The "Green" group think has lost the plot

[hobbyguy]

Verum: like I said, the EPA, whose analysis is later than the EU LCA, says palm oil biodiesel does not qualify as a clean fuel - but they did not factor in deforestation.

Later information reveals that palm oil biodiesel is in fact going backwards in terms of GHGs. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6392

"Palm-oil biodiesel, once supported as a low-carbon alternative to gasoline, often contributes far more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than it helps to avoid. When each hectare of carbon-rich tropical peatland is drained for oil palm production, an estimated 3,750-5,400 tons of carbon dioxide are released over 25 years, according to peatland ecologist Jack Rieley. By comparison, clearing a hectare of tropical forest releases 500-900 tons of carbon dioxide."

The problem I find with the "green group think" is that most often it latches onto an idea that sounds good at first glance on paper, then melds the idea into the "green dogma", and it never gets re-examined in the light of new data and/or practical realities and/or unintended system costs.

[Jflem1983]

The Euros just need to flow to Saskatchewan Canola farmers. No deforestation there. Just ethical canola oil.

[Verum]

Verum: like I said, the EPA, whose analysis is later than the EU LCA, says palm oil biodiesel does not qualify as a clean fuel - but they did not factor in deforestation.

Later information reveals that palm oil biodiesel is in fact going backwards in terms of GHGs. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6392

"Palm-oil biodiesel, once supported as a low-carbon alternative to gasoline, often contributes far more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than it helps to avoid. When each hectare of carbon-rich tropical peatland is drained for oil palm production, an estimated 3,750-5,400 tons of carbon dioxide are released over 25 years, according to peatland ecologist Jack Rieley. By comparison, clearing a hectare of tropical forest releases 500-900 tons of carbon dioxide."

The problem I find with the "green group think" is that most often it latches onto an idea that sounds good at first glance on paper, then melds the idea into the "green dogma", and it never gets re-examined in the light of new data and/or practical realities and/or unintended system costs.

I see you didn't address the fact that Alberta oil is particularly CO2 problematic.
Secondly, the article is about Australian canola and is from 2017, where the EPA report is from 2012. If you read the report from Australia, they are talking about the EU vetting sources for the net-CO2 where Australia were able to bring in the oil at significantly lower CO2 footprint than traditional oil sources.
Nobody is saying that all bio-diesel is better than all sources of fossil fuel oil, but there are cases where bio-diesel results in less CO2 and some sources of fossil fuel oil are particularly problematic. Unfortunately, when the EU tried to do something about the latter, we shot them down over it:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-eu-canada-tarsands/eu-abandons-dirty-label-for-tar-sands-oil-idUSKCN0HW0YS20141007

[hobbyguy]

^^ got nothing to with the Canadian oil sands.

The point is that much of the "green" dogma is entirely counter productive.

Like the EU environmental credits for wood pellets that the Economist calls "Environmental lunacy in Europe".

http://www.businessinsider.com/europe-imports-wood-biomass-from-us-for-power-2015-12

Ever really thought about that? How much sense does it make to harvest biomass from North American forests and ship it oil consuming vessels all the way to Europe??

That's just more bs from the EU "green" dogma nonsense. The EU following "green" dogma continues to do stuff that only APPEARS to be of environmental benefit. It is just "greenwashing" by politicians who wanna look good.

[Verum]

^^ got nothing to with the Canadian oil sands.

The point is that much of the "green" dogma is entirely counter productive.

Like the EU environmental credits for wood pellets that the Economist calls "Environmental lunacy in Europe".

http://www.businessinsider.com/europe-imports-wood-biomass-from-us-for-power-2015-12

Ever really thought about that? How much sense does it make to harvest biomass from North American forests and ship it oil consuming vessels all the way to Europe??

That's just more bs from the EU "green" dogma nonsense. The EU following "green" dogma continues to do stuff that only APPEARS to be of environmental benefit. It is just "greenwashing" by politicians who wanna look good.

We were talking about biodiesel from Australian farms and whether it is green re CO2 emissions or not, which according to the EU, it is. Since you were so concerned with the CO2 emissions from it, I asked about your feelings on Alberta oil, a source of oil known to be particularly bad for CO2 emissions, and one the EU tried to have labelled as such. Either way, these have nothing to do with previous decisions by the EU on other topics. That said, while the US may not practice good forest management, it is quite likely that any attempt by the EU to only allow renewable fuel from well managed sources would be met with the same kind of shenanigans that we pulled on them, involving the WTO and such, so as reasonable as it is to complain that the EU's renewable sources weren't as good as they could be, it is important to point the finger where it should be pointed, at the source of the fuel, in the case the US.

Of course lots of what is done under the guise of Green policy is bad policy, that's the nature of politics. It doesn't mean that Green policy is somehow worse than many others, just that it is diminished by interference from those who care not to understand the systems and are more interested in pandering to their donors, voters, etc. Those who find a few cases of misguided Green policy, or interpret reasonable cases as bad due to increasing personal food costs for themselves, are not seeing the wood for the trees. Green policy, is far from perfect, but that doesn't mean that it isn't worthwhile. Every action has a reaction, and just because you personally don't like it, doesn't mean that the action was the wrong one to take.

[hobbyguy]

Of course it is. IF we really want to do something for the environment WE need to lower consumption, across the board.

The EU "green" policies regarding biofuels is just one example of a counter productive green policy. Biofuels in general are a really dumb idea, almost as wasteful as solar panels.

The "green" policies and dogma being followed are trying to offer folks a "free lunch", when there isn't one, we have to lower per capita consumption.

[Jflem1983]

Of course it is. IF we really want to do something for the environment WE need to lower consumption, across the board.

The EU "green" policies regarding biofuels is just one example of a counter productive green policy. Biofuels in general are a really dumb idea, almost as wasteful as solar panels.

The "green" policies and dogma being followed are trying to offer folks a "free lunch", when there isn't one, we have to lower per capita consumption.

For what to curb global warming. Look outside. The greens won. Its cold

[Verum]

Of course it is. IF we really want to do something for the environment WE need to lower consumption, across the board.

The EU "green" policies regarding biofuels is just one example of a counter productive green policy. Biofuels in general are a really dumb idea, almost as wasteful as solar panels.

The "green" policies and dogma being followed are trying to offer folks a "free lunch", when there isn't one, we have to lower per capita consumption.

I agree that consumption is a problem too. And here too the EU have us beat with less than half the CO2 emissions per person that we have. Yes, there is no free lunch, which is one reason the EU has for a long time promoted more efficient vehicles and less wasteful approaches to consumption. You can complain that some of their steps are less effective than would be ideal, but criticising another people and their representatives for a behaviour when we are so much worse just reeks of hypocrisy.

[alanjh595]

What is the largest contributor to carbon emissions?
In 2010, global greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector totaled 4.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO₂) equivalent, up 13 percent over 1990. Agriculture is the third largest contributor to global emissions by sector, following the burning of fossil fuels for power and heat, and transportation.

https://www.google.ca/search?source=hp& ... d_eXZ4Bj1Q

Generating electricity and heat by burning fossil fuels like coal, natural gas and oil produces more greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than any human activity, accounting for at least one quarter of all global emissions.

Out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). Of that two percent, “planet-killing” carbon dioxide comprises only 3.62 percent while water vapor encompasses 95 percent.

The average human exhales about 2.3 pounds of carbon dioxide on an average day. (The exact quantity depends on your activity level—a person engaged in vigorous exercise produces up to eight times as much CO2 as his sedentary brethren.)

Human beings do exhale almost 3 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually, but the carbon we exhale is the same carbon that was "inhaled" from the atmosphere by the plants we consume. (When we eat meat, we're still eating the same carbon, except that it passes through livestock on its way into our mouths and out into the atmosphere.) The only way to add to the carbon in the atmosphere is to take it from a sequestered source like fossil fuels—where it has been safe from the atmosphere for millions of years—and combust it. So breathe easy.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... sinks.html

[Walking Wounded]

Lol they are only misleading if you want to ignore the facts . I cant help if some folks want to remain ignorant of reality . Merry xmas

Of course we ignore your made up facts. Yes you can help the fact that you don't live in reality, one day you might just wake up and see the error in your way of thinking and come to the realization that you have been living in your own little dream world of made up facts.

[Jflem1983]

https://realclimatescience.com/2017/12/ ... in-the-us/

[Jflem1983]

Now Montreal has banned plastic bags. Wish the seperated when they had a chance. Sounds like their council is as out of control as ours