15:14:19
The problem with biodiesel, Daniel Rober, has been spelled out in the newspaper article at the top of the page. The simple fact is that sufficient biofuels to make a difference cannot be grown except at the expense of land we need to grow crops to feed ourself.
52

Dave from Barra ©,

Western Isles 25/03/2008 15:20:12
Yet nobody has mentioned anything about the set-aside land in the whole of the EU is now being pulled back into production. The same arable land we have lived without for almost 20 years and is measured in millions of hectares.

Hmmm
53

John Blackley,

Florida 25/03/2008 15:21:00
"But in recent months, grain prices have rocketed"

The real reason the farmers got all bent about what the doctor said. Don't ever lose sight of the fact that it's all about money.
54

yockel,

25/03/2008 15:26:32
#52 The Chinese weren't eating so well twenty years ago.
55

danielrober,

25/03/2008 15:35:38
# 51 Guthrie,Edinburgh

The problem you talk about is one of a self inflicted administration injury. There are plenty of under employed farmers all over the world, and here, who could raise both food and fuel.

The issue is administrative, i.e UK energy bills are increasing because companies are paying higher prices for power generation capacity and new taxes, not realy for higher import costs.

Its the same situation for farmers. Tight EU controls maintain higher grain prices. But the addition of higher grains pices has triggered of a vast increase in food costs. When the farmers actually gain only a small increase in profit.
56

Dave from Barra ©,

Western Isles 25/03/2008 15:45:07
54

And?
57

SimonHurrll,

25/03/2008 16:00:07
Most of the discussions regarding this issue have missed the point. Rather than pounce on the issues raised in this article saying that the background behind it in regard to Climate Change and Global Warming is a nonsense and the production of Biofuels is equally faulted let's be positive about the issue. We are running out of OIl. We will continue to use our cars and vans and lorries as the main means of transport until at least 2050. We need options to replace fossil fuel [Oil] derived liquid fuels. The use of Food Crops and land that should be used for Growing Foods to grow crops for producing Biofuels is a nonsense particularly when it isn't necessary. Yes, Hydrogen might be amenable in the future< but when is that future tenable, 20 years 30 years or longer? And even then making Hydrogen uses more energy that the resultant product is able to return.

The Growing of Crops that are essentially Foods or Grown on Land that should be used to Grow Foods [in preference to Biofuels] is the fault here. Notwithstanding the argument put forward by Farmers that there is a Financial benefit for growing these Biofuel Crops [in that they get heavy rewards from the Biofuel Producers.] This results in a distortion of the International Markets for selling these Crops as the demand is for Biofuels rather than Foods. There are two groups of these crops: the first is those that are grown from primary food Crops like Sugar Cane, Sugar Beet, Wheat, Barley, Corn, Rice, Alfalfa, Cassava [Nigeria], or Date Palm Oil [Oman and Morocco,] etc. so as to make the Biofuel Ethanol: the second is those that are grown on land that has been diverted away from the use for growing Foods as in the massive plantations of Rape Seed, Soya, Linseed, or Jatropha and Pongamia, [as proposed from India, and African Countries] Palm Oil [as from Indonesia and Malaysia] so as to make the Biofuel Biomass-Diesel which is then blended with Petro-Diesel to make Bio-Diesel. This impetus distorts the demand and sup
58

SimonHurrll,

25/03/2008 16:05:21
The omitted end of the statement.

''This impetus distorts the demand and>> supply issues around the World and if Heavy Subsidies are then given to the Biofuel Producers to buy these crops in order for them to make these Biofuels [Bio-Ethanol and Bio-Diesel] the impetus of the supply chain [the Farmers] is to grow these crops for Biofuels rather than Food. As demand has shown this has pushed the price of Wheat upwards so now it is near €300-00+ per tonne as a result of this demand [and shortages resulting from poor crop harvests in SE Europe, Australia and India resulting from droughts. Now we also hear blistering accounts of potentially massive Corn price rises forecast from the USA resulting from crop plantings being delayed following severe flooding in the NE following the prolonged heavy snows and concomitant rains that have swollen the feeder rivers to the corn primary corn belt areas. Just three years ago the price of Wheat in Europe was €120-00.

The issue highlighted here in this article is not that we do not need the Biofuels but the opposite, and to meet this demand we need a better way to make them..

We already have a better way to make these Biofuels and that is to use Biomass from Non-Food sources. In this respect we have a process for taking the Biomass found in Wastes from Farming and Agriculture, Forestry Clearances, Food and Produce, Food and Drink Manufacture, Industry and Commerce and from Municipal Solid Waste #1 which will readily convert to the Biofuel Ethanol. That process has been developed and updated by Genesyst [see an article published in the Institution of Chemical Engineers journal 'The Chemical Engineer'' number 801 published in March 2008] where the detail is explained. Since the Biofuel Ethanol can now be made Economically from all the sources of Biomass [as indicated above at #1] and in a manner which is Environmentally acceptable it means that we need not use Food Crops but concentrate on their Wastes and Residues and all t
59

SimonHurrll,

25/03/2008 16:08:29
again the omitted end of statement

'' Wastes and Residues and all >>the other forms of Waste including that from Municipal sources. By doing this we are able to satisfy all the requirements for providing the Biofuel Ethanol from Non-Food Crops and importantly to use that from Municipal Sources. By doing this it means that the process can be used to treat Municipal Waste at around a fraction the cost of treating that waste by Incineration methods and can produce a valuable product at the same time. If you read this correctly it means that by producing Ethanol from Municipal Waste from the income generated from this sale of Ethanol there is a real potential to reduce the costs associated with treating the waste and that this could be used to reduce the Council Taxes that are such a burden to us all. [This is the complete reverse of the policies proposed in Scotland where all the Councils are proposing to build incineration plants despite all the protests against on environmental grounds.

In a similar vein the issue about making Biomass-Diesel can also be resolved by the using Biomass from Non-Food sources since we have developed a procedure for converting Algae and Carbon Dioxide to.Biomass-Oil which can be used for such purposes.
60

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 25/03/2008 16:13:01
The other small problem with biofuels is the issue of their actual neutrality. if your crop takes fertilisers to produce and expensive processing to make usable in petrol tanks, then it ends up as a net cost in terms of energy. I recall that many forms of biofuel are indeed just that.
Plus DanielRober clearly doesn't know how much of the productive capacity of this planet that humans are taking for themselves.

SimonHurrll- when spamming a place like this, it is more polite just to use an url and a short precis, rather than spreading something over 3 posts.
However the point about non-food source biomass is to the point, but again, this is long term and will probably not produce the volumes required.
61

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 25/03/2008 16:14:45
#44 Guthrie.

The point about reminding all that oil is not a fossil fuel is improve the accuracy of these boards. Oil may have gone through the various geological seepage processes but its origins lie in condensates following the big bang and cometary transport is how it arrived. I expect oil to be found on lifeless planets for this reason. I could be wrong, but that's true of all hypotheses, no?
62

Not Toobrite,

25/03/2008 16:17:31
NASA's jet Propulsion Laboratory has been motoring the wolds oceans with a fleet of robotic instruments that retrieve temp. from as low as 3,000 ft.Since it was deployed in 2003 it has recorded no warming in the worlds oceans but a slight cooling.
Prof. Marc Morano of the American governments SEPWC says that this cooling trend runs contrary to the claims of people promoting man made global warming disasters. He says that we should look into the computer models that are predicting catastrophic sea level rises due to supposed global warming.He also stated that the hypothesis of man made global warming / climate change is starting to collapse around the world as more and more scientists reject it as bad science.
The Russian National Academy of Sciences are predicting a natural global cooling as the sun is entering a cooling phase.
63

danielrober,

25/03/2008 16:32:22
# Simon Hurrll, I hope your dream comes true but i think we'll see fusion energy first, sorry. But do keep up the research. It might just work, good luck.

# Guthrie,Edinburgh. I am aware of how much we use of the earth's resources and bio-fuels are only one aspect of the solution, including limited nuclear power.

I have on many occassins disagreed with the hard greens, on social planning, however a lot of points their are correct. However, we need to bring high technology to a wider part of the population to allow low carbon technologies to be used.

But people also need to WORK. That i think is the real benfit of bio-fuels.
64

EK,

Edinburgh 25/03/2008 16:41:07
Please please please don't go to all the effort of growing bio-fuels (thus destroying habitats, adding to food shortages and increasing food prices) so they can be burned for fuel in cars and transport of unneccessary things (like people going on 5 holidays a year). There are too many people on the earth already for a sizeable majority to sustain a decent quality of life. Climate change has always occurred - may or may not be man-made, but the more pressing problems are hunger, malnutrition, water scarcity, wars and overpopulation. People in the developing world, if they really want to be ethical have to cUT DOWN A BIT ON WASTE AND ON LUXURIES and also try somehow to ensure high employment, decrease in birth rates in other parts of the world as well. Not an easy task!
65

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 25/03/2008 16:41:11
*splutter*

rules- you are an idiot.
Firstly, comets don't go back to the big bang. Secondly, the evidence thus far is that oil arises on earth due to transformation of lots of dead sea organisms by high temperatures and pressures. You have not presented any evidence at all for something which, if correct, would overturn a great deal of modern geology- the same geological knowledge which is used by oil companies to find oil in the first place.


Not toobrite - Marc Morano is not, as far as I can see, a Professor. Moreover, he is not of the SEPWC- he is the communications director for the Republicans on it.
66

Dr Coles,

USA 25/03/2008 16:53:33
Pure propaganda and junk science, bio-fules are no answer. Over 400 World Wide Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007. See http://tinyurl.com/2dv6nz
67

Niadh,

Edinburgh 25/03/2008 16:57:03
#62 Not toobrite.
Why do you think that is??
Come on the answer is staring you in the face!!

That's right! Millions of tons of melting ice pouring cold water back into the oceans of the world.
Oceanic currents move the cold water around into the main currents and spread the cold water around the world.
Cause and effect.
68

yockel,

25/03/2008 17:00:03
#56 DoB Its coming back into cultivation because we are not able to buy the necessary quantities of food on the world market. The Americans are burning cereals as fuel, the Chinese are feeding it to pigs and world population has grown in the past 20 years. We could do without the set aside land when there was lower demand from the rest of the world and it was cheaper to buy than to grow. Consumption growth was falling in the 90's and we had stock piles. Only three years ago they were predicitng set-aside would increase.
The boot is on the other foot now, welcome to the millenium of Western Peasantry!
69

Neil,

Glasgow 25/03/2008 17:28:11
67 you say that cooling is evidence of warming because it is caused by melting ice. Since the Arctic ice has actually expanded massively this year & Antarctic ice has been increasing for years I assume that, in the unlikely event it actually gets warmer, you will be first in line to say that proves the world is cooling :-)
70

Dave from Barra ©,

Western Isles 25/03/2008 18:41:55
68 yockel

#56 DoB Its coming back into cultivation because we are not able to buy the necessary quantities of food on the world market.

Forgive me yockel but that is total pish. Sorry but can you prove that? I'm afraid I really do know better.
71

bumpkin,

25/03/2008 19:14:00
Everyone thinks that the end of 10% compulsory set aside is going to increase production by 10%.
This not true as a lot of set aside was already growing non food energy crops. A lot has been panted in trees. Any land left growing nothing is low yielding poor quality land. You will be lucky to see a 3% increase from set aside.
72

Sambo,

The deep south 25/03/2008 19:41:17
#4 Navvy
"The real solution is less consumption and the best way to that is to have fewer people".
So what needs to be done is.. half of the world needs to hold it's breath for one hour.
Problem solved.
73

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 25/03/2008 19:45:04
Dr Coles #66- your propaganda is boring lies. Go somewhere else.
74

yockel,

25/03/2008 20:05:32
#56 Sorry Dave I can't prove that is total pish. Can you?
75

Displaced Scot,

UK 25/03/2008 20:46:16
To say that cereal prices have rocketed is a bit of a lie. What has happen is that there has been a price correction, or partial correction. The Farmers Weekly quoted last week that wheat has only gone up £70 a tonne in the last twenty years. Wheat was around £100 a tonne in 1988, and if it had followed the retail price index,it would be £275 a tonne, not £170 it is today. Bio-fuels are not the only reason that the price has gone up, there has been a drought in Australia, and there is increased demand for grain fed meat in South East Aisa and China. To grow Cereals and Oil Seed Rape in the UK will have no adverse effect, as most arable farmers are producing commodities, which will either go for food or fuel, the market will decide. By products from the production of Ethanol and Bio-Diesel can be used for feeding animals.

Set-Aside which came in as production control measure, not a conservation measure as the RSPB would have you believe, should and will go.
Where Bio-Fuel production does do harm is in other parts of the world where Rain Forrest is cleared to grow crops.

I was at a lecture last week given by Prof David Bellamy, who stated that Climate Change is a load of tosh, or words to that effect. He rightly stated that CO2 is good for plants. Because he holds these views, he has not been asked to a TV series for a good many years, and he is not alone. Who is running the agenda? Not David Bellamy and those Scientist who agree with him. We are not allowed to have a debate. Can anyone explain why the climate was 3 degrees C higher in the middle ages than it is now, and they did not have the Internal Combustion Engine, Coal Fired Power Stations etc etc.
76

Andrew Boswell,

Norwich, UK 25/03/2008 22:09:18
email alert : Please email your MP to suspend Biofuels t at
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/mp-Mar2008.php

There is emerging concern that more and more grain and vegetable oil which should be used for food is being turned into biofuels for transport. This means cereals - corn, wheat, bread and pasta - and vegetable oil are becoming more expensive. It also makes meat and dairy more expensive, because grain is now turned into ethanol(biofuel), instead of feeding animals. High food prices are causing hardship in industrialised countries. In poorer countries, high food prices mean more people going hungry or starving.

Biofuelwatch has an email alert to MPs asking them to support calls for the UK Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) and EU legislation promoting biofuels to be suspended due to this emerging global food crisis. This alert will also copy all the RTFO ministers including Ruth Kelly.

Please click here to go to the webpage to send your MP an email:

http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/mp-Mar2008.php

The UK government's new chief scientific adviser, Professor John Beddington recently warned in a speech on March 6th:
"It is very hard to imagine how we can see a world growing enough crops to produce renewable energy and at the same time meet the enormous increase in the demand for food which is quite properly going to happen as we alleviate poverty."

This is a real crisis happening now - Josette Sheeran, the head of the UN's World Food Programme (WFP) that warned that due to rising food prices WPF is short of $0.5billion just to meet existing food aid deliveries. High prices are forcing more people into needing food aid too - for example, in Afghanistan, 2.55 million more people need food aid because they can no longer afford wheat. This week, Egypt's president has had to order the army to increase the production and distribution of bread, in an attempt to cope with serious shortages -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7300899.stm
77

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 26/03/2008 09:08:26
Displaced Scot #76-

Unfortunately, Bellamy has a history of not knowing anything about climate change. If you remember his lecture, can you recall what evidence he presented? I guarantee that if he did present any, it was out of date and wrong. For example, the climate was not 3 degrees warmer in the middle ages than now, on a global scale. The Northern hemisphere Atlantic area was about as warm as it is now, but the rest of the planet was cooler. We know this because of proxy temperature records from the rest of the planet. By comparison, various people claim that a temperature record from the Sargasso sea proves that it was warmer than now in the middle ages- the small flaw here is that the Sargasso sea is not the world.
As for CO2 and plants, the experiments Bellamy will be reffering to demonstrate that in fact CO2 is not the limiting factor in plant growth- more often water is, and although the CO2 fertilisation effect will be noticeable, it is not such a big deal.
As for not being invited on TV shows, the simple fact is that on the subject of Climate, Bellamy knows nothing, and therefore is not worth inviting on a TV show. He knows a fair bit about plants however, perhaps he should try and get a plant based program off the ground.
78

Niadh,

Edinburgh 26/03/2008 12:21:41
#69 I don't know where you get your data from but you are not following the thread.
Artic ice may very well have expanded massively this year but it is still very heavily down over the past 30 years.
This was shown in NASA photos of the artic area ice pack last year.
The antartic ice is expanding in certain areas but again i think you will find that there are other factors involved there . One will be the land mass under the ice being colder there than the water under the arctic ice.
Again as I pointed out earlier there are too many variables involved in the ebb and flow of this planets climate. One change will have an affect on other areas which we don't currently realise or understand.
I was playing devils advocate for nottoobrite's supposition about oceanic temperatures.
There is no way we will ever be able to create a 100% accurate model of the planets climate because there are too many interlaced crosslinked areas and fields for us to be able to account for them all.
Can we garruantee we would be able to detail every single cause and effect?
79

Hickory,

US 26/03/2008 20:19:39