Hi Keith, Jason 'n all,
Thanks for the quick comeback and the
useful ammo. So far there's been grumbling acceptance and only a few
nitpicks, an indicator that the broadside must have hit the target.
Regards.
Bob.
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <biofuel@sustainablelists.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 2:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Definition of biofuel.....
> Hello Bob
>
> >Hi All,
> > Can anybody give me a short, simple, jargon-free rebuttal of the
> agrofuel/biofuel confusion. I want to post it on a blog that
> recently referred its readers to the following definitions, both
> of which are so painfully wide of the mark it's hard to know
> where to begin.
> >Thanks and regards,
> >Bob.
> >
> >Wikipedia: Biofuel (also called agrofuel) can be broadly defined as
> solid, liquid, or gas fuel consisting of, or derived from biomass.
> >
> >Modern Language Association (MLA): "biofuel." Dictionary.com Unabridged
> (v 1.1).
> >Random House, Inc. 15 Jan. 2008. <Dictionary.com
> >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/biofuel>.
>
>
> Pagandai Pannirselvam said it best, IMO: "Small is beautifuel."
>
> Conversely, big is agrofuel, not beautifuel.
>
> GRAIN defined what biofuel isn't:
>
> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:22:10 +0100 (BST)
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [New from GRAIN] No to the agrofuels craze!
>
> http://www.grain.org/nfg/?id=502
>
> "We believe that the prefix bio, which comes from the Greek word for
> 'life', is entirely inappropriate for such anti-life devastation. So,
> following the lead of non-governmental organisations and social movements
> in Latin America, we do not talk about biofuels and green energy.
> Agrofuels is a much better term, we believe, to express what is really
> happening: agribusiness producing fuel from plants as another commodity in
> a wasteful, destructive and unjust global economy."
>
> But they didn't define what biofuel is. Real biofuels is small-scale,
> local production, local use, Appropriate Technology style. It makes
> maximum use of locally available, renewable resources, with minimum
> dependence on outside resources, and it fits the local community and the
> local environment.
>
> None of the arguments and non-arguments against Agrofuels apply to that
> type of biofuels production, whether it's biodiesel, ethanol, biogas or
> whatever.
>
> Essentially, objections to biofuels-as-Agrofuels are no different from
> objections to any other kind of industrialised agriculture, Agrofuels is
> just an add-on. Substitute "industrialised agriculture" for biofuels and
> there's very little difference. While it's true that for instance palm-oil
> production is now even more evil than it used to be because of Agrofuels
> demand, it's just a difference in scale and degree, not in kind, it's
> nothing new.
>
> Years ago, long before the current fuss over food vs fuel arose (but not
> before David Pimentel's pro-Big Oil disinfo campaign against ethanol), the
> Biofuel list was discussing the Sierra Club's objections to fuel ethanol,
> which were basically that industrialised corn production causes so many
> environmental problems because of all the nitrogen run-off.
>
> But that's not an objection to biofuels, it's an objection to
> industrialised corn production. You might as well say growing maize itself
> is unsustainable, which is obviously nonsense, or that growing any food is
> unsustainable.
>
> Shouldn't Club Sierra's Becker (I think it was him) be expected to be
> aware that there are sustainable and environmentally benign ways of
> growing corn, or anything else? If he does know that, then why doesn't he
> put it all together properly?
>
> And how very often the biofuels-bashers quote Pimentel and Patzek! Yet
> The other major objection is "biofuels" production is causing or will
> cause food shortages, especially for the poor, but industrialised
> agriculture already does that too, very adequately as we know, that's been
> business-as-usual for the last hundred years. And so on.
>
> Biofuels-bashing seems to be mostly a knee-jerk reaction. Generally
> greenies and enviros just love to hate biofuels, as previously discussed.
> It reminds me of a sig under an email someone sent me: "People are more
> violently opposed to fur than leather because it's easier to harass rich
> women than motorcycle gangs." LOL! Maybe bashing biofuels is easier than
> harassing the likes of ADM and Monsanto? Hm. Maybe.
>
> Another major delusion here is that Agrofuels can ever be a substitute for
> fossil fuels. There is no substitute for fossil fuels. There's no
> alternative but to stop wasting energy and learning to use it efficiently.
> Then Biofuels (real Biofuels) have a useful and valuable contribution to
> make.
>
> As we all know there are sustainable alternatives to the industrialised
> food production system, they're tried and tested, they work, they're
> widely used, they're spreading fast, and they're capable of feeding the
> world, which the industrial system certainly can't do.
>
> Sustainable alternatives to wasting energy are also to hand, they're also
> tried and tested, they work, they're widely used and spreading fast, and
> local biofuels production is one of them. Agrofuels production isn't one
> of them.
>
> Sustainable food and sustainable energy go hand in hand.
>
> HTH.
>
> Best
>
> Keith
>
> _______________________________________________
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
