Subsidies exist for all industries, agriculture through airlines. About 30 years ago I sat down for an english class and wrote a paper on pollution and transportation. At the time, the most subsidized transportation was trucking/bussing, then airlines, then rail. Certainly rail is still the least. Meanwhile, rail was far far less of a pollution producer than trucking/bussing or airlines within its own distance economy. Generally, if trucks were restricted to local freight, trains to multi state freight, and air to international freight, that would create the least pollution per pound of freight. However, I have no idea if this still holds. So, the least pollutive and most economical was the least subsidized. Had I known about publishing back then, I very likely could have published the paper. Problem was, I was an undergrad (sophomore) with little understanding of academic pursuits. Wish I had that paper today! :)
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote: > Ecolog, > > McCallum's post is an excellent example of specific responsiveness to > several points raised concerning this issue. > > The question is whether or not "biofuels" (a Madison-Avenue type buzz-word) > are "a path to energy independence." > > 1. "Biofuels," when all factors (or even a few of the most direct > elements) are considered, do not return more energy than that required to > produce, process, distribute, and perform work, i.e., they are > "inefficient." > > 2. It is pseudo-science and pure flim-flammery to ignore the various > subsidies that are commonly "factored into" "calculations" that purport to > show that there is even a slight net energy gain with their use. > > [NOTE: There must be some young, bright scientists out there who can > re-analyze all of the relevant factors to refute the misleading "analyses" > that have been used to SELL biofuels to an unsuspecting and well-intentioned > public and their elected representatives and appointed bureaucrats.] > > [NOTE: The jury is still out in my mind, however, on SOME biodiesels (I > suspect that re-used cooking oils is net-energy positive, but it would still > be interesting to see how much, and how it and other forms compare--a simple > histogram with solid ORIGINAL data behind it [no basing "research" on other > "research," or other "appeal to authority" fallacies, please]. I have high > hopes for waste-generated methane and alga-based biodiesel.] > > I've reached my self-imposed limit on the length of posts, and I don't want > to start a tangle of "logic" that provides too many avenues for digression, > so I'll end this year, but thanks to Malcolm for an excellent response. > > WT > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "malcolm McCallum" > <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2013 6:53 AM > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ENERGY Biofuels and their questionable potential Re: > [ECOLOG-L] Switchgrass Conference September 2013 > > >> Personally, biofuels are a path to energy independence. >> However, I do not agree with the mainstream that they are an answer to >> climate change issues. >> Biofuels use combustion to obtain energy. >> Combustion releases CO2 + H20. >> They still contribute to the buildup of climate gasses. >> Granted, biofuels may contribute fewer pollutants than petrol, but I >> remain unconvinced that they are an answer to this problem. >> >> Further, biofuels in general create competition for land between human >> food and energy production. I guarantee that in the long run, if >> faced with the choice of using vegetation production for human food or >> energy, that energy will win out. Why? Because Big Business almost >> always makes choices based on ultimate income and profitability above >> human health and welfare. This would ultimately create food >> shortages, escalating food costs and ultimately famine in many areas. >> I recognize that many may see this as a path to zero growth, but in >> fact it is a bad path. Human famine is probably as damaging to the >> environment as is human mismanagement. >> >> The advantage of switchgrass in this respect is that people do not eat >> it, and frankly neither is it used much for livestock. It does produce >> large quantities of forage for use in digesters. However, I highly >> doubt a monoculture of switchgrass would be any more beneficial to >> wildlife than a monoculture of oak trees, pine trees, or corn. >> Frankly, we already have monoculture of grasses in the form of >> hayfields. 2-4 hay cuttings a year must be timed very well to avoid >> grassland bird nest damage, amphibians and reptiles are directly baled >> up and killed by hay machinery, and modern hay machinery in large >> scale hay fields can even lead to baled up rabbits and animals like >> that are relatively mobile because such wide swaths are taken with the >> cutting and rakes. This is not an attack on farmers haying, or >> production of biofuels specifically. It is just looking at some of >> the negatives I see. Maybe the positives outweigh the negatives for >> some folks. As an environmental scientist, I recognize that we must >> manage the environment with humans considered because damage to human >> populations will feedback into the environemnt and environmental >> policy. It always does. >> >> The business of business is to make money, all other goals are secondary. >> >> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 11:52 PM, Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> If I understand the purpose of Ecolog correctly, it is a place for >>> announcements of matters of interest to ecologists and their >>> fellow-travelers, and a place for informal discussion of such matters. >>> The >>> most basic unwritten rule that governs discourse in a forum of any kind >>> is >>> to be specifically responsive to the points made by fellow participants. >>> Condescension in any form, direct or indirect, is considered by most to >>> be >>> unkind at best, but rude, really--"bad form," as some might say. >>> >>> I look forward to an open and honest discussion of the points made by the >>> discussants. It should be pretty simple to clearly and concisely state >>> the >>> evidence for and against such hare-brained stunts as converting CRP lands >>> to >>> switchgrass monocultures. Similarly, those knowledgeable enough to foster >>> conferences should be able to state the net energy yields of switchgrass >>> plantations, a simple matter of an input/output calculation. >>> >>> I hope that these pivotal issues will not be evaded by those who have >>> vested >>> interests in, say, switchgrass culture. >>> >>> WT >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Raasch" <[email protected]> >>> To: <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 9:59 AM >>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ENERGY Biofuels and their questionable potential >>> Re: >>> [ECOLOG-L] Switchgrass Conference September 2013 >>> >>> >>> Hello Wayne and David. >>> >>> Thank you for voicing your concerns and contributing to the discussion. >>> It >>> is important to look at the big picture and recognize the full impact of >>> human activity on the landscape. >>> >>> Regarding the switchgrass conference, there will be a session devoted to >>> environmental services and impacts. The first speaker for this will be G. >>> Philip Robertson, Professor of Ecosystem Science, Michigan State >>> University. >>> >>> There's also a two-day poster session and still room in the schedule for >>> additional oral presentations. I hope people will take adavantage of the >>> opportunity to present research covering their concerns. >>> >>> http://www.dfrc.wisc.edu/switchgrass/ >>> >>> John >>> >>> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 13:40:38 -0500, David L. McNeely <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I did not see conservation listed as a discipline involved >>> >>> >>> in "Switchgrass II." There is a move afoot in Oklahoma and Kansas to >>> convert Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands, which have been >>> succeeding toward something resembling a prairie in those states after >>> having been inappropriately farmed, to switchgrass production. Some of >>> these CRP lands are important Lesser Prairie Chicken habitat, a formerly >>> hugely abundant grouse that has been seriously declining and is proposed >>> as an endangered species. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Farmers and ranchers, partly because of misinformation, partly because >>>> of >>> >>> >>> experience, distrust the endangered species program but work >>> cooperatively >>> with the CRP program -- mostly because it pays to do so, but the result >>> is >>> more habitat for chickens. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If it is all converted to monoculture, where will the Lesser Prairie >>> >>> >>> Chickens go? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> David McNeely >>>> >>>> ---- Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Do I hear a "Giant Sucking Sound?" What is the evidence that >>> >>> >>> switchgrass can >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> produce more energy that it takes to get said energy to the point of >>> >>> >>> doing >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> work more efficiently than alternatives? What are the implications for >>> >>> >>> the >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ecosystems that would be effectively destroyed by widespread planting >>>>> of >>>>> switchgrass? Upon what theoretical foundations is the whole concept >>> >>> >>> based, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> including the "use" of "marginal" lands? Does anyone really think that >>>>> marginal lands will not produce marginal amounts of energy? At what >>> >>> >>> cost in >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> dollars and degradation/destruction of ecosystems? >>>>> >>>>> WT >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "John Raasch" <[email protected]> >>>>> To: <[email protected]> >>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 10:11 AM >>>>> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Switchgrass Conference September 2013 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Announcing SWITCHGRASS II, taking place in Madison, Wisconsin, USA, 10- >>> >>> >>> 12 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> September 2013 at the Monona Terrace Convention Center. Registration, >>>>> housing, and abstract submission information available at the following >>>>> website: www.dfrc.wisc.edu/switchgrass. >>>>> >>>>> The conference will bring together scientists and students interested >>>>> in >>>>> switchgrass and other prairie grasses to discuss the state of the art >>>>> of >>>>> prairie grass research. It will be an excellent opportunity to meet and >>>>> interact with researchers from a wide range of disciplines, including >>>>> agronomy, physiology, ecology, soil science, pathology, entomology, >>>>> genetics, genomics, and molecular biology. The conference will include >>>>> a >>>>> field tour, several plenary presentations, selected volunteered oral >>>>> presentations, a poster session, and a community workshop. >>>>> >>>>> Program Highlights: >>>>> >>>>> All-day tour of prairie/savanna and bioenergy research. >>>>> Eight topical areas, each with one invited speaker. >>>>> One-day poster session, organized according to the eight topical areas. >>>>> >>>>> A small group of abstracts from each topical area will be chosen, with >>> >>> >>> the >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> author's permission, for oral presentations. The committee will make >>> >>> >>> this >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> decision before the conference, so that authors have time to plan for >>>>> an >>>>> oral presentation. >>>>> >>>>> Abstract submission deadline: 11:59pm Friday 16 August (Central >>>>> Daylight >>>>> Time USA) >>>>> >>>>> Registration deadline: 1 September >>>>> >>>>> For more information contact [email protected] or [email protected]. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- >>>>> No virus found in this message. >>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>>>> Version: 10.0.1432 / Virus Database: 3199/5926 - Release Date: 06/20/13 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> David McNeely >>>> >>>> ========================================================================= >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> No virus found in this message. >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>> Version: 10.0.1432 / Virus Database: 3204/6003 - Release Date: 07/19/13 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Malcolm L. McCallum >> Department of Environmental Studies >> University of Illinois at Springfield >> >> Managing Editor, >> Herpetological Conservation and Biology >> >> >> >> "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - >> Allan Nation >> >> 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert >> 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, >> and pollution. >> 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction >> MAY help restore populations. >> 2022: Soylent Green is People! >> >> The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) >> Wealth w/o work >> Pleasure w/o conscience >> Knowledge w/o character >> Commerce w/o morality >> Science w/o humanity >> Worship w/o sacrifice >> Politics w/o principle >> >> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any >> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may >> contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized >> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not >> the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and >> destroy all copies of the original message. >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 10.0.1432 / Virus Database: 3204/6003 - Release Date: 07/19/13 >> > -- Malcolm L. McCallum Department of Environmental Studies University of Illinois at Springfield Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - Allan Nation 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) Wealth w/o work Pleasure w/o conscience Knowledge w/o character Commerce w/o morality Science w/o humanity Worship w/o sacrifice Politics w/o principle Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
