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.
"One of the reasons why some houses have no eaves is because local govt building codes often say that a building can be no more than "X" centimetres from the property boundary."
Is that true rog? I thought it was more a case that people were wanting bigger and bigger houses (market not receiving any signal that they should be saving resources) and the only way they can fit in a bigger house without encroaching over into their neighbours property is to remove the eaves.
Phil Done
Your comments seem like totalarian control.
The market is the systen of interacting inviduals assessing their needs and aspirations in terms of the market.
My obervation is that where the market is left to its own devices there is little incentive to make signficant headway on water conservation of energy conservation. And often on safety devices like GFICs. Or on ecological sieves like stormwater filter traps.
The assumption is that the government (and thereby the general council, shire or state population) can incorporate the cost and build a new dam or power station sooner than later. But if there is a major population influx to say SE Qld, Noosa or Port Douglas - is it the responsibility of the whole to provide general resources or the newcomers to limit their resource use when building new homes. And one has to start sometime. I guess Noosa, Byron Bay and Port Douglas have played with population caps indirectly by development limits. Is this fair and democratic. Where do you stop and where do you start on these issues? We have a Federation based on free movement around the nation.
On a slightly different tack. And in the end do end up loving these popular places to death. What first attracted you there is now lost - so is Noosa, Byron and Port Douglas as good as it was 20 years ago. Why does an yone go to Sufferer's Parasite. They used to say "Brisos go home" in the somewhat violent long break - we did.
It may have brought jobs and the "market" but I'd rather go elsewhere to somewhere quieter and less cluttered. So the market isn't everything - inefficient backwaters have more soul and character despite that longing urban need for a Big Mac and 6 TV channels. And where is elsewhere - not tell'in. Hint - replace sea change with tree change.
"Vested intrests (government NGO's individuals and corporations) both "hide" information or may issue dis-information, this serves to reduce the efficiency of the free market system and increases the need for at least some non market controls."
So because the market is not efficient enough, we should make it LESS efficient? That seems to be what you are saying.
One of the reasons why some houses have no eaves is because local govt building codes often say that a building can be no more than "X" centimetres from the property boundary.
With smaller blocks and as an overhanging eave is still regarded as a building's boundary builders are rewarded by removing eaves thereby utilising additional space.
The concept of a "Free market" being an efficient mechanism may only be true when there is perfect information available to all. In the real world things such as future climate change impacts are significantly uncertain. Vested intrests (government NGO's individuals and corporations) both "hide" information or may issue dis-information, this serves to reduce the efficiency of the free market system and increases the need for at least some non market controls.
Phil - The concept of the market is that each of us makes the choices we want to, and reaps the benefits and suffers the consequences accordingly, and resources are used where they have the most value. It is flexible and efficient. When bad things happen, they can be dealt with, eg the Asian financial crisis in 1997 hardly caused a ripple in Australia with its deregulated financial system.
"Free market" is often misunderstood to mean everything is ruled by flinty hearted merchant bankers with no consideration but the bottom line. This is not true, all sorts of values can be accomodated in a market. We are operating in a free market of ideas at the moment. Not something that can happen when free speech is regulated, such has been the case in much of the 20th century in some parts of the world. The market will operate until such time as one or other of us decides to allocate our resources (time, thinking) somewhere else. For example, I could be talking to my wife, but I am enjoying this discussion. If she starts to get testy because I am ignoring her, I may decide to allocate my resources differently!
So Tom - how did the market rebound with Bhopal and Exxon Valdez? It walked away.
See also cigarettes, silicon implants and asbestos. Did American car manufacturers invent car safety that we now take for granted or was it "Unsafe at any speed" campaigning by consumer groups. (and I'm not anti-capitalist - just realistic - not all firms are ethical).
So some questions:
Left to itself SE Qld builds 10,000s of homes each year that are poor with energy consumption and use lots of water. Water and electricity supply are somewhat limited in the region. The market solution to housing is now a Tuscany style (no eaves) hot box with a couple of large air-conditioners. The problem with tanks and grey water comes from the startup electricity of the inevitable pump that is involved. And people don't like messing with it all anyway. Older homes do seem to be going for rain-water tanks - simply to water the garden usually. The lawns of SE Qld used to be always green when water was "free" - now with water meters lawns turn brown in dry spells as well as droughts. People say "gee I don't want to pay".
Point being - we don't move to water and energy efficient practices that easily. And the commercial market in the end only gives consumers what they like. What they like may inevitably exhaust the dam water supply or break the power grid (see combination of storms and heatwaves in recent years and use of air-cons).
And it's interesting that given the Israelis have to pay heaps for water that they invent very efficient computerised rip irrigation systems.
If externalities don't get internalised markets can't work efficiently with all costs accounted.
So does regulation have a role - or do we just say buga it - build another dam and another bigger power plant and send me the tax bill pls.
P.S. And all this doesn't have to involve any notion of climate change. Just cost of provision. Climate change may require even greater water efficiency - and how will the power grid cope in next heatwave when more than 50% of homes have air-cons?? In a heatwave most leave it on all day typically.
Steve,
I have not stated that markets never fail- it would take a pretty narrow minded and staunch advocate of free market economics to claim that. But then again we will never have a perfect market. What I will say is that the more liberal a market is ie. removal of subsidies for airconditioners and bulk electricity supply as you have highlgihted, the more resilient the market is to change and to adaptation.
The examples you give are not failures of the market but indeed promotions of it. The consumer choses (not always rationally) based on certain factors and preferences. A large component of that is the price which can be inflated or deflated resulting from artificial market impediments or subsidies.
The market can't stop climate change as much as inefficient, artificial global planning structure designed to reduce human carbon emissions can. What the market can do however is adapt as resource scarcity or necessity also changes. With each loss there may be an advantage.
By setting artificial limits and 'tying' countries and economies to that limits the ability of resources to flow to certain sectors which, as the market dicates, are required.
While Kyoto may 'direct money towards climate friendly activities' it also restricts the market in developing efficient and practical solutions to problems as they arise. The classic example at the moment is the NZ economy. It has had its GDP growth clashed since going down the 'climate friendly path' and as a result investment and innovation have been starved as stalling industries attempt to comply with inefficient and unnecessary regulation and artificial standards.
If the market makes a mistake (as it will and continue to) it has the resilience to rebound and reallocate. The only thing that hampers that process is government interference or inflexible regulatory structures.
I loved the permafrost argument in Russia used in the WA parliament. Perhaps they can start planting more crops to soak up the extra CO2 and methane which is apparently being emitted.
How about putting a cap on Mt Everest the largest net emitter of carbon dioxide in the atmoshphere?