Bush in Brazil , seeks new deal against the Amazon rainforest - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pai mei · 03-09-2007, 06:48 AM

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

Darth_Kettch · 03-09-2007, 07:14 AM

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."

jewels · 04-07-2008, 09:41 AM

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.

QuasiMondo · 04-07-2008, 10:11 AM

Five years ago, he would've been cheered for trying to free the U.S. from it's petroleum dependence.

Ustwo · 04-07-2008, 11:24 AM

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.

CandleInTheDark · 04-07-2008, 01:52 PM

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.

04-07-2008, 10:11 AM	#4 (permalink)
QuasiMondo Wise-ass Latino 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

04-07-2008, 11:24 AM	#5 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	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.

04-07-2008, 01:52 PM	#6 (permalink)
CandleInTheDark Addict 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.

03-09-2007, 07:14 AM	#2 (permalink)
Darth_Kettch Insane 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."