Comments on: Reforesting vs. Biofuel http://ecoworld.com/blog/2007/08/17/reforesting-vs-biofuel/ Ed Ring's EcoWorld Posts Thu, 4 Dec 2008 17:47:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Luis http://ecoworld.com/blog/2007/08/17/reforesting-vs-biofuel/#comment-34573 Luis Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:32:41 +0000 http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2007/08/17/reforesting-vs-biofuel/#comment-34573 Great post! If the economics don't work, recycling efforts won't either. As our little contribution to make this economics of recycling more appealing, http://LivePaths.com blogs about people and companies that make money selling recycled or reused items, provide green services or help us reduce our dependency on non renewable resources. Great post!

If the economics don’t work, recycling efforts won’t either.
As our little contribution to make this economics of recycling more appealing, http://LivePaths.com blogs about people and companies that make money selling recycled or reused items, provide green services or help us reduce our dependency on non renewable resources.

]]> By: Ed Ring http://ecoworld.com/blog/2007/08/17/reforesting-vs-biofuel/#comment-31866 Ed Ring Sat, 18 Aug 2007 08:51:19 +0000 http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2007/08/17/reforesting-vs-biofuel/#comment-31866 Brian: Absolutely. In arid regions, biofuel crops can advance the life zone. But biofuel crops in arid regions have relatively low yields. And since world markets continue to build for biodiesel and bioethanol, tropical deforestation for biofuel has barely begun. Even when cellulosic ethanol is on the market, and biodiesel is grown from algae, it won't change the fact that if Orangutans die a few more dollars of fuel will come where the forest was. And a healthy global climate requires more tropical rainforest, not less, <em>particularly</em> if you are concerned about global warming. Carbon credits should fund tropical reforestation, not tropical biofuel crops. That is the only way we will save the lungs of this earth. Brian: Absolutely. In arid regions, biofuel crops can advance the life zone. But biofuel crops in arid regions have relatively low yields. And since world markets continue to build for biodiesel and bioethanol, tropical deforestation for biofuel has barely begun. Even when cellulosic ethanol is on the market, and biodiesel is grown from algae, it won’t change the fact that if Orangutans die a few more dollars of fuel will come where the forest was.

And a healthy global climate requires more tropical rainforest, not less, particularly if you are concerned about global warming. Carbon credits should fund tropical reforestation, not tropical biofuel crops. That is the only way we will save the lungs of this earth.

]]> By: Brian Hayes http://ecoworld.com/blog/2007/08/17/reforesting-vs-biofuel/#comment-31842 Brian Hayes Sat, 18 Aug 2007 03:49:04 +0000 http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2007/08/17/reforesting-vs-biofuel/#comment-31842 I agree entirely with your assertion that forests should be planted, restored, preserved. A mad rush for biofuel may be a huge mistake if forests are traded for mileage and heat. But biofuel may not be a primary cause of current deforestation. Except Indonesia's palm oils, <a href="http://biopact.com/2007/08/study-states-obvious-cutting-down.html" rel="nofollow">Biopact</a> makes a strong argument that biofuels are not planted at the cost of forests. It may be that biofuels will ultimately increase land reclamation, i.e. marginal land recovery. I agree entirely with your assertion that forests should be planted, restored, preserved. A mad rush for biofuel may be a huge mistake if forests are traded for mileage and heat.

But biofuel may not be a primary cause of current deforestation.

Except Indonesia’s palm oils, Biopact makes a strong argument that biofuels are not planted at the cost of forests. It may be that biofuels will ultimately increase land reclamation, i.e. marginal land recovery.

]]>