Global Warming Policy Discussion

[DC]

No, it doesn't. Sugar cane can only be grown a few seasons on the poor soil, then it's slash and burn more forest to clear way for new sugar cane fuels. Once you start dumping fertilizer on fields to grow sugar cane you've lost the energy battle.

this earlier claim

 

[WildCat]

this earlier claim

"Growing sugar cane has long been recognized as a threat to primary forest. Once the soil is exhausted, growers move on to exploit a new piece of land. Slash and burn agriculture can damage irreversibly the jungle’s capacity to renew itself."
http://www.un.org/webcast/864.pdf

 

[DC]

"Growing sugar cane has long been recognized as a threat to primary forest. Once the soil is exhausted, growers move on to exploit a new piece of land. Slash and burn agriculture can damage irreversibly the jungle’s capacity to renew itself."
http://www.un.org/webcast/864.pdf

aah i see. it was not baesd on actual reports about Brazil, but merely the idea that it CAN be that way. in the vrey next sentence they show projects that do it differently.
so why did you conclude that Brazil is not doing it in a sustainable way?
as described in the other projects?

why ascribe the worst case scenario to brazil and ignore the better case scenarios?

but atleast we know now that your claim was not based on actual numbers.

BTW: it does not even deal with Brazil, but with Panama.

http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/unia/2003/06/darien-forest--sustainable-development.html

 

[WildCat]

aah i see. it was not baesd on actual reports about Brazil, but merely the idea that it CAN be that way. in the vrey next sentence they show projects that do it differently.
so why did you conclude that Brazil is not doing it in a sustainable way?
as described in the other projects?

why ascribe the worst case scenario to brazil and ignore the better case scenarios?

but atleast we know now that your claim was not based on actual numbers.

BTW: it does not even deal with Brazil, but with Panama.

http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/unia/2003/06/darien-forest--sustainable-development.html

Are you claiming that slash and burn in Panama is different somehow than slash and burn in Brazil?

It's the same everywhere you burn down rain forest to plant crops. Rain forest soils are poor, at best you get just a few seasons of crops.

And even growing sugar cane in the non-rain forest areas creates environmental problems.

When including Land Use Change (LUC) factors, Brazilian sugar cane ethanol and soybean biodiesel have much larger life-cycle emissions than conventional gasoline and biodiesel for six regulated, non-greenhouse gas (GHG) air pollutants, according to a study led by a team from the University of California, Merced. The pollutants are NMHC, CO, NOx, TPM, PM2.5 and SOx.
Even with the application of the “Green Ethanol Protocol”—which will eliminate sugar cane pre-harvest burning in the future—Brazilian biofuels including sugar cane ethanol and soybean biodiesel are still likely to have higher air pollution impacts than conventional fossil fuels due to the LUC effects if the LUC occurs as projected through 2020, according to the researchers. A paper on their work is published in the ACS journal Environmental Science & Technology.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2012/09/tsao-20120924.html

And as far as Brazil's laws and corruption goes:

While environmental degradation rates in the Amazon region have accelerated since 2000, the problem is not a lack of laws, but rather a legal system where enforcement is so slow and so corrupt that it renders the laws effectively useless.

http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0821-cerrado.html#1grL6AR772cofH5x.99

You can have all the laws you want, but unless they're actually enforced they're meaningless.

 

[DC]

Are you claiming that slash and burn in Panama is different somehow than slash and burn in Brazil?

It's the same everywhere you burn down rain forest to plant crops. Rain forest soils are poor, at best you get just a few seasons of crops.

And even growing sugar cane in the non-rain forest areas creates environmental problems.


http://www.greencarcongress.com/2012/09/tsao-20120924.html

And as far as Brazil's laws and corruption goes:
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0821-cerrado.html#1grL6AR772cofH5x.99

You can have all the laws you want, but unless they're actually enforced they're meaningless.

the problem is that you did not provide any evidence that this practise is used in Brazil. and also the study you linked to now merely points out that some things must be taken care of so biofuels are a better alternative as fossil fuels. but also does not provide any evidence that their scenario has anything to do with Brazils reality.
there are also many things that need to be taken care of in the "production" of fossil fuels. or they can have much worse impacts than they already have. so your point is pretty weak.

 

[spin0]

The reality is that Brazil can't even stop illegal logging.

Look, you can by all means list all things wrong in Brazil in your opinion. Yes, illegal logging does happen in Brazil. And it's a crime as per definition. In Amazon area it happens for various reasons for example: valuable timber, mining ops, cattle pastures, and local subsistence farming.

But it does not provide support for your earlier unsupported and incorrect claim:

No, it doesn't. Sugar cane can only be grown a few seasons on the poor soil, then it's slash and burn more forest to clear way for new sugar cane fuels. Once you start dumping fertilizer on fields to grow sugar cane you've lost the energy battle.

As I already showed to you 99,7% of sugarcane plantations are at least 2000 km away from Amazon rainforest on fertile lands. Just take a look at the map, please.

That is the reason why I asked you the crucial question:
"then it's slash and burn more forest to clear way for new sugar cane fuels"
Which forest?

A lot of your confusion about the matter would become sorted out if you just took the time to think that one thing through and answer that one simple important question. (look at the map)

ETA: And, if you take a look at the map, you'll notice there's plenty of arable land around existing sugarcane plantations far far away from the Amazon rainforest. There's plenty of room for growth without touching the Amazon as I already informed you:

Regarding this concern, previous studies conducted in Brazil have shown there are 355 million ha of arable land in Brazil, of which only 72 million ha are in use.[138] Sugarcane is only taking 2% of arable land available,[83] of which ethanol production represented 55% in 2008.[75] Embrapa estimates that there is enough agricultural land available to increase at least 30 times the existing sugarcane plantation without endangering sensible ecosystems or taking land destined for food crops.[83] Most future growth is expected to take place on abandoned pasture lands, as it has been the historical trend in São Paulo state.[6][71][83][84] Also, productivity is expected to improve even further based on current biotechnology research, genetic improvement, and better agronomic practices, thus contributing to reduce land demand for future sugarcane cultures.[83][84] This trend is demonstrated by the increases in agricultural production that took place in São Paulo state between 1990 and 2004, where coffee, orange, sugarcane and other food crops were grown in an almost constant area.

So in short: Yes, it's sustainable.
And you providing unsupported opinions, irrelevancies, and what if scenarios doesn't change that fact. And it might very likely be sustainable also in the future as there's plenty of room for growth in production (improvements in agronomy, use of abandoned pastures, amount of unused arable land).

 

[DC]

Are you claiming that slash and burn in Panama is different somehow than slash and burn in Brazil?

It's the same everywhere you burn down rain forest to plant crops. Rain forest soils are poor, at best you get just a few seasons of crops.

And even growing sugar cane in the non-rain forest areas creates environmental problems.


http://www.greencarcongress.com/2012/09/tsao-20120924.html

And as far as Brazil's laws and corruption goes:
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0821-cerrado.html#1grL6AR772cofH5x.99

You can have all the laws you want, but unless they're actually enforced they're meaningless.

btw this study also takes only a look at non GHG pollution. means that while in non GHG pollution biofuels can be worse than fossil fuels. but when you consider the CO2 emissions, which is actually the problem we want to solve. biofuels are still far superior to fossil fuels.

 

[WildCat]

the problem is that you did not provide any evidence that this practise is used in Brazil.

"In 2004 it was estimated that, in Brazil alone, 500,000 small farmers were each clearing an average of one hectare of forest per year. The technique is not sustainable beyond a certain population density because, without the trees, the soil quality soon becomes too poor to support crops. The farmers have to move on to a virgin forest and repeat the process. Methods such as Inga alley farming have been proposed as an alternative to this ecological destruction.[4]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slash-and-burn

You know DC, I assume that the person reading my posts has at least a modest amount of knowledge of the subject at hand. You are one of the few people on the planet who is concerned about the environment yet has no clue about how slash and burn farming techniques are destroyiong rain forests, especially in Brazil.

I half expect you to next demand evidence that the country of Brazil even exists.

 

[WildCat]

Look, you can by all means list all things wrong in Brazil in your opinion. Yes, illegal logging does happen in Brazil. And it's a crime as per definition. In Amazon area it happens for various reasons for example: valuable timber, mining ops, cattle pastures, and local subsistence farming.

But the main reason it happens is because the government is corrupt and the laws on the books don't get enforced in practice.

But it does not provide support for your earlier unsupported and incorrect claim:


As I already showed to you 99,7% of sugarcane plantations are at least 2000 km away from Amazon rainforest on fertile lands. Just take a look at the map, please.

That is the reason why I asked you the crucial question:
"then it's slash and burn more forest to clear way for new sugar cane fuels"
Which forest?

A lot of your confusion about the matter would become sorted out if you just took the time to think that one thing through and answer that one simple important question. (look at the map)

ETA: And, if you take a look at the map, you'll notice there's plenty of arable land around existing sugarcane plantations far far away from the Amazon rainforest. There's plenty of room for growth without touching the Amazon as I already informed you:

Even if that's 100% true (and it's not) that the growth is already pushing plantations and cattle ranches into the Amazon rain forest. If you're growing sugar cane in the sustainable areas, that means you're pushing production of other goods (such as cattle) into the rain forest.

And 20-25% of Amazon forest deforestation is due to agriculture, much of it for biofuels.

 

[DC]

"In 2004 it was estimated that, in Brazil alone, 500,000 small farmers were each clearing an average of one hectare of forest per year. The technique is not sustainable beyond a certain population density because, without the trees, the soil quality soon becomes too poor to support crops. The farmers have to move on to a virgin forest and repeat the process. Methods such as Inga alley farming have been proposed as an alternative to this ecological destruction.[4]"

You know DC, I assume that the person reading my posts has at least a modest amount of knowledge of the subject at hand. You are one of the few people on the planet who is concerned about the environment yet has no clue about how slash and burn farming techniques are destroyiong rain forests, especially in Brazil.

I half expect you to next demand evidence that the country of Brazil even exists.

and once again you bring up some numbers without giving the source, and numbers that doe not seem to be in conection with sugarcae as we are debting here atm.
Deforestation is a huge problem, and also like you say, a lack of enforcing laws. but that doesn't mean those two problems are connected in the way you claim. and you did not provide any evidence in support of your claims. which leads me to believe that you are not really interested in this actually, and merely hold a blieve about it without supportive evidence.

 

[WildCat]

and once again you bring up some numbers without giving the source

Oops, sorry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slash-and-burn

 

[spin0]

But the main reason it happens is because the government is corrupt and the laws on the books don't get enforced in practice.

Opionated claim without evidence, and irrelevant to the actual matter. Dismissed on all accounts.

Even if that's 100% true (and it's not) that the growth is already pushing plantations and cattle ranches into the Amazon rain forest. If you're growing sugar cane in the sustainable areas, that means you're pushing production of other goods (such as cattle) into the rain forest.

And yet another claim without evidence. Dismissed as such.

And 20-25% of Amazon forest deforestation is due to agriculture, much of it for biofuels.

And yet another claim without evidence, and indeed contrary to it. Dismissed as such.

How long are you going to play these games? Merely making arguments by quick Googling, aren't you?

 

[spin0]

Oops, sorry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slash-and-burn

And you claim this is biofuels?
This is local subsistence farming. Are you really this confused or are you confusing the matter on purpose.

Biofuel production in Brazil happens on a industrial scale. It's by all means not subsistence farming. And it happens thousands of km away from the Amazon rainforest. Will you finally look at the map.


ETA: I digress, but BTW we used to do susbistence agriculture with slash-and-burn here in Finland for thousands of years - from about 2400–2000 BC until 18-19th cent. Because of slow rotation of farming areas and low population density it wasn't damaging to ecosystems here and provided good crops. So you actually can do sustainable slash-and-burn agriculture.

But it depends on the biome and such subsistence farming is indeed damaging in the Amazon rainforest.

 

[lomiller]

Here's the key thing; Market forces will get ya. There's no way around it. It doesn't matter what your opinions are or whether you like it or not, they'll get ya. It doesn't matter how good your intentions are, they'll get ya. You might think they won't get ya, you might think your too smart and your plan is too brilliant, but they'll get ya. There's no end of people who think market forces won't get them. They think everything's great, they're sitting back thinking they've given market forces the last laugh and boom..just when you least expect it, they get ya.

Companies selling fossil fuels have successfully ignored market forces for 100 years now.

The fact is that if they were forced to consider ALL the costs associated with producing and using their product they would not be competitive with alternatives. It's only by socializing the cost of the damage their product does that fossil fuels continue to be produced/used.

(Funny how the self proclaimed free market advocates always seem to end up supporting this form of socialism)

 

[lomiller]

The reality is that Brazil can't even stop illegal logging.

This does not support your contention that Amazon rainforests are being cut down to grow sugar cane and that Brazil's government is involved in some conspiracy to cover this up.

 

[spin0]

Companies selling fossil fuels have successfully ignored market forces for 100 years now.

The fact is that if they were forced to consider ALL the costs associated with producing and using their product they would not be competitive with alternatives. It's only by socializing the cost of the damage their product does that fossil fuels continue to be produced/used.

(Funny how the self proclaimed free market advocates always seem to end up supporting this form of socialism)

Indeed. Plus the health effects and tens of thousands of deaths coal causes yearly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_coal_industry#Annual_excess_deaths

 

[Trakar]

"Double Catastrophe: Intermittent Stratospheric Geoengineering Induced By Societal Collapse"

Seth D. Baum1,2,3,4,*, Timothy M. Maher, Jr.1,5, and Jacob Haqq-Misra1,4

http://sethbaum.com/ac/fc_DoubleCatastrophe.pdf

5. Conclusion

This paper has provided a detailed analysis of the SAI double catastrophe scenario, in which a catastrophic societal collapse induces SAI intermittency. The severity of this scenario depends jointly on the severity of the collapse and the severity of the intermittency. Great uncertainty exists throughout this scenario, especially regarding how effectively collapse survivors could cope with the rapidly rising temperatures of intermittency. However, it is plausible that the double catastrophe could be so severe as to cause permanent destruction of advanced technological civilization or even human extinction. For this reason in particular, avoiding the double catastrophe is an important goal for decision making about greenhouse gas emissions, geoengineering, and global catastrophic risk reduction in general.

One safe conclusion from the SAI double catastrophe scenario is that greenhouse gas emissions reductions would help reduce global catastrophic risk. In the absence of SAI or other geoengineering, emissions reductions help avoid catastrophic climate change impacts (as in Sherwood and Huber 2010). If SAI is implemented, emissions reductions reduce the severity of any possible intermittency. And in either case, emissions reductions help with ocean acidification, which lurks as another possible cause of global catastrophe. On the other hand, it is possible for emissions reductions to increase global catastrophic risk. Perhaps emissions reductions would cause economic decline, leaving society more vulnerable to other shocks. Future research is needed to clarify these possibilities. For now, it appears that emissions reductions would cause a net decrease in global catastrophic risk...

...A more general conclusion that can be reached from this paper is on the importance of considering multiple global catastrophic risks at once. Global catastrophes can have important interaction effects, such as with a catastrophic societal collapse causing SAI intermittency. More importantly, actions we can take now can impact multiple global catastrophic risks, such as efforts to build communities that could be self-sufficient during a variety of catastrophe scenarios. An integrative, systems-based approach to global catastrophic risk analysis is needed to understand these various interactions and how best to reduce the overall risk of global catastrophe.

 

[Trakar]

The Desperation Argument

More a contemplative orientation backdrop to any serious discussion of geoengineering, than any real dissection of the technical aspects of planetary climate engineering. For such a short article it opens the door to a largely unexplored aspect of climate change addressment that doesn't receive much/enough attention, as of yet. This article conclusion doesn't do the discussion presented in the entire article (at the following link) justice, in my opinion:

"The Desperation Argument for Geoengineering"
Stephen M. Gardiner, University of Washington

http://journals.cambridge.org/downl...24a.pdf&code=f37e58e795698864d298f403f4d38dc7

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the desperation argument misses much of what is at stake, ethically speaking, in geoengineering policy. As far as justification is concerned, neither the consent nor the selfdefense interpretations clearly license geoengineering, and they may even count against it. Moreover, the contextual question reveals more about the live threats and ethical import of geoengineering. In a perfect moral storm, there are serious risks of parochial and predatory forms of geoengineering, and the desperation argument does little to dispel such worries. In addition, the image of plucky Pacific Island nations thumbing their noses at their oppressors is seriously misleading. It underestimates the plight of the desperate, as well as what is morally at stake both for them and those who drive them toward desperation. Instead, we should think more about Sophie, tragic choices, and profound subjugation. To bring others to the point where, in desperation, they feel forced to accept an extreme form of domination is a morally horrifying prospect. These and other ethical complexities should be at the forefront whenever we think about geoengineering.

 

[DC]

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...ll-teaching-climate-change-denial-in-schools/

Looks like some states in the US have a very unique solution to the problem. learn kids that its propably not happening... who knows, maybe AGW will get pissed when we ignore it and will just go away.....

 

[aleCcowaN]

No, it doesn't. Sugar cane can only be grown a few seasons on the poor soil, then it's slash and burn more forest to clear way for new sugar cane fuels. Once you start dumping fertilizer on fields to grow sugar cane you've lost the energy battle.

Your whole one-paragraph post is a stereotyped fantasy born in deep ignorance. You don't have the slightest idea of how sugar cane is grown in Brazil and elsewhere.