The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Economics => Topic started by: thundley4 on August 25, 2009, 07:20:28 PM
-
WASHINGTON — New forests would spread across the American landscape, replacing both pasture and farm fields, under a congressional plan to confront climate change, an Environmental Protection Agency analysis shows.
About 18 million acres of new trees — roughly the size of West Virginia — would be planted by 2020, according to an EPA analysis of a climate bill passed by the House of Representatives in June.
That's because the House bill gives financial incentives to farmers and ranchers to plant trees, which suck in large amounts of the key global-warming gas: carbon dioxide.
*snip*
The plan would, however, be hard on ranchers and farmers and potentially food prices, says American Farm Bureau chief economist Bob Young.
In the Senate, which is likely to consider a similar bill this fall, there are some who worry the loss of farmland would lead to increases in food prices worse than those seen in mid-2007, when costs spiked 7% to 8% above 2006 levels.
If those food prices seemed high, "wait till you start moving agricultural acres into climate-change areas," warns Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., Agriculture secretary for President George W. Bush.
USAToday (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2009-08-19-forest_N.htm)
Does this administration plan on doing anything to help the economy?
-
Of course, no plan on how to control them or prevent a friggin massive wildfire, which would release millions of tons of ash, CO2, etc., into the atmosphere.
-
What is it about trees, that obsess some people so much?
God and nature decided the best places on earth to have trees, and so trees sprung.
God and nature did not decide the whole earth was to be treed.
I give you the example of the largest man-made forest in the world, in the Sandhills of Nebraska, created by one of these "naturalists" who thought he knew better than God and nature, where trees belonged. The forest is a little under a hundred years old, and has burned down in its entirety three times; in both combatting the infernos and replanting the forest, taxpayers have been bled dry. The forest consists of long-needled pine trees, whose refuse is harmful to the composition of the soil of the Sandhills.
Trees are fine where trees belong--and by the way, there's plenty of trees in Nebraska, despite public perception, probably more trees in Nebraska than in Ohio or Indiana--but trees are not fine where they don't belong.
Omaha, a major city in the United States, at one time had tons and tons of trees in both residential and industrial areas of the city, planted there by effete easterners who first settled the city circa 1860-1880, who thought Nebraska should look more like New England. More trees than people, more trees than cattle, more trees than fish in the Missouri River.
During the early and mid 1970s, some sort of disease killed those trees, and Omaha today has considerably fewer trees than it did forty years ago. Some places in Omaha might as well be in northern Nevada, given the lack of trees, which used to be so commonplace they crowded out lawns and parks.
I suspect that naturally-occurring disease was God's and nature's way of telling the good people of Omaha, "Trees don't belong here; the soil, the climate, aren't adapted for trees, so leave well enough alone."
-
When the warming nuts finally cause an ice-age we'll have plenty of firewood.
-
What is it about trees, that obsess some people so much?
I think the environmentalists have been misled by their own ignorance, and Hollywood propaganda. "Trees are so pretty!" or trees automatically = healthy, never mind that Dutch Elm and other diseases have wiped trees out on a massive scale. So they try to put trees where they don't belong. Who wants sagebrush and prairie grass when you can have trees, trees, trees!
-
prairie grass these idiots are going to use OUR MONEY to PAY farmers to plant trees on farmable land. Insanity.
-
prairie grass these idiots are going to use OUR MONEY to PAY farmers to plant trees on farmable land. Insanity.
These were the same pea-brains that argued against planting corn for ethanol. They said it would use up "valuable farmland" and cause mass food shortages and starvation. But planting trees is okay, because trees are pretty.
-
These were the same pea-brains that argued against planting corn for ethanol. They said it would use up "valuable farmland" and cause mass food shortages and starvation. But planting trees is okay, because trees are pretty.
Don't nobody get me wrong; I'm not anti-tree.
I'm just against putting trees where trees don't belong.
-
prairie grass these idiots are going to use OUR MONEY to PAY farmers to plant trees on farmable land. Insanity.
Soon we'll be importing more food stuffs.
We could solve a lot of the forest problems by cutting down the old growth stands, clearing out the underbrush, and planting young trees. IIRC, the old growth forests are almost neutral as far as CO2 absorption/production. The decaying matter on forest floors produce many different greenhouse gases.
-
Don't nobody get me wrong; I'm not anti-tree.
I'm just against putting trees where trees don't belong.
Are you sure Frank?
(http://www.thestranger.com/images/blogimages/2009/07/13/1247502754-kite-eating-tree.jpg)
-
Anyone ever flown cross-country during the day? Trust me, we're not lacking of wilderness.
-
Are you sure Frank?
(http://www.thestranger.com/images/blogimages/2009/07/13/1247502754-kite-eating-tree.jpg)
ha ha ha ha...
-
And let's not forget the massive amounts of WATER that will be wasted in this endeavor.
-
And let's not forget the massive amounts of WATER that will be wasted in this endeavor.
Although a lot depends on the soil, subsoil, rainfall patterns, and kind of trees involved, trees can slow the velocity of water in the watershed and so work to raise the watertable over time (Or not, depending again on those conditions). It's 'way too complex to expect a bunch of green-fad idiots to figure out, though.
I have found in my own work that historical environmental conditions in much of the US are considerably different than most of the greenies think they were. There are large areas that are heavily forested now which were grassland at the time Europeans arrived, contrary to the assumption the greenies make that the move was all the other way (And indeed there are areas that have been deforested since Colonial times, it is just a lot less simple than their tiny minds can encompass).
-
These were the same pea-brains that argued against planting corn for ethanol. They said it would use up "valuable farmland" and cause mass food shortages and starvation. But planting trees is okay, because trees are pretty.
Actually it worked out fine for us, when corn was selling at $7 per bushell, because of the run-up in demand for ethanol........however, Pedro couldn't afford to by corn meal in Mexico to make tacos. So I hope you are being sarcastic in your statement above........as an aside, all the ethanol plants out here are now going broke, because folks figured out that for the vehicles that can burn it, it reduces their mileage far more than the per-gallon savings in purchase price for ethanol based fuel.
Food crops for fuel was never a good idea, nor is converting productive land into forests.......
doc
-
Food crops for fuel was never a good idea,
Not here, and not the way we do it, anyway. It does seem to be working fairly well in Brazil, however the conditions are wildly different and not something we can replicate. In Brazil they raise and use sugar cane for it, with a yield (so I have heard quoted) of about 8 units of energy in output for every 1 unit of energy input. Corn-to-ethanol, on the other hand, supposedly has a yield of only about 1.5 units of energy in output for every 1 unit of energy input. The additional manufacturing and distribution effort, combined with the lower energy potential of ethanol vs. fossil fuels runs it up pretty close to 'No advantage to the whole damned thing,' at least as long as fossil fuels remain available.
-
Not here, and not the way we do it, anyway. It does seem to be working fairly well in Brazil, however the conditions are wildly different and not something we can replicate. In Brazil they raise and use sugar cane for it, with a yield (so I have heard quoted) of about 8 units of energy in output for every 1 unit of energy input. Corn-to-ethanol, on the other hand, supposedly has a yield of only about 1.5 units of energy in output for every 1 unit of energy input. The additional manufacturing and distribution effort, combined with the lower energy potential of ethanol vs. fossil fuels runs it up pretty close to 'No advantage to the whole damned thing,' at least as long as fossil fuels remain available.
The latter portion of your analysis (correctly) is where my argument with ethanol as a fuel comes. Since there is approximately 40% lower specific heat content in ethanol vs gasoline, it is sufficiently less efficient as a motor fuel to economically prohibit its use here.
Real-world example: We recently purchased a "flex-fuel" vehicle. We have been running it on gasoline, due to fact that E85 is not available around here where we live. The vehicle will deliver 21.6 mpg (on gasoline), on three separate runs on I-70, from KC to Columbia, at a cruise-control engaged speed of 70 mph, which is a distance of 100 miles approximately. Around here we are paying about $2.35/gal. for gas. During a recent trip to our farm north of Columbia, I pulled into the local MFA station, and filled up with E85 (at $1.96/gal.).......tank was nearly empty.......then drove the same 100 mile route on I-70 from Columbia to KC, again at 70 mph. For the run on ethanol, my measured fuel economy was 15.8 mpg, a 27% reduction.
As heavily government subsidized as E85 is, in the instant case, it is only 17% less expensive at the pump than gasoline, however results in a 27% lower utilization efficiency.......makes no sense to run a vehicle on in under these circumstances.........at the current pricing of E85.......it would have to be sold at approximately $1.50/gal. in order to offer any real advantage to consumers over use of gasoline at current prices.
Don't even think about the negative "total energy budget" required to produce the stuff.......
doc
-
Corn-to-ethanol, on the other hand, supposedly has a yield of only about 1.5 units of energy in output for every 1 unit of energy input.
Actually, when the fuel to run the farm equipment, the petrochemicals in the production/content of herbicides and fertilizers, and the electricity and natural gas/propane required to produce ethanol is considered, the "energy budget" is closer to two to one (requires two BTU of total energy to produce one BTU of ethanol)......sans subsidies......
There is an argument for its use based on the fact that it burns cleaner, and emits fewer hydrocarbon pollutants than gasoline, but compared to the economic totalities, that argument is miniscule.......IMHO
doc
-
Actually, when the fuel to run the farm equipment, the petrochemicals in the production/content of herbicides and fertilizers, and the electricity and natural gas/propane required to produce ethanol is considered, the "energy budget" is closer to two to one (requires two BTU of total energy to produce one BTU of ethanol)......sans subsidies......
There is an argument for its use based on the fact that it burns cleaner, and emits fewer hydrocarbon pollutants than gasoline, but compared to the economic totalities, that argument is miniscule.......IMHO
doc
Even if it burns slightly cleaner, there is still the pollutants from burning the oil products to produce it. I wonder if it's not dirtier to use ethanol than oil products.
-
Even if it burns slightly cleaner, there is still the pollutants from burning the oil products to produce it. I wonder if it's not dirtier to use ethanol than oil products.
I've never actually read a study of that facet of ethanol production, however, it stands to reason that if it requires significantly more energy to produce, than it generates in end use, I should think that your comment is empirically correct.....
doc
-
Ahh, yes, think of all the wolves that will live in the new forests............................ :evillaugh:
-
Even if it burns slightly cleaner, there is still the pollutants from burning the oil products to produce it. I wonder if it's not dirtier to use ethanol than oil products.
Burning ethanol in large quantities also produces aerated formaldehyde, which can be poisonous in concentrated doses.
Why does the Forest Service want to plant more trees? They can't manage the ones they have now (*cough* California *cough*).
-
Oy vey...
Another stupid idea is born.