You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Culture Wars
Biofuels stampede 'damaging the environment'
2007-06-30
The rush for biofuels is causing massive environmental damage and must be halted, a campaign group claims. Whole ecosystems are being destroyed and hundreds of thousands of people are being thrown off their land to make way for the crops needed to make biofuel, it alleges.

The charity Grain ...
Who?
... says there has been a stampede towards biofuels - an alcohol-based fuel made from crops and trees planted on a large scale - as a 'greener' alternative to fossil fuels. But it claims that some biofuels are as damaging as traditional fuels and there is hardly any saving on carbon emissions.

For its hard-hitting report Grain claims it has gathered material from around the world and concluded that the rush to biofuels is causing enormous environmental and social damage.
more at the link
I was afraid of that ...
Posted by:lotp

#8  Let me know when Greenpeace, as an organization, does so.
Posted by: Pappy   2007-06-30 17:22  

#7  Unfortunately, advocating nuclear power won't put contributions in Greenpeace's purse. Eventually they will come such a 'reluctant' conclusion, but only after their contributors and most vocal supporters accept it.

Pappy, reality has already gobsmacked these gits long ago. The guy's language reveals what a total loon he still is.
Going Nuclear — A Green Makes the Case
By Patrick Moore
Sunday, April 16, 2006; Page B01

In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.
[emphasis added]
Posted by: Zenster   2007-06-30 10:35  

#6  Unfortunately, advocating nuclear power won't put contributions in Greenpeace's purse. Eventually they will come such a 'reluctant' conclusion, but only after their contributors and most vocal supporters accept it.
Posted by: Pappy   2007-06-30 10:15  

#5  Is there anything that doesn't damage the environment?

Probably not. We are well beyond hunter-gatherer population densities in most places. Providing food and energy will therefore leave some sort of "footprint". Absent functional fusion power generation, nuclear power is the only viable alternative at this point. Even Greenpeace finally admits this. One can only imagine how much their vocal opposition has caused damaging polarization on the issue of constructing more reactors. A hydrogen economy is one of the few prospects with any real potential for minimizing environmental impact. Towards that end, building more nuclear reactors makes ultimate sense.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-06-30 09:20  

#4  I was impressed that this group actually looked at data rather than just emoting their way to public policy. They're one up on the Gorester at least.
Posted by: lotp   2007-06-30 08:53  

#3  Ima thinkin that all the CO2 and hot air put out by these groups causes environmental problems.
Posted by: JohnQC   2007-06-30 08:36  

#2  Is there anything that doesn't damage the environment?
Posted by: Mike   2007-06-30 08:21  

#1  So they'll be lobbying for more nuclear power then, right? Nah, makes too much sense...
Posted by: PBMcL   2007-06-30 01:41  

00:00