Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
26 October 2010
19:5476776So what about some biofuel power stations? I read today the government is subsidising a biofuel power station on the Isle of Portland in Dorset in the rush to replace fossil fuels with biofuels. There`s a serious campaign going on at the moment to stop it being built. Why? Apparently, it`ll be burning palm oil, the biggest driver of deforestation in South East Asia. `Subsidised deforestation` it`s being called, and something else to speed up climate change. It`s no wonder there`s so much confusion over this climate change business. Seems like whatever we do, it`s going to be wrong.
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
26 October 2010
20:0676777Palm oil plantations are also removing the habitats of orangutans as well as a host of other unique species so the loss of biodiversity is a big problem.
There was a program on TV at the weekend (I think it was Countryfile but it was a few pints ago) about massive dairy farms in the US. The one good thing that could be said about them is they collected all the effluent and digested it to produce methane to convert to electricity - that's the future, poo power
27 October 2010
14:0976860Absolutely right that this should be opposed. The deforestaton of the rainforest is a major concern due to the positive feedback loops that it causes in the environment. For starters, leaves in the rainforest breath, absorbing carbon dioxide and generating oxygen, and a lot of the moisture in the air is due to the open stomatas in the canopy. By clearing, the ground will heat up and rather than the forest being a positive carbon sink, the bacteria in the soil will heat up and become more active as ground matter decomposes, generating more CO2. So not only do you lose a huge area that can capture the carbon generated by our carbon heavy lifetyles, but you leave behind an area of land that adds to the carbon issue. Admittedly the new plantatons will absorb some carbon but it will be a fraction of the amount absorbed by a mature rainforest.
The only benefit to our economy is that palm oil is cheap, at a huge cost in extinction of other species and the loss of one of the worlds most efficient carbon sinks. There are alternatives, trouble is we only want to pay the least in monetary terms, regardless of the fact that it costs us so much more in other ways. The people of Indonesia are incredibly poor and are happy to earn money anyway they can, if we are prepared to pay. If we dont buy palm oil, there will be no economic benefit to the destruction of the rainforests.
As an aside, palm oil now appears in many products from shampoo to chocolate. It is possible to reduce the amount that you are subsidising the deforestation by checking the labels of products that you buy.
27 October 2010
17:1276905But my large bottle of palm oil looks so good on my new mahogany desk!
Seriously it's stupid growing food to feed cars.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
27 October 2010
17:1776908will you be renewing your "friends of the earth" membership this year bob?
27 October 2010
18:4276920Agree there Bob. If the Government was serious about reducing our energy requirements it would reduce the price of public tranport by 90% and improve services by 100%. It would also invest in green technology and the generation of renewable energy. But, alas, our Government does not put environmental issues seriously. I emailed our beloved MP three times to try and arrange a meeting with him as part of the Climate Chaos Coalition and did not even receive an acknowledgement, let alone a meeting time. I thought this was a bit off the mark for an MP as it was myself and several others that wished to discuss the issues facing the Government (see
www.stopclimatechaos.org).
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
27 October 2010
19:0076921it appears that chas is a little forgetful when replying to letters and e mails.
love that title "climate change coalition".
27 October 2010
19:0976924Not replying to one email I could forgive, two I could possibly put down as forgetful, three is obviously ignoring the issue.
Climate chaos coalition is not my idea, its a nationwide push to engage our local MPs. Sadly it would appear that ours does not wish to be engaged in climate issues
27 October 2010
19:2776932Which is odd since his Deal residence on Beach Street will be one of the first to be affected by rising sea levels!!!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
27 October 2010
19:3376933not a problem bob, chas is known to walk on water.
just answering questions is the difficult bit for him.
27 October 2010
19:4776935Sounds like he is in the wrong job then, if he is unable to answer questions, or even to hear them. I've had to report my failure to engage my MP to the coordinator of the South East Climate Chaos Coalition and this area will be one of only a few where the MP will not be discussing climate change and being made aware of issues that may not even have occurred to them. However, maybe our Charlie is confident that he knows all that he needs to know about the challenges ahead; that may be why he refuses to have a meeting. Who knows?
But a reply to one of my three emails would have been courteous.
There are lots of issues around climate change / global warming, and unless the governments pull their finger out, things may get out of control. This year has seen terrible floods in Pakistan and severe drought in Russia. Climate is such a complex issue, it takes research to understand the potential problems, and we would have come to him with research. But he appears to not want to listen.
28 October 2010
20:0877124Here's another example of why palm oil plantations are not good environmentally - this smog has travelled over 500 miles yet is still pretty awful. I wonder how thick the smoke would have been at the source of the rainforest burning.....
http://www.radioaustralianews.net.au/stories/201010/3046764.htm?desktopRoss Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,707
28 October 2010
20:3677127Palm Oil is seriously bad for all the reasons stated above
an alternative is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
28 October 2010
21:1177137Thats really interesting Ross, thanks for that. I had heard about batteries being made from algae, but don't think these are in production. As with all these new technologies, there has to be capital investment. The new Government was supposed to be setting up a new 'green' bank to finance this sort of R&D. Lets hope that they do and viable alternatives become mainstream. Green technology is certainly the area to invest in; oil is a dying business
28 October 2010
21:3877145Looks like Charlie's London office is also susceptible to a little flooding.
29 October 2010
09:2777196Hahaha, that would be a wake up call to climate sceptics!! Global warming is, obviously, a global thing and will cause some areas to encounter severe drought and others to encounter severe rainfall. We should count ourselves lucky that we have the gulf stream running in the Atlantic which keeps things relatively stable here (until the ice caps melt and the less salty water stops the flow of the warmer water northwards). The floods in Pakistan were bad, but only by looking at the scale of the flooding in comparison to the UK did I realise how extensive it was. See
www.howbigreally.com - the floods would have pretty much covered the UK had they been here.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
29 October 2010
10:2477205if thats the case i will inquire about a gaz guzzerling luxuary boat,tomorrow.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
29 October 2010
11:5777223i suppose that the upside is that they will have to lift the hose pipe ban.
