I thought it was cattle and cane that was driving the destruction of rainforests in the Brazilian Amazon, but according to an article in New Scientist titled Forests paying the price for biofuels by Fred Pearce, it is soybean grown for biofuels.
Pearce writes that rising demand for biofuels is being driven by European Union laws requiring conventional fuels be blended with subsidized biofuels. All pushed along by recent announcements from the British government mandating that 5 percent of transport fuels be from biofuels to help meet Kyoto protocol targets.
A major source of biofuel for Europe is apparently palm oil from south east Asia. The Malaysian Star newspaper in an article title All signs point to higher crude palm oil prices states that demand for palm oil is being driven by demand for biodiesel production in Europe, implementation of biofuel policies in Asia, GM issues in Europe and the US, and high oil and fat consumption in China.
The article by Hanim Adnan also comments that if Asian countries implement their biofuel policies as planned, an additional nine million tonnes of vegetable oil, equivalent to about 14 percent of current total Asian oilseed production, will be required.
So are we talking about more carbon dioxide emitting forest fires, so the transport sector can reduce its carbon dioxide emissions!
I wrote a few months ago about forest fires for palm oil production, click here.
..............
I now have my own website www.jennifermarohasy.com that lists many of my newspaper articles, a few of my publications, and I will also endeavour to get more speeches up there. The website also gives me a capacity to send out a monthly newsletter to everyone who subscribes, click here.
Hi all,
I've got to things to say.
Firstly, in regard to "free" vs "regulated" markets, I'd like to point out that everything is regulated but in different ways. The argument shouldn't be regulation vs deregulation, it should about: where we are going, and how we are going to get there (top-down, planning approach) and/or what is the best direction to go from here (bottom-up, intuitive approach). Until you guys work this out, it's kind of useless to argue about the techniques that should or shouldn't be employed.
Secondly, I'd like to be bold and ask why noone is talking about fixing global warming through more creative means... What about pie-in-the-sky ideas like, well, a solar-shield-in-the-sky for example, that adjusts the temperature input of the planet... Or what about seeding the oceans with nutrients to encourage carbon-dioxide fixing plankton. Or mabye just huge tubes carrying ocean water into the deserts to cool the air - you probably wouldn't need to pump it, just using valves and the power of the heat expansion. I mean, whatever the environmental impacts each of these methods have, surely it would offset the wider destruction that would be caused by the 6+/-3 degrees increase global temperature?
Cheers,
Rene
Steve - we probably don't really know about eaves. It's true people want bigger houses, pools, air-con, multiple cars ( - why coz it's all very nice and pleasant - who's denying human nature).
But I think the eaves are simply aesthetic fad - southern European look. Bit of Italian and Spanish influence in design.
Anyway how much extra cooling this requires I don't know. But it sure isn't a Queenslander style with big verandahs? The point being OK for a few like this but if everyone decides to do it (and many are) puts a big drain on future resources.
Basically I see the trend is box house with split system air-con in many rooms or even ducted. (on brighter side they may be using inverter technology which reduces power levels somewhat).
Be very interesting to know what market penetration of home air-con is - some have said we're moving to a fully air-conditioned life style in sub-tropical and tropical Australia.
But if you can afford it - are you going to say "no". Think of the CO2. Nope.
Do I want fiddly solar and water recycling technology is my life. Nope - I want one flush only and no extra pumps or switches pls.
So whose responsibility is all this - does govt just keep up providing more water and power to meet "market demand" - or are there limits?
Australai is built on the principles of a fair go and looking after your mates. So where does this apply here.