From the Washington Examiner
If members of Congress need yet another reason to kill the Waxman-Markey bill, the Obama administration’s economy-suffocating, job-destroying energy program, Princeton University’s Tim Searchinger and his colleagues have a humdinger: Carbon reduction laws encourage widespread deforestation as trees and other vegetation are harvested to produce energy from biomass to replace oil and gas. The problem is that in long run, this process actually increases greenhouse gas emissions, which cap-and-trade is meant to reduce, according to Searchinger.
The Princeton researcher’s paper, published Oct. 23 in Science, points out that almost all prior global warming studies failed to take into account the carbon emissions that result from converting cropland and forests to energy production. This accounting error treats all bio-energy as carbon-neutral, the authors say, despite the fact that burning wood and clearing land actually releases quite a large quantity of carbon into the atmosphere.
“By using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land-use change, we found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years,” the Princeton authors say. “Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%.” Neither the Kyoto Protocol, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, nor existing European cap-and-trade programs have taken into account widespread deforestation as farmers worldwide respond to the new economic incentives, Searchinger added.
This is an interesting article, one that actually makes sense. I am not in favor of bio-fuels, at least the ones that use plants, especially corn !! They will have to convince me that a certain plant or plants can be used without actually increasing energy consumption vs. fossil fuels. And laws would have to be put in place against deforestation, whch of course would be virtually impossible to enforce because it is happening now in South America and other places. Trees are being illegally cut now in many places and it is fairly easy to get away with it.
Here Rob, try wrapping your brain around this one. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2500311.ece
Rob, it sounds as though you are unaware of what’s going on with the rainforests, and the forests of the world, so here is just a few updates.
“The study supports the notion that economic growth is the key to maintaining and restoring environmental quality. The researchers stress that we should not be complacent about this positive trend, but it is, nevertheless, good environmental news.”
I’m sorry, did that say the study supports the notion that economic growth is the key to maintaining and restoring environmental quality?
Huh, aint’ that a kick in the pants!!
This is not news. They already know this and it’s evidence that cap and trade is, and never was, about “saving the planet”, because they will ignore this study as they have prior studies that came to the same conclusions. Look at this from 2007: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/08/cant-see-the-fo/ and this one from 2008: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/02/studies-say-bio/ Yet, they push cap and trade anyway. Hmm, gee, you think maybe someone’s gonna make a buck or two billion off of trading carbon credits?
I checked out your link, but I am very suspicious of those kind of claims for obvious reasons. However, from what I know about the possible ramifications of climate change is that there are probably certain relatively small areas that will thrive in certain ways. The problem is the majority of the OTHER changes will be detrimental to human (and animal) life. It is very easy to point out such things and ignore the bigger picture- so I’m not impressed.
What we have now: “Bad capitalism” prospers when risk is socialized but not profits, whether by federal largesse or no-bid, no-oversight contracts, backroom deals, subsidies, tax credits/preferences, or deregulation. Clearly, saving us from this capitalism demands “creative disruptions” beyond White House band-aids, namely Glass-Stiegal and like interventions to restrain blundering avarice. Zombie banks only tip the iceberg: on the docket for reform are reactionary (subsidized) energy companies, lobbyist-laden arms vendors and war profiteers, slow-footed auto makers, and diseased drug-medical insurance cartels.
What we NEED: “Good capitalism:” compared to backward, entrenched institutions – religion, law, politics, TV sit-coms, the Senate or the Pentagon, smart â€œgoodâ€ capitalism responds promptly to pressure, indeed relishes change and innovation, and historically learns to follow whatever norms or laws each culture enforces. Good corporations welcome new work forces (of late promoting minorities, gays and women) and hear customer outrage (e.g. baby seal clubbing, dolphins and tuna, sweatshops, green products, or genetically-modified French fries).
“Bad capitalism” prospers when risk is socialized but not profits, whether by federal largesse or no-bid, no-oversight contracts, backroom deals, subsidies, tax credits/preferences, or deregulation. Clearly, saving us from this capitalism demands “creative disruptions” beyond White House band-aids, namely Glass-Stiegal and like interventions to restrain blundering avarice. Zombie banks only tip the iceberg: on the docket for reform are reactionary (subsidized) energy companies, lobbyist-laden arms vendors and war profiteers, slow-footed auto makers, and greedy drug-medical insurance cartels.
Yet even the worst corporations are not kingdoms, if prosecutors act. Enlightened voters – pushed hard enough by failed wars – can even end overwrought militarism before it ends us. Imperialism hasn’t paid its way (while taking lives) since perhaps the Spanish-American war. Squandered trillions don’t improve our productivity, itâ€™s a gift to more circumspect nations in Asia and a big leg up in world commerce, at our (tax-payers) expense.
Small family businesses and partnerships, which put their assets on the line and don’t have a lobbyist for every Congressperson shouldn’t have any worries in this utopia. They are the ones that have built the country and are often the target of the pooled wealth of the corporations and their short-sighted goals. Small business should receive the lion’s share of any government largess, not the aggregaters of other people’s sweat.
Business, yes! Corporate personhood, NO !
Can you translate that into English?
I somewhat agree, although it looks like you cut-n-pated a bit too much.
I don’t think that the terms “Bad Capitalism” vs “Good Capitalism” need to be used to describe “Abuse & Fraud” vs “Fairness & Integrity”. In fact, that seems to be the crux of MSM spin. You can’t blame the glass for the poison in it. Most forms of economy or government have their good points, and would work fairly well, were it not for the bad apples that tend to rise to the top in the water-barrel, or should I say, the slag that rises to the top in the furnace. Perhaps it needs to scooped off from time to time 🙂
Stork, There is bad in everyone. As to bio, Rob is right on one point, CORN. That feeds our animals that we, as consumers, eat. Beef, pork, fowl, as well as food additives, corn syrup , et al. That’s why your food prices were up one/two years ago. Corn to ethanol, nothing more nothing less. It’s called profit/subsidies. Now it is reversing itself, but the subsidies still exist but the ethanol people are going bankrupt. Thank God! As to capitalism, you are right. There are bad apples and good. It is not rocket science yet others on this post will give you a ten page discourse as to why corporations, LLC’s are bad. Let’s get back to voting down climate change legislation and get back to making this country what it was and what it should be. Not legislative “Soap Opera’s.”
We have other options for cleaner more efficent biofuels that are largely being ignored. I have to wonder why the writer of this article would support such a biased position on the use of biofuels. It wouldn’t surprise me if the Princeton research was privately funded by one or more of the corporations who’s interests the results of the study would serve. I don’t buy it. Of the many biofuels the US has ignored for research, hemp is the most promising but it is banned from being cultivated on US soil. Why???
“According to the Department of Energy, hemp as a biomass fuel producer requires the least specialized growing and processing procedures of all hemp products. The hydrocarbons in hemp can be processed into a wide range of biomass energy sources, from fuel pellets to liquid fuels and gas.” http://www.thehia.org/facts.html
The writer quotes the research paper with â€œBy using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land-use change, we found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years,â€ the Princeton authors say. Tell me, how does the cultivation and use of biofuels relate or contribute to more deforestation? Who is suggesting we use forestland to farm in?
Wrong Stork. The MSM 9 out of 10 times goes out of their way to make Corporations look better, not as guilty, not as bad, as they really are. I mean come on, they are all OWNED by the biggest Corporations !!!!! Wake up!!!!!!!
And I don’t know what Paul’s problem is. I always refer to the Big Guys as being the bad ones (cuz they rule the world, maybe?!) Paul likes to lump all corporations together and rise up in a shining cape and protect the poor wittle Corporations from people like big bad Rob….
What is your problem Robby Boy? You hate corporations, large/small. Why? Your church, United Way, AARP, local gas station, grocery store, shoe repair shop, large and small farms and most small business’s are corporations, LLC’s for the personal liability factor. It is as simple as that. Some are sole proprietorships where they are personally liable. I strongly sense an entitlement mentality from you. If your neighbor makes money, and he/she owns a large/media/small “corporation, they are bad? Is it because you do not have or have not EARNED what they have that you, as well as others, you want a piece of THEIR pie? I firmly believe that you as well as others do. That’s our primary problem today. Entitlement society. Typical liberal, “Rob Peter to pay Paul.” Well I’m not the Paul that wants your stolen money, Robbie Boy! Go back to work and make a living and don’t expect hard working American’s to pay your way when you cry what “It’s not fair.” Give me a break and get with the real world.
No, I only hate large corporations, not the small ones. I have posted that MANY times. What is wrong with you? Oh yeah that’s right. You simply get on your message and turn a blind eye to everything else. Not only is it annoying, it’s just sad. And as far as entitlement goes, don’t make me laugh. I have two jobs, which I’ve also mentioned before. More and more people are doing that. Do YOU have two jobs? (I am just aping how you “communicate” on this site.)
The culprit, in the parlance of the day, has been the “Mainstream Media,” or MSM. But that’s wrong name for it. Today’s mass media is Corporate, not Mainstream, and the distinction is critical.
Calling the Corporate Media (CM) “mainstream” implies that it speaks for mid-road opinion, and it absolutely does not.
There is, in fact, a discernable, tangible mainstream of opinion in this country. As brilliant analysts such as Jeff Cohen, Norman Solomon and the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) organization have shown, the “MSM” is very far to the right of it.
The mainstream of American opinion wants this country out of Iraq. The Corporate Media does not. It refuses to give serious coverage to the devastating human, spiritual and economic costs of the war, and it marginalizes those demanding it end.
The mainstream of American opinion wants national health care. The CM does not.
The mainstream of American opinion is deeply distrustful and in many ways hostile to the power of large corporations. Obviously, the CM is not.
The mainstream of American opinion strongly questions whether our elections are being manipulated and stolen. The CM treats with contempt those who dare report on the issue.
The Corporate Media takes partisan stands (often in favor of the Republican Party, but always in defense of corporate interests) by sabotaging political candidacies, especially those of candidates who challenge corporate power.
Mainstream American opinion is committed to protecting what’s left of the natural environment. The Corporate Media makes an occasional show of sharing that concern, but stops where Corporate interests might be impinged. On the other hand, it promotes failed technologies, such as nuke power, where centralized, corporate profits are huge.
Never in our history has the control of the nation’s sources of information been more centralized, or more at odds with what the country as a whole believes.
This divergence is not limited to the attack pack fringe of far-right bloviators who dominate the Corporate opinion print columns and talk shows. Virtually all “personal” opinion expressed on the corporate airwaves and in the syndicated big newspaper columns is significantly to the pro-corporate right of moderate American opinion.
The “news” pushed by the major radio/TV networks and newspapers slants unerringly toward the interests of the five major corporations that own the bulk of them. They bury stories of vital importance while spewing endless hours and column inches at the mind-deadening likes of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears.
Their excuse is that they “give the public what it wants” and are “in business to make a profit.”
But the real profit centers of the corporations that own the CM are not in providing news and information. General Electric, Westinghouse, Disney and the other media-financial-industrial behemoths have too much to lose from an accurate reporting of the true news of the world. To protect their core interests, they are bread-and-circus PR/diversion machines, not real news organizations. They resemble the old Soviet official mouthpieces Izvestia and Pravda far more than the news providers envisioned in the First Amendment, by Founders who saw balanced, aggressive reporting as the lifeblood of democracy.
Nor does the corporate right never hesitate to attack. The absurd myth of a “Liberal Media” has been used to intimidate and silence mainstream opinion.
In fact, the term is used to apply to any outlet that harbors even the slightest expression of dissent. Even conservative newspapers or broadcasts that may be overwhelmingly pro-corporate, but which occasionally tolerate a whiff of dissent, are branded as subversive, ungodly and “out of the mainstream.”
There are indeed liberal publications and radio shows in this country. But it’s no accident that they struggle financially, and for access to the airwaves.
Thankfully, just as the CM solidifies its power over our mass media outlets, the internet has burst forth as an open, wildly diverse medium for mainstream opinion and actual truth. Its preservation will require what Thomas Jefferson called “eternal vigilance.”
That includes restoring the Fairness Doctrine, enacted by a Republican Congress in the 1920s to guarantee balanced opinion on the emerging electronic medium of radio. It means a ban on unified corporate ownership of large fleets of radio, TV and print outlets. It means busting up the monopolies that warp public access to information and opinion.
The word “mainstream” has nothing to do with the massively monopolized machine that has a chokehold on our democracy. It’s the “Corporate Media,” and there’s nothing mainstream about it.
My God, you must chill out. The conservatives control the media? Man, I must have been in a cave for the last twenty years. As to “Two jobs” etc. I have been working since I was 12 years old and I haven’t stopped since! Two jobs are nothing when my mother and father had two/three jobs each in the fifties to feed the famly. Don’t cry on me Boy! That’s life. Get used to it!!
Momo- you have tapped into the real “conspiracy” (which is hidden in plan sight) of corporate control. The status quo makes them money, at our expense, and the way “capitalism” is practiced in this country, all new and potentially less lucrative (from their short-sighted viewpoints) technology/options are killed/subverted. Capitalism is literally killing us, the tax-payer. But people blinded by propaganda and “patriotism” cannot comprehend this.
A Patriot you are not, a shill you have become. A lap dog liberal from Albert’s kennel.
You’re right Paul- it’s not conservative, it’s fascist. Very close cousins to be sure, but different nonetheless.