G8 declares goal of cuttting GHG by 50% by 2050

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: Re: Re: G8 declares goal of cuttting GHG by 50% by 2050

Originally posted by VJ

This is a huge jump if you believe Bush was seriously believing what he said about global warming -- id est, if you're a sucker. I think it was pretty damn obvious the US admin was pretending that global warming didn't exist so it wouldn't have to do anything about it. Now that Bush indeed can't really do anything at it because of hostilities with Congress, he's free to announce that he has changed his mind about it.

It doesnt matter what Bush really believed then, and it doesnt matter what Bush really believes now. Bushs prior position meant that any pol who DID want to do something, was a weirdo lefty enviro, and it put pressure down through the bureaucracy not to talk about it. The new position legitimizes concern with GHG in the executive branch, and it reduces the political cost to any pols interested in taking up the issue.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin
If we're serious about ethanol then we need to stop He just wants to pretend to be doing something so he stay popular

WTF? STAY popular? Thatd be like me trying keep having a full head of hair or something. Its way too late for that.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Patroklos

You can't help yourself can you.

50 years is at least an achievable goal. Plenty of time to implement a real plan that won't collapse our economies. Also a long enough time to let most tech initiatives mature naturally.

Brazil went to E85 in just 10 years and has way more sugar and ethanol then it can use. Start importing ethanol and raw sugar and watch the price of ethanol collapse. If we really wanted to push ethanol then that's what we'd do and we could do it in ten years just like Brazil did.

Since we're not that means we're not serious.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Patroklos
So what kind of power to they plan on using? I hope they figure out how to build hydrogen powered merchant ships...

Use your imagination.

[Patroklos]

Brazil went to E85 in just 10 years and has way more sugar and ethanol then it can use. Start importing ethanol and raw sugar and watch the price of ethanol collapse. If we really wanted to push ethanol then that's what we'd do and we could do it in ten years just like Brazil did.

Since we're not that means we're not serious.

Or maybe the things your talking about have reprecussions outside of the enviromental ones. America is not Brazil. Not even worth comparing really.

[Dinner]

So you are saying that allowing tariff free import of sugar and finished ethanol is impossible and would destroy the American economy? Sounds like BS to me. It could easily be done and given the massive farm subsidies corn farmers already get its not like they need the huge protective tariffs.

[Zkribbler]

Brazil switched over to ethonol for two reasons. First, it wanted to wean itself off of gasoline. Second, it wanted to aid its sugar industry. (Their ethonol comes from sugar.)

We have prices supports for our sugar so we make our ethonol out of corn. Lately, breakfast cereal companies have been rising their prices because the increasing demand for corn in the U.S. has driven up prices. What's far worse is that Mexican farmers are switching their fields over to corn, and this is leading to a taquilla shortage.

[Dinner]

These are artificial price rises due to tariffs. If we get rid of the tariffs then real sugar will be cheaper then processed corn syrup. This will result in a dropping of corn prices to the market rate, a drop in ethanol prices due to cheaper raw materials, and thus a spike in ethanol consumption. If we stop tariffing the hell out of foreign produced ethanol then we could end our artificial shortage of ethanol in very short order and actually push E85 as the standard. That's very doable since just about every are produced by the big three since 1992 or so can run on E85 without problems. Older cars can run on up to 20% ethanol without problems.

That's a big drop in oil imports and a big drop in the amount of fossil carbon we're putting in the atmosphere. It has been done in other countries and we can easily do it here but the corn farm lobby doesn't want the competition. The resulting high prices are slowing things down.

[Dinner]

What we need is a new round of GATT to be completed and a negotiated end to farm subsidies world wide. That would be spur a lot of new economic growth.

[Patroklos]

So you are saying that allowing tariff free import of sugar and finished ethanol is impossible and would destroy the American economy? Sounds like BS to me. It could easily be done and given the massive farm subsidies corn farmers already get its not like they need the huge protective tariffs.

Did I say that, or does your grand scheme to save the world revolve around Ethonal only?

Get a grip Oerdin, I am saying that you can't just instantly alter 1000 things about our economy to reach a goal. You throw out a new idea like this every thread, and sure one at a time no big deal, but you put them all together and you **** **** up.

Especaially if it is done with this cavalier "MAKE IT HAPPEN NOW!" attitude where your tunnel vision makes you unable to see anything but your goal.

So why don't you try and think about what the results of eliminating the sugar tariffs might be instead of just "ZOMFG **** THE CORN FARMERS!!!#%#%" the whole thing.

Of course it goes without saying that Bush is in the pocket of the corn lobby right? There I saved you the trouble

[Dinner]

In post 30 you said we'd need to time (you said 50 years would be enough time) to come up with a plan which could solve the energy problem which won't "collapse our economy". Farming is a tiny fraction of the economy and it will still exist after we get rid of the protective tariffs and subsidies though it won't be as lucrative as before. In any event the total economy will benefit from lower sugar/ethanol/ energy prices plus the environment (from a CO2 perspective) will be better off. It's a win for everyone but greedy corn farmers. Unfortunately, our political system over represents low population economically backwards rural areas so the 97% of the US population who are not farms are held hostage by the 3% (or less) who are.

As for instantly inventing new ideas. Ethanol isn't a new idea. The US has been using ethanol in low quantities since the 1970's and large nations like Brazil have already successfully made the switch (all cars sold in Brazil run on E85) while places like Thailand, and Columbia are considering the switch. It's a big win economically plus it offsets oil imports thus improving the balance of trade for those countries. The US would find it more efficient to import sugar from tropical countries then to grow our own so we should do that. Economic efficiency is what we should be aiming for but things like tariffs and subsidies distort the market and create odd outcomes. Just let the market work.

Free trade.

[Dinner]

BTW you sound like you're the one going off the deep end and getting worked up. Not me.

Oh, and yes the Republicans are way more sensative to the concerns of the farming lobby groups because their power base is in "the heartland" while Democrats are strongest in urban areas. That's why you get the Republican reps and Senators from the midwest so pro-farm subsidies dispite being supposed free traders. They know their districts are filled with farmers so they promote protectionism and subsidies for farmers in order to pander for votes. That's just the way the politics work out.

[Dauphin]

Can I so I can look like a cool kid even though I ain't?

[Dauphin]

Sod it, I don't need anyone's permission.

:LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL:

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Corn just doesn't produce as much sugar as sugar cane or sugar beets

No sh*t sherlock