Now that studies show Ethanol production and use to be more polluting than regular gasoline, why aren’t counties banning its use in vehicles? Could it be that there are too many farmers and companies (also known as ‘voters’) getting rich off of the Billions of $ $ that we taxpayers are giving to the industry in the form of ethanol welfare/subsidies?? Your thoughts?
“Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat”
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Published: February 8, 2008
Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these "green" fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded.
The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent months, as scientists took a closer look at the global environmental cost of their production. These latest studies, published in the prestigious journal Science, are likely to add to the controversy.
Together the two studies offer sweeping conclusions: It does not matter if it is rain forest or scrubland that is cleared, the greenhouse gas contribution is significant. More important, they discovered that, taken globally, the production of almost all biofuels resulted, directly or indirectly, intentionally or not, in new lands being cleared, either for food or fuel.
"When you take this into account, most of the biofuel that people are using or planning to use would probably increase greenhouse gasses substantially," said Timothy Searchinger, lead author of one of the studies and a researcher in environment and economics at Princeton University. "Previously there's been an accounting error: land use change has been left out of prior analysis."
The clearance of grassland releases 93 times the amount of greenhouse gas that would be saved by the fuel made annually on that land, said Joseph Fargione, lead author of the second paper, and a scientist at the Nature Conservancy.
In the wake of the new studies, a group of 10 of the United States's most eminent ecologists and environmental biologists today sent a letter to President Bush and the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, urging a reform of biofuels policies. "We write to call your attention to recent research indicating that many anticipated biofuels will actually exacerbate global warming," the letter said.
The European Union has set a target that countries use 5.75 percent biofuel for transport by the end of 2008. Proposals in the United States energy package would require that 15 percent of all transport fuels be made from biofuel by 2022. To reach these goals, biofuels production is heavily subsidized at many levels on both continents, supporting a burgeoning global industry.
Syngenta, the Swiss agricultural giant, announced Thursday that its annual profits had risen 75 percent in the last year, in part because of rising demand for biofuels.
"This land use problem is not just a secondary effect — it was often just a footnote in prior papers,". "It is major. The comparison with fossil fuels is going to be adverse for virtually all biofuels on cropland."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&sq=rosenthal%20ethanol&st=nyt&scp=2
Answer by jim z
Unfortunately we have a system that is too corrupt and a million dollar campaign donation often results in a hundred million dollar bonanza for the donator. I tend to think it may be more about huge farms and companies such as 3M (Syngenta in Switzerland) being campaign donors. The farm belt tend to vote for ethanol for local benefit. Clearly biofuels have a number of unintended consequences and problems.
Answer by Miles
Bio fuel like all solutions is a work in progress,countries like Brazil have used sugar cane for years to produce an alcohol fuel with apparent good economic results for their country.A lot of work is being done to find alternate bio mass, which would reduce competetion with food resources.Options to fossel fuel are two fold#1 We are running out of easy to find oil#2The release of carbon dioxide is a factor in climate change
Answer by triphip2
I agree there is something suspicious with bio fuels, especially ethanol. It almost feels to me that the people in power are just trying to find a alternative, marketable fuel source with the increase depletion of gasoline. To do this, obviously they would have to introduce ethanol gradually. That’s why the whole 90% gas, 10% ethanol?? Cars actually have to be manufactured a specific way to be able to run on increasing amounts of ethanol… I wouldn’t be surprised if that ethanol ratio starts to increase sometime in the future. And you are correct, ethanol isn’t 100% safe to the environment, the production and combustion of it produces CO2. To say it is more dangerous than gasoline to the environment is kind of questionable though. There are a lot of technical details involved, like the energy efficiency of the two, rate of combustion, amount and type of gases produced, means of production and excavation (oil), and much much more. Some of these factors aren’t too hard to figure out, but others are more complicated. I would have to see a peer-reviewed, precise scientific study on the subject, that addresses ALL the factors, before I start believing propaganda about it though…
Answer by Peter J
When the government gets involved in making things happen, the marketplace will continue to do something stupid until the government gets out.
It’s become kind of obvious that ethanol from anything that could be used to make food is a stupid idea, it wrecks engines, it pollutes as much or more than petroleum, and there’s a 20,000,000/bbl day over supply of oil. Making it is stupid. Will they ban it soon? Probably not. WIll they stop requiring it soon? Probably not.
Answer by booM
Here’s the key: “if the full emissions costs of producing these "green" fuels are taken into account.”
Now, to get a really accurate comparison of biofuels vs. fossil fuels, you’d have to add into the calculation the costs of military incursions and occupation to get a real comparison, and you’d have to back out the use of byproducts, such as livestock feed, that remain after ethanol is produced.
Corn-based ethanol is far from the ideal solution to fueling our vehicle fleets, and the Bush mandate for ethanol production certainly helped to upset the global commodity markets and agriculture business, but advancing technology and use of other biomass will help. There are a lot of misconceptions about biofuels…but the Bush mandate should teach us a HUGE lesson about unintended consequences as we consider policies such as cap and trade and climate change treaties. If it was that easy to upset the global ag market by mandating ethanol production, how easy would it be to screw up the already tenuous global economy and geopolitical balance by launching more too carelessly considered programs and treaties?
This is the bell that skeptics ought to be ringing loud and clear.
Answer by Paul B
Biofuels are a bad idea at this stage. They are just a bribe to Iowa farmers, important because of the Iowa caucuses. Europe has similar political distortions.
If the US were serious about using ethanol as biofuel, it would encourage imports from Brazil, where it’s made from sugarcane waste, instead of giving preference to the domestic product.
At present, biofuels drive up world food prices, which is potentially disastrous, and as you point out the CO2 saving is illusory because it neglects other land use.
But there are now real prospects for biofuels from cellulose and/or from direct harvesting of algae.
Answer by New Deal Democrat
That was tried already, and it didn’t work so well. ; )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States
In seriousness though, the biofuels scam won’t be shut down until the public demands that it is, and that won’t happen until they realize what the true intention of this swindle is: to kill people by destroying food supplies. The policy is nothing less than the revival of the “racial hygiene” policies of Nazi Germany, but on a global scale.
Answer by Nin10dude
Ethanol will not be banned for any time soon. It is true that it is not environmental, because it uses plants. However, plants that are unwanted and would be decaying anyways (like the case of Brazil) does help reduce foreign oil dependence.
We do not have the ample means of technology to choose something better that is easy and affordable enough. We will have to deal with biofuels in the meantime.
error patterns in computation examples1. In which journal would you find the recording of cash revenues?
A. Cash payments journal
B. General journal
C. Revenues journal
D. Cash receipts journal
2. A Customer balance summary report shows.
A. a detail of the balances of the individual customer accounts
B. a summary of the balances of the individual customer accounts
C. a summary of all of the period transactions posted to the controlling account
D. a summary of only those accounts that had a change in their balances during the month
3. After an accounting system has been set up, what is the next step?
A. Analysis
B. Feedback
C. Implementation
D. Internal controls
4. The two essential elements of the design of accounting system consists of:
A. ensuring that the employees are not overworked and are not underpaid
B. separation of duties and separation of custody of assets
C. Subsidiary ledgers and general
D. internal controls and information processing methods
5. Which of the following is recorded in the general journal?
A. services rendered for cash
B. correction of error in billing client
C. purchases of equipment on account
D. purchases of equipment for cash
Answer by DARK LORD
You will find everything in your book.
Fourteenth in series of 17 videos describing the essential ideas typically covered in early weeks of a university-level accounting principles course. This is an important video because the topic is a strong predictor of overall performance in the first year of accounting study. It demonstrates how to analyze the effects that errors have on financial reports.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar