2/3rds of the virgin Amazon rainforest designated for Oil exploration.

DUE to Calif Air Resources Boards decision to consider Indirect Land Use Changes in evaluating the Carbon footprint of biofuels only (apparently they don't think there are Indirect Land Use changes related to the production of gasoline) there is increasd interest the subject.

Some might consider that an area the size of TExas being set aside in virgin Amazon rainforest for Oil exploration kindof noteworthy. NOTE that when oil companies go exploring for oil they cut roads into previously innaccessible parts of the rainforest. Once roads are cut the illegal lumber operations move in and cut down trees so fast it would make you head spin. After that local farmers will try subsistence farming on the not very fertile soil - after they have cut down the smaller trees for firewood and to make charcoal.

Better buy some pictures of the rainforest while it's still there. Illegal loggers move fast. And by the way, over half the World's species of plants and animals live in tropical rainforests. We don't even know half of what's in there.

"


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x195294

:cry: We have to stop the use of oil asap. As much as possible anyway.:(

that burn the fuel. What I mean by that is, it will take about 20 years to get a 10% to 20% reduction in gasoline consumption by use of hybrids. We do not have that long. We have about 6 to 10 years to start making some meaningful reductions to CO2 emissions. The best way we can do that is by rapidly expanding ethanol prouction (from all feedstocks available to us: corn, sugar from Mexico and if Japan doesn't beat us to it, ethanol from Brazil). We should increase ethanol production double or triple what it is now in 8 to 10 years. It would take a major effort but I think it could be done.

Ethanol holds down the price of gas by meeting some of the demand for gas. (Because of something called the Elasticity of Demand for gasoline). By keeping the price of gas down this makes many exploration projects for oil NOT COST EFFECTIVE - so they are not pursued. (it has recently been reported that oil companies have axxed a lot of exploration projects because the price of gas/oil makes these projects not profitable.) Increasing ethanol production is the quickest way to bring down oil consumption(to a point). In the long run, we have to have hybrids but they are not going to bring down gas consumption soon enough to make a difference, in terms of Global Warming.

In the long run we need electric cars but they willnot have a big enough impact on gasoline consumption soon enough to reign in global warming. Of course, perhaps doublilng or tripling the ethanol production in 10 years may not be enough either. But by NOT increasing ethanol production we are consigning the Earth to an out of control furnace effect and much much higher temperatures.

But frankly, I kind of doubt people will realize this until it's too late. I think people will realize this in 7 or 8 years but by then it will probably be too late to incrwease ethanol production that much, as it takes a few years to pull that off too. If we wait 7 or 8 years to get started on that we won't be able to do it in time.

Then the money hungry Republicans under Ronald Reagan in collusion with OPEC did away with every single renewable program that was proposed.

Drill here baby, we are already 30 years behind the curve, what's another ten years going to do to us?

20 years to wait for maybe 20% reduction in gasoline consumption.

I think we are in a deep septic tank here, and things are going to become down right painful before they get better.

It always seems like Republican Presidents and administrations cause so much damage (economically, environmentally, foreign policy, as well as in other ways), and the progressive Democrats end up trying to fix it. But the progressives are at a huge disadvantage, because the media and the money flows in the opposite direction. The progressive ideas are generally not even discussed, and if they are, they are made out to seem ridiculous.

I'm thinking now of single payer healthcare. If this is even discussed at all in big media, it's criticized as being unworkable.

It takes more energy to grow the corn, harvest the corn, and produce ethanol from it than you get out of it. Whatever energy you put into the ethanol would be better used directly.

The solution is not to continue our hyperconsuming culture with more efficient machines. It is to live simply and locally. There are a great many things you can do to stop wasting energy.

Travel less. Waste less. Reuse, recycle, and renew in that order.

Hang your clothes out to dry.

Eat fresh vegetables. Stop mowing your lawn and plant a garden instead. What you can't grow for yourself, buy from local farmers.

Reduce or eliminate meat from your diet - veggies are better for you anyway, and it's much more energy efficient to eat them than it is to feed them to an animal and then kill it and eat it.

Walk where you're going if you can. If it's too far to walk, pedal. If it's too far to pedal, ask yourself (1) whether you really need to go, and (2) what other use you can make of your trip. When you must drive, drive gently; keep your car in tune and your tires inflated. Use mass transit if it's available.

For long trips, take the train. Fly only as a last resort.

Weatherproof your house in the winter, dress warmly, and turn the heat down. In the summer, turn off the AC and open the windows. Fresh air is good for you!

Turn off the lights when you leave the room. Unplug the wall warts when the devices they power are not in use. Turn off the TV and read a book!

And stop buying all that useless crap from China that you're going to throw away in 18 months because it's "so last year." Think about the energy and raw materials that went into making it, and the fossil fuels burned in transporting it over here.

The list goes on and on, but it all adds up to this: live simply and thoughtfully.

Brazil took Jimmy Carter seriously. Over 80% of the vehicles in Brazil use ethanol. From sugar cane. Within a couple of years, 100% of the vehicles will use ethanol. Brazil is the future. Clean, efficient fuel. Who'd have thought. Brazil did. They thought about the future.

It's a future that has left us and everyone else behind. Simply because we thought the present was just fine and we didn't have to worry about the future. We would always have cheap gas at the pump and so it didn't matter. And if OPEC got out of line, well, we would just take over their oil fields. That isn't working out too well.

We didn't care about the environment but refused to allow more nuclear power plants. We don't have to worry about nuclear accidents. We also can't breathe in most of our cities.

So in 5, 10, 15 years our streets will be empty because there will be no gas at the pumps. And our cities will be dark at night. Because we won't have enough electricity.

But the streets in Rio will be full of cars. And the lights will be on in Tehran. The future will have left everyone else behind.

we innovate.

we don't use whale oil any more.

we won't be using petroleum in the future.

when resources get scarce enough, we innovate and find (better) substitutes.

:eyes:

Maybe I'm wrong but didn't Hillary Clinton just issue a statement about how we needed to strengthen our ties in South America and didn't she mention Peru and Ecuador? If so, which ties is she referring to? Our oil and gas industry ties?

Brazil and Bolivia as I recall have begun to limit deforestation and Brazil as I recall is no longer allowing "swath clearing" which leaves hundreds of square miles of barren land and instead is requiring "strip sections" be retained to allow for quicker reforestation and to allow much of the "canopy" to remain in place. The photo you posted is an example of "swath clearing." It leaves nothing. And planting a million trees as some have suggested will do nothing. It certainly will not restore the rainforest. I believe Ecuador has proven reserves but not sufficient reserves to justify destroying the rainforest. But the oil and gas industry wants it simply because it is cheaper than drilling offshore and with the price per barrel still an average of $50 it is not even economically feasible. The reality is we are looking at the depletion of the world's supply of oil and the oil and gas industry is going to get every last dime out of every last drop and it does not care what it does to the planet. Neither do the shareholders. And neither do many of us who cannot fathom not having a car to run errands ten times a day and cannot fathom $4 a gallon gasoline again. Which we will see sooner than most would like to think about. Unless we keep demand low and institute our own "alternative energy programs" such as turning off lights and turning up thermostats. Our choice. And also our weapon in this war.

No doubt the final part of SHAFTA is coming finally. NAFTA + CAFTA + SAFTA = SHAFTA.

DISASTA!!