Migeru: Of course, the EU could just source its biofuels from Brazil and Indonesia
What about transportation cost? How large is the bio-area to sustain transportation from Indonesia to Europe?
Well, I wish I were just being ironic. The EU sees no problem in sourcing their biofuels on the international market. Which means that any benefits of biofules to "energy security" are lost. Unless "energy security" means "it's better to depend on the Brazilians and Indonesians than on the Arabs and Russians".
Then again, transportation by ship is very cheap and doesn't have a large impact (relatively speaking). Nobody flies fuel around, it's transported in tankers. We have met the enemy, and it is us — Pogo
As for indigenous production (European maize, wheat, rapeseed, etc) it's nothing more than a gimmick designed to permit continuing distribution of subsidies to industrial farming.
Second-generation: well, we've always said it might come through. And the sustainability issues might be considerably less (though some dispute that), because coppiced wood plantations and high-cellulose-yield grasses could be sustainably managed on marginal land.
But second-generation methods don't seem to be steaming ahead. What captures the attention and the $bucks/€bucks is food crops used as feedstock.
This is why I've longishly (well, at least since early last year) argued for subsidies to be focused on soil conservation payments for perennial crops that are potential feedstocks ... so if low-heat cellulosic ethanol or other 2-gen biofuel technologies don't pan out, we still have the soil. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
and because the preponderance of "food" crops grown by agribiz are already feedstock for the industrial processes that create the industrial fodder loosely called "food" by those who have never tasted the real thing. as Pollan documents, the cracking plants already in place for processing maize into all its fractions are as massive, as technomanagerially centralised and energy-intensive as any fuel ethanol or oil production process. turning plants into industrial swill is what the "food" sector knows how to do best, they are already geared up for it... and the energy crunch comes at a time when the ultraprocessed factory food is losing ground, an inch at a time, to more wholesome dietary options... threatening to render the whole top-heavy profit-taking monopoly system obsolete. what's not to like (from the ADM/GM pov) about diversifying or lifeboating into cracking industrial corn and soy into automobile fuel? it's so similar to what they already do, there's little to no retooling -- least of all retooling of their conceptual armamentarium -- the real problem. The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
Carbon dioxide emissions from shipping are double those of aviation and increasing at an alarming rate which will have a serious impact on global warming, according to research by the industry and European academics.Separate studies suggest that maritime carbon dioxide emissions are not only higher than previously thought, but could rise by as much as 75% in the next 15 to 20 years if world trade continues to grow and no action is taken. The figures from the oil giant BP, which owns 50 tankers, and researchers at the Institute for Physics and Atmosphere in Wessling, Germany reveal that annual emissions from shipping range between 600 and 800m tonnes of carbon dioxide, or up to 5% of the global total. This is nearly double Britain's total emissions and more than all African countries combined.
Carbon dioxide emissions from shipping are double those of aviation and increasing at an alarming rate which will have a serious impact on global warming, according to research by the industry and European academics.
Separate studies suggest that maritime carbon dioxide emissions are not only higher than previously thought, but could rise by as much as 75% in the next 15 to 20 years if world trade continues to grow and no action is taken. The figures from the oil giant BP, which owns 50 tankers, and researchers at the Institute for Physics and Atmosphere in Wessling, Germany reveal that annual emissions from shipping range between 600 and 800m tonnes of carbon dioxide, or up to 5% of the global total. This is nearly double Britain's total emissions and more than all African countries combined.
Or a (different) metric that compares CO2 two fairly between the two?
I think the increase can mainly be ascribed to globalisation. Globalisation is much hyped, it's true, but one area where it does take place (as a process, not an end-state) is trade in goods. Goods, overwhelmingly, are shipped.
