Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 03-09-2007, 06:48 AM   #1 (permalink)
Insane
 
pai mei's Avatar
 
Bush in Brazil , seeks new deal against the Amazon rainforest

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/03/...s.ap/index.html

Bush visits Brazil and thousands of people there tell him to go back to where he came from :

Quote:
Bush and the United States go to war to control oil reserves, and now Bush and his pals are trying to control the production of ethanol in Brazil. And that has to be stopped," said Suzanne Pereira dos Santos, an activist with Brazil's Landless Workers Movement.
Quote:
The cane cutters will be affected, we're going to have more jungle burning, which could harm the environment and even producers of other crops will suffer."

Graffiti reading "Get Out, Bush! Assassin!" appeared on walls near the locations Bush will drive past as he begins a Latin American tour that also includes stops in Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico.
It appears that Bush wants an agreement with Brazil, so that Brazil will produce more ethanol and USA will buy it, and be less dependent on oil.
He tries do destroy other's people country so the US can profit from them.

"We give you printed paper (money) , you destroy your country and give us ethanol"

What ethanol production means and why it's an utopia :
The USA consumes today 20 million barrels of oil / day. For only 1 million barrels of ethanol 20 million hectares of sugar cane or corn is needed. As you know, corn or sugar cane does not grow in one day. Intensive agriculture destroys the soil. Also they need more space for normal agriculture, which means that more and more of the Amazon jungle will be cut down or burned.

Amazon today : 600 new fires every day, man made or natural. 20 years ago it was impossible to set the jungle on fire because of the humidity, now things have changed, because of the deforestation there is draught, the jungle catches fire by itself from lightning.

Amazon dries up :
http://youtube.com/watch?v=g7gpAy4ivZ0

But Bush is imune and not interested about all this, he just wants more ethanol, wants to "help" Brazil. That is why the brazilian people love him so much. That is why Venezuela chose Hugo Chavez for president, they do not want a puppet president, slave of the US like Brazil has, and who will do exactly what Bush wants


http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/forests/...n_speeds_up.htm
__________________
Blog
One day there will be so many houses, that people will be bored and will go live in tents. "Why are you living in tents ? Are there not enough houses ?" "Yes there are, but we play this Economy game"
pai mei is offline  
Old 03-09-2007, 07:14 AM   #2 (permalink)
Insane
 
Darth_Kettch's Avatar
 
Location: Norway
Just read about this in the papers... While it's good that Americans are going for more enviroment-friendly fuels, I wish they'd not destroy more rain forests to reach that goal

"We don't own the world, we merely borrow it from our children."
Darth_Kettch is offline  
Old 04-07-2008, 09:41 AM   #3 (permalink)
Eponymous
 
jewels's Avatar
 
Location: Central Central Florida
Great article on this I read last week:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...725975,00.html

From The Clean Energy Scam
By Michael Grunwald
Quote:
The environmental cost of this cropland creep is now becoming apparent. One groundbreaking new study in Science concluded that when this deforestation effect is taken into account, corn ethanol and soy biodiesel produce about twice the emissions of gasoline. Sugarcane ethanol is much cleaner, and biofuels created from waste products that don't gobble up land have real potential, but even cellulosic ethanol increases overall emissions when its plant source is grown on good cropland. "People don't want to believe renewable fuels could be bad," says the lead author, Tim Searchinger, a Princeton scholar and former Environmental Defense attorney. "But when you realize we're tearing down rain forests that store loads of carbon to grow crops that store much less carbon, it becomes obvious."

The growing backlash against biofuels is a product of the law of unintended consequences. It may seem obvious now that when biofuels increase demand for crops, prices will rise and farms will expand into nature. But biofuel technology began on a small scale, and grain surpluses were common. Any ripples were inconsequential. When the scale becomes global, the outcome is entirely different, which is causing cheerleaders for biofuels to recalibrate. "We're all looking at the numbers in an entirely new way," says the Natural Resources Defense Council's Nathanael Greene, whose optimistic "Growing Energy" report in 2004 helped galvanize support for biofuels among green groups.

Several of the most widely cited experts on the environmental benefits of biofuels are warning about the environmental costs now that they've recognized the deforestation effect. "The situation is a lot more challenging than a lot of us thought," says University of California, Berkeley, professor Alexander Farrell, whose 2006 Science article calculating the emissions reductions of various ethanols used to be considered the definitive analysis. The experts haven't given up on biofuels; they're calling for better biofuels that won't trigger massive carbon releases by displacing wildland. Robert Watson, the top scientist at the U.K.'s Department for the Environment, recently warned that mandating more biofuel usage--as the European Union is proposing--would be "insane" if it increases greenhouse gases. But the forces that biofuels have unleashed--political, economic, social--may now be too powerful to constrain.
This is a travesty that's quickly become a huge political nightmare.

Quote:
The best place to see this is America's biofuel mecca: Iowa. Last year fewer than 2% of U.S. gas stations offered ethanol, and the country produced 7 billion gal. (26.5 billion L) of biofuel, which cost taxpayers at least $8 billion in subsidies. But on Nov. 6, at a biodiesel plant in Newton, Iowa, Hillary Rodham Clinton unveiled an eye-popping plan that would require all stations to offer ethanol by 2017 while mandating 60 billion gal. (227 billion L) by 2030. "This is the fuel for a much brighter future!" she declared. Barack Obama immediately criticized her--not for proposing such an expansive plan but for failing to support ethanol before she started trolling for votes in Iowa's caucuses.

If biofuels are the new dotcoms, Iowa is Silicon Valley, with 53,000 jobs and $1.8 billion in income dependent on the industry. The state has so many ethanol distilleries under construction that it's poised to become a net importer of corn. That's why biofuel-pandering has become virtually mandatory for presidential contenders. John McCain was the rare candidate who vehemently opposed ethanol as an outrageous agribusiness boondoggle, which is why he skipped Iowa in 2000. But McCain learned his lesson in time for this year's caucuses. By 2006 he was calling ethanol a "vital alternative energy source."

Members of Congress love biofuels too, not only because so many dream about future Iowa caucuses but also because so few want to offend the farm lobby, the most powerful force behind biofuels on Capitol Hill. Ethanol isn't about just Iowa or even the Midwest anymore. Plants are under construction in New York, Georgia, Oregon and Texas, and the ethanol boom's effect on prices has helped lift farm incomes to record levels nationwide.

Someone is paying to support these environmentally questionable industries: you. In December, President Bush signed a bipartisan energy bill that will dramatically increase support to the industry while mandating 36 billion gal. (136 billion L) of biofuel by 2022. This will provide a huge boost to grain markets.

Why is so much money still being poured into such a misguided enterprise? Like the scientists and environmentalists, many politicians genuinely believe biofuels can help decrease global warming. It makes intuitive sense: cars emit carbon no matter what fuel they burn, but the process of growing plants for fuel sucks some of that carbon out of the atmosphere. For years, the big question was whether those reductions from carbon sequestration outweighed the "life cycle" of carbon emissions from farming, converting the crops to fuel and transporting the fuel to market. Researchers eventually concluded that yes, biofuels were greener than gasoline. The improvements were only about 20% for corn ethanol because tractors, petroleum-based fertilizers and distilleries emitted lots of carbon. But the gains approached 90% for more efficient fuels, and advocates were confident that technology would progressively increase benefits.

There was just one flaw in the calculation: the studies all credited fuel crops for sequestering carbon, but no one checked whether the crops would ultimately replace vegetation and soils that sucked up even more carbon. It was as if the science world assumed biofuels would be grown in parking lots. The deforestation of Indonesia has shown that's not the case. It turns out that the carbon lost when wilderness is razed overwhelms the gains from cleaner-burning fuels. A study by University of Minnesota ecologist David Tilman concluded that it will take more than 400 years of biodiesel use to "pay back" the carbon emitted by directly clearing peat lands to grow palm oil; clearing grasslands to grow corn for ethanol has a payback period of 93 years. The result is that biofuels increase demand for crops, which boosts prices, which drives agricultural expansion, which eats forests. Searchinger's study concluded that overall, corn ethanol has a payback period of about 167 years because of the deforestation it triggers.
I wish I understood why the average consumer has not been made awre of this. Hell, I didn't even know this until I read the article. I worry about my kids' and potential grandkids' future.
__________________
We are always more anxious to be distinguished for a talent which we do not possess, than to be praised for the fifteen which we do possess.
Mark Twain
jewels is offline  
Old 04-07-2008, 10:11 AM   #4 (permalink)
Wise-ass Latino
 
QuasiMondo's Avatar
 
Location: Pretoria (Tshwane), RSA
Five years ago, he would've been cheered for trying to free the U.S. from it's petroleum dependence.
__________________
Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer.

-From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator
QuasiMondo is offline  
Old 04-07-2008, 11:24 AM   #5 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 


While I think the oringial post is just sort of a rant with really nothing to discuss, I am happy to discuss biofuels which are becoming very politically entrenched around the corn industry and pretty silly as an alternative fuel.

Energy independence won't be achieved by burning food.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 04-07-2008, 01:52 PM   #6 (permalink)
Addict
 
CandleInTheDark's Avatar
 
Location: Where the music's loudest
Unfortunately, economic well being is tied to the ability of a society to sustain its environment.

Some sacrifice of tropical forest, of all types across the globe, is necessary in order to save the remainder. How much gets destroyed is a function of the property rights of a country, and the prosperity of its people.
__________________
Where there is doubt there is freedom.
CandleInTheDark is offline  
 

Tags
amazon, brazil, bush, deal, rainforest, seeks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:47 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360