Author Topic: The Retardation Of Western Environmental Policy  (Read 252 times)

Reel

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: The Retardation Of Western Environmental Policy
« Reply #15 on: September 12, 2011, 06:34:04 pm »
Reel, I don`t dispute what you are saying. What I`m saying is that there`s big money behind Western environmental groups. Really big money and yes they do have influence over Mr and Mrs Average Citizen.

And I'm saying that in the case of biofuels, environmental groups have limited impact on policy as it is set by industry and government lobbying with the end goal of corporate profit rather than environmental improvement.  Biofuels are not the result of grass roots environmentalism, nor mercenary environmental groups, and certainly not UN policy, since it runs directly counter to UN goals.

You can identify grass roots because it will try to balance social and environmental, mercenary because it will ignore social for environmental, UN because it will favour social, and corporate because it will favour economic growth and likely not social or environmental (at least not directly).

I can see how you would mistake this for mercenary since it ignores the social repercussions, but there really aren't any substantial environmental benefits either.

Xiao Jie

  • Full
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: The Retardation Of Western Environmental Policy
« Reply #16 on: September 12, 2011, 06:39:00 pm »
Reel, I don`t dispute what you are saying. What I`m saying is that there`s big money behind Western environmental groups. Really big money and yes they do have influence over Mr and Mrs Average Citizen.

And I'm saying that in the case of biofuels, environmental groups have limited impact on policy as it is set by industry and government lobbying with the end goal of corporate profit rather than environmental improvement.  Biofuels are not the result of grass roots environmentalism, nor mercenary environmental groups, and certainly not UN policy, since it runs directly counter to UN goals.

You can identify grass roots because it will try to balance social and environmental, mercenary because it will ignore social for environmental, UN because it will favour social, and corporate because it will favour economic growth and likely not social or environmental (at least not directly).

I can see how you would mistake this for mercenary since it ignores the social repercussions, but there really aren't any substantial environmental benefits either.
I read an article about biofuels in the Edmonton Journal last year. It stated the obvious repercussions of biofuels. The most obvious being how it is lowering world food stocks and not really helping the environment.
As much government as is necessary, as little government as is possible.

Reel

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: The Retardation Of Western Environmental Policy
« Reply #17 on: September 12, 2011, 07:23:07 pm »
Exactly.  So you can either assume that it is mercenary environmentalists with bad policy, UN with worse policy, or as I originally stated, you can follow the money trail and find that it is corporate interests with good policy.


Xiao Jie

  • Full
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: The Retardation Of Western Environmental Policy
« Reply #18 on: September 12, 2011, 07:29:40 pm »
Exactly.  So you can either assume that it is mercenary environmentalists with bad policy, UN with worse policy, or as I originally stated, you can follow the money trail and find that it is corporate interests with good policy.

I should clarify. The title of this thread in accurate. Policy was the wrong word to use. Actually, biofuels was the wrong example too.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2011, 07:44:38 pm by Xiao Jie »
As much government as is necessary, as little government as is possible.

Maggie

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Maggie is a one percenter
    • View Profile
Re: The Retardation Of Western Environmental Policy
« Reply #19 on: September 12, 2011, 11:12:18 pm »
you mean Corporate farming, Mr Munday?

yes..in 1991 we put together an OM for a limited partnership based on purchasing 40,000 acres of farm land in northern sask. and alberta......the end products were two fold..one farm gate products as a back up but mainly grain and wood for biofuels (ethanol)......our assumptions took into account the activity related to global warming..... back then we actually believed in  it....we projected in the neighborhood of a 20% IRR.......however we could not agree on the timing so i went to asia to develop stuff and a couple of the guys bought smaller parcels of land and went forward......i suspect now they are glad they did
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money." Maggie

Xiao Jie

  • Full
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: The Retardation Of Western Environmental Policy
« Reply #20 on: September 15, 2011, 12:10:23 am »
The following article was written by Josh Wingrove for the Globe and Mail. The highlighted part illustrates a failed government policy on energy and environment.

As Canada shuts some of its coal plants and moves to limit emissions on others, one thing is clear ? the world is marching in the other direction.

Global coal use is projected to go nowhere but up ? nearly 50 per cent by 2035. The demand is driven as world energy needs explode, particularly in Asia, a continent that already accounts for two thirds of coal consumption.

More related to this story
?Can coal come clean or is wind the future?
?Cheap and dirty: Where provinces diverge on energy crossroads
?Consider this: Coal is essential for Alberta until cleaner technologies pick up the slack
China alone eats up more than a third of the world?s annual coal consumption and relies on coal for 80 per cent of its power. It has, however, made progress on emissions reduction.

?People beat up China, but China is way ahead. They have cleaner coal plants than [America], for sure,? said Frank Clemente, a professor of social science and energy policy at Pennsylvania State University. ?Asia is coal. That?s their only major resource.?

Nonetheless, coal has its problems ? producing high emissions, it is linked by academics to health effects that make its true cost much higher than the simple price of burning it.

As such, the expanding world demand for energy isn?t unique to coal ? other energy sources will be in demand, too. One is natural gas, seen as a reliable power alternative (so long as it remains cheap) with lower emissions. Ontario is leading Canada in its attempts to get off coal power and is relying on natural gas as part of its cleaner power sources.

Many countries are also expanding their renewable power, and the leader isn?t who you might think: China installed as much wind capacity as the rest of the world combined last year. China now has more total installed wind-power capacity than any other country, though wind makes up a higher percentage of total capacity in other countries.

?We?ve seen a huge increase in China in the last five years,? said Yves Gagnon, the K.C. Irving Chair in Sustainable Development at the University of Moncton and vice-chair of the Wind Energy Institute of Canada. ?China is now number one.?

As all these energy markets expand, it provides Canada with three opportunities.

As a coal burner, Canada is just one of many countries developing better technology that may be shared. For instance, the technology behind coal-reliant Alberta?s Swan Hills Synfuels coal plant, which will use coal gasification to lower emissions, is non-proprietary.

As the world?s seventh-biggest coal exporter, Canada will continue to have a market for its product, though the royalties generated by coal sales are low. Even if it weans itself at home, Canada could still be contributing to global emissions levels by selling coal internationally while demand soars.

?You don?t need to be a genius to figure out what India?s going to do.? Dr. Clemente said. ?They don?t care what the Sierra Club says. I think coal is going to be the fuel that fuels Asia?s economic rise, and that?s where the action?s going to be in the future.?

And it?s not just Asia ? the United States is the second-biggest user of coal, while three-quarters of Australia?s power comes from coal.

Finally, as a nation in need of jobs, emerging energy markets are an opportunity for Canada ? either in production of natural gas or manufacturing of infrastructure, such as wind turbines.

The opportunity is not unique to Canada, however, and is illustrated perhaps most tangibly by Ohio. The state sits in the coal-dependent U.S. Midwest, and gets 85 per cent of its power from coal. Meanwhile, its stumbling manufacturing-based economy is looking for a new future.

Next week, Ohio?s Governor is playing host to an energy summit, bringing in experts, industry advocates and climate activists from around the United States to discuss the future of Ohio?s energy industry. And the motivating factor isn?t the environment.

It?s jobs.

A change in the energy sector, whether it affects shale gas deposits, manufacturing or simply makes the state business-friendly by ensuring reliable and affordable power, is considered fruitful ground for job creation in Ohio.

?Everything?s on the table. ? In so far as we are a state in need of jobs,? said Rob Nichols, spokesman for Ohio?s Republican Governor John Kasich. ?The summit will help create and form an energy policy that?s all centred around job creation.?

The summit?s coal panel will be moderated by Dr. Clemente, who believes the United States can limit its emissions but not ditch coal entirely, but will also include groups who believe switching to renewables will create jobs.

?The closure of inefficient, old 19th-century [coal] technology actually opens the world for a new economy,? said Henry Henderson, Midwest program director of the Natural Resources Defense Council. He calls the summit ?an important engagement of public discussion, and a pivotal point in a state we think is pivotal in the future American economy.?

Some say jobs, as such, should be Canada?s focus in a world with growing and evolving energy needs. That could mean getting out of the business of subsidizing new power, such as wind, and instead subsidizing the manufacturing of wind turbines ? the jobs are in building them not running them, Dr. Gagnon said.

?It?s a sector we need to capitalize on.
?
 
As much government as is necessary, as little government as is possible.

Cartman

  • Junior
  • **
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: The Retardation Of Western Environmental Policy
« Reply #21 on: September 26, 2011, 12:52:56 pm »
too many question marks

heinzy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Re: The Retardation Of Western Environmental Policy
« Reply #22 on: October 15, 2011, 10:39:17 am »

The  socio-economic harm caused by the  production of biofuel , has  long ago been recognised and exhaustively documented .

Cartman

  • Junior
  • **
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: The Retardation Of Western Environmental Policy
« Reply #23 on: October 31, 2011, 04:29:42 am »
nothing has changed tho

The  socio-economic harm caused by the  production of biofuel , has  long ago been recognised and exhaustively documented .

heinzy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Re: The Retardation Of Western Environmental Policy
« Reply #24 on: October 31, 2011, 08:06:20 pm »
nothing has changed tho

The  socio-economic harm caused by the  production of biofuel , has  long ago been recognised and exhaustively documented .

I am not up to speed anymore with that subject, but I do seem to remember, that state subsidies to farmers in Europe planting canola has stopped or had been greatly  curtailed . The foreseeable problem  was of course the sudden skyrocketing prices for products formerly grown on acreage like wheat, sugar beets etc, then been displaced by canola.

An other financial d?b?cle were wind turbines ....

....hydrogen based fuel cells ....

....anthropogenic GW....


Science and politics simply do not mix .