Getting It Wrong
We believe in science, in the intelligence of scientists to inform us of the right way in which to solve our problems. We believe that those whom we elect in a free democracy to govern intelligently are imbued with sufficient intelligence to comprehend the extent of the problems we face, and to take the good advice of scientists to help solve those problems.
Take for example, the dual problems facing mankind today. That of the threat constituted by climate change, by the harm human behaviours are visiting on our planet, and our need to reduce our harmful practises. And the other, related problem of energy, of fuels required to make our everyday lives continue on the path to prosperity. Trouble is, the burning of fossil fuels is one of the signal problems leading to environmental degradation.
The government of Canada decided to throw in its lot, as one way of dealing with the crisis, with changing the face of agriculture. From growing crops to feed people and animals, to growing crops to extract energy potential. In the process Canada and the United States - and elsewhere in the world - have given over valuable agricultural land to 'bio-energy'.
In the process ensuring that some crops, vital crops like corn, are becoming more expensive as a food source, as a food additive in countless products taken for granted, as a source for feeding cattle, poultry, thus making certain that such crops, as food, become scarcer and much more expensive.
Yet this counter-productive exercise is still being touted as a partial answer to diverting energy use away from fossil-fuels. Now comes a study out of the University of Leeds that has reached the conclusion that "the emissions cost of liquid bio-fuels exceeds that of fossil fuels". Oh dear, big surprise.
Energy crops, it is noted, require huge amounts of land. As a replacement for a mere 10% of gasoline and diesel fuel, fully 43% of crop land in the United States alone and 38% in Europe would be needed. That's an immense diversion for the more immediate need of setting aside agricultural land for the purpose of growing crops to feed people.
Moreover, the very act of clearing grasslands and forests for the purpose of acquiring new fields suitable for growing bio-fuels would release carbon hitherto stored in existing vegetation and soil. Creating in the process large up-front emissions that would have the ultimate effect of outweighing the 'avoided' emissions.
A colossal screw-up.
Instead, the careful monitoring of the health of our forests and the restoration of forests becomes in and of itself an infinitely more effective way of cutting carbon emissions. As compared to devoting vast land tracts to the growing of bio-fuels. It's the conservation of precious grasslands and forests that is required.
And prime agricultural land should be utilized for one purpose only; the complete dedication of growing foods for human consumption. And all the allied off-shoots. What we need to do is to conserve our use of non-renewable fuel sources, not waste them by over-use as we've been wont to do. In fact, the transport of foods over great distances is itself one of the problems.
Science knows. Published, in fact, in the latest edition of Science.
Take for example, the dual problems facing mankind today. That of the threat constituted by climate change, by the harm human behaviours are visiting on our planet, and our need to reduce our harmful practises. And the other, related problem of energy, of fuels required to make our everyday lives continue on the path to prosperity. Trouble is, the burning of fossil fuels is one of the signal problems leading to environmental degradation.
The government of Canada decided to throw in its lot, as one way of dealing with the crisis, with changing the face of agriculture. From growing crops to feed people and animals, to growing crops to extract energy potential. In the process Canada and the United States - and elsewhere in the world - have given over valuable agricultural land to 'bio-energy'.
In the process ensuring that some crops, vital crops like corn, are becoming more expensive as a food source, as a food additive in countless products taken for granted, as a source for feeding cattle, poultry, thus making certain that such crops, as food, become scarcer and much more expensive.
Yet this counter-productive exercise is still being touted as a partial answer to diverting energy use away from fossil-fuels. Now comes a study out of the University of Leeds that has reached the conclusion that "the emissions cost of liquid bio-fuels exceeds that of fossil fuels". Oh dear, big surprise.
Energy crops, it is noted, require huge amounts of land. As a replacement for a mere 10% of gasoline and diesel fuel, fully 43% of crop land in the United States alone and 38% in Europe would be needed. That's an immense diversion for the more immediate need of setting aside agricultural land for the purpose of growing crops to feed people.
Moreover, the very act of clearing grasslands and forests for the purpose of acquiring new fields suitable for growing bio-fuels would release carbon hitherto stored in existing vegetation and soil. Creating in the process large up-front emissions that would have the ultimate effect of outweighing the 'avoided' emissions.
A colossal screw-up.
Instead, the careful monitoring of the health of our forests and the restoration of forests becomes in and of itself an infinitely more effective way of cutting carbon emissions. As compared to devoting vast land tracts to the growing of bio-fuels. It's the conservation of precious grasslands and forests that is required.
And prime agricultural land should be utilized for one purpose only; the complete dedication of growing foods for human consumption. And all the allied off-shoots. What we need to do is to conserve our use of non-renewable fuel sources, not waste them by over-use as we've been wont to do. In fact, the transport of foods over great distances is itself one of the problems.
Science knows. Published, in fact, in the latest edition of Science.
Labels: Agriculture, Environment
posted by Pieface | 6:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home