At the beginning of February, a discussion on the issue of vegetable fuel was held in Nairobi, at the headquarters of the United Nations Environmental Organization. In the discussion, speakers raised a demand to thoroughly review the policies of the major vegetable fuel companies.
When I wrote about the jatropha, I mentioned other plant sources without a trace, (at the time) out of an uncomfortable feeling of giving "advertisement" to other sources, since the uniqueness of the jatropha is its ability to grow in poor soils and in conditions that other plants will not withstand, on the other hand, the other sources of vegetable fuel - Soya, sugar cane, oil palm, require suitable growing conditions, fertile soils and lots of water, in other words suitable conditions for growing food plants.
And here lies the problem: at the beginning of February, a discussion on vegetable fuel was held in Nairobi, at the headquarters of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), in the discussion, speakers raised a demand to thoroughly review the policies of the major vegetable fuels, fearing that: because of the rise in the prices of mineral fuel And the search for alternative options that will not harm the environment (by emitting greenhouse gases), more and more plants will be planted for vegetable fuel, the plants will be planted at the expense of edible plants, or in areas where a natural forest is created.
According to the participants in the discussion, "planting plants from a narrow view of one goal, that is, planting for plant-fuel needs only, will increase the environmental disaster (global warming) and increase the problem of lack of food in large areas." The source of vegetable fuel should come as "secondary use", meaning that the plants will be planted as food plants and the raw material for the fuel will be from the by-products, those that are not used for food. Or as those dealing with the issue say "the fuel will be produced from the "second generation" products after the food".
In Southeast Asia, Africa and the islands of the Indian and Pacific oceans, more and more oil palms are planted, the palm fruit is important as a source of edible oil, but when the planters cut down and burn forests to make room for the palms and when the fruits are diverted for fuel extraction before the food products have been used... After all, first there is serious environmental damage - burning of forests and then the residents of the area are left without sources of food... hungry.
A similar situation is happening in Brazil. Millions of acres of Amazonian forest are being cut down and burned to make way for the cultivation of sugar cane and soybeans, two crops that provide ethanol for the economy and drive the wheels of Brazil's industry and automobiles. Apparently, in Brazil the cars and machines harm the environment less because of the use of vegetable fuel... and therefore Brazil can be an example of sugar cane. global measure. indeed? To get the correct answer, the damage caused by the destruction of the forest and its burning must be calculated... the result is not positive.
The Cerrado is considered one of the richest areas (biologically) in the world and as such is considered one of the important hotspots for nature conservation. In recent years, one hundred thousand (100.000) square kilometers of forest were created/destroyed in Sardo to clear areas for growing soybeans. They will come and say that "instead of the forest there are green agricultural fields that absorb greenhouse gases", true, but it turns out that the best gas absorbers are the forests, so an agricultural field where there was a forest causes an increase in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
There is no doubt about the essential/immediate need to switch to the use of clean energy and one of the ways is to use fuel from vegetable sources, but it is important that the plant crops that are sources of fuel be sustainable. One of the forms for this is primary use to create food, one way or another it is important to do the economic calculation together if the environmental balance.
Dr. Assaf Rosenthal,
Tour guide/leader in Africa and South America.
For details: Tel. 0505640309 / 077-6172298,
Email assaf@eilatcity.co.il
9 תגובות
Hello people,
It can be said that the illumination of a philosophical point is very interesting, even if the conclusion remains the same - which is that the forests of Haed must be protected.
In terms of the carbon dioxide balance, we are actually interested in keeping the old-growth forests in their permanent state, not so that they will be green lungs for the planet, but because any death of phyto-mass there will release amounts of CO2 that are stored there.
Philosophically, it can be regarded as a person holding a hand grenade without a trigger. We have an interest in keeping him alive, not because he is useful to us but because his death would harm us.
If we take the statement to an extreme and refer only to the issue of greenhouse gas emissions (ignoring for a moment other issues such as animal diversity, tourism, medicinal potential, the moral aspect in relation to the tribes living in the area, etc.) - the witness forests do not contribute anything to us but force us to maintain their existence. An image transition from the "savior" to the "blackmailer".
And to a more relevant topic:
I work in the field of biodiesel and I am interested in the topic of growing algae for oil needs from which biodiesel can be produced. Due to the high oil content in algae compared to any other biological oil source, this subject is in accelerated development in the world, but there are still obstacles on the way to commercial application on a large scale.
As someone who is engaged in microbial research of water bodies, are you also related to the field of growing algae or do you know researchers in the field? If so, I would be happy to consult with you on the matter, even to get tips.
Contact me at zem55@yahoo.com If applicable.
Best regards
יוני
hello man
The question is excellent and in its place. It's not easy either.
The situation in the tropical forest, as in the coral reef or other niches that are already in a state of equilibrium is such that, theoretically, for every leaf that falls, a new leaf is formed. Not before! After all, the amount of nutrients available for biological needs per unit area is limited. Therefore, only when the leaf returns its nutrients to the environment and allows them to be available for biological needs - only then can another leaf recycle them and grow by itself. Of course, the way I described this barter is being told in a picturesque way. Of course, an ecosystem is the sum of the animals in it and it is not correct to say that there is a situation of a leaf for a leaf. In a more simplistic way, you can say a bio-organic molecule (a hydrocarbon molecule that, for that matter, also contains hydrogen nitrogen atoms and trace elements).
You asked if there is no value to a few hundred years of carbon conservation within the organic matter in the forest? Based on the above - all those hundreds of years of preserving organic matter in X amount are also hundreds of years of constant discharge of the same amount of organic matter (at least theoretically and on the assumption that the system is indeed in equilibrium - as is customary to refer to deciduous forests).
If 100 years ago the amount of average organic matter that covered the area was significantly different from today - it means first of all that the system was out of balance and this is indeed dangerous for several reasons. We do prefer that carbon buried in the ground and into our atmosphere, as you rightly argue. In my source message I talked about the "bluff" of the rainforests and the green lungs they constitute. I did not say that they should be cut down, God forbid - and vice versa. They must be preserved and returned to their previous state. First and foremost because of the variety of species! Second, in order to avoid the possibility of polluting the air with all this carbon that may or may not be ingested by other photosynthetic organisms.
I wholeheartedly agree with your closing sentence. Fossil fuel should stay in the ground and not be released into our atmosphere. It is a potential ecological disaster that is already killing countless people and animals.
[In the attached article we will only remind the readers that in the past on Earth there were periods when the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was even a hundred times more than today's and that the activity of the carbon dioxide fixing enzyme (Robusco) works better in high concentrations of carbon dioxide respectively]
Best regards,
Ami
to my people,
You raised an interesting point.
But is there no value to the several hundred years in which the carbon is inside a tree and not in the atmosphere?
If 100 years ago South America was covered with organic matter at an average height of 10 meters, while now this number is much lower, it means that this carbon is floating in the atmosphere and swallowing infrared rays.
We prefer it in piles on the ground.
In this matter, in my opinion, the biofuel is better, since oil extraction increases the amount of carbon we have to deal with.
Hello Asaf and thank you for your response,
You touched on a very important point and therefore I am happy to reply:
My car and the power plant from which the oxygen comes are assimilating like a tree! How? As I wrote in my original message - a tree or a tropical forest does not assimilate any carbon molecule. All the inorganic molecules embedded in the wood will be oxidized in decay processes after its death and will be returned to the atmosphere. So that every assimilation of 6 units of carbon dioxide (into glucose for example) will be oxidized (they will be decomposed back into carbon dioxide). There is no assimilation of carbon in a tropical forest and there is no sedimentation or burial processes of carbon there like on a continental shelf that has become an oil well. I hope that I was able to clarify the point regarding the tropical forest.
Phytoplankton is another story and its importance is disputed. Personally, as someone who is involved in microbial research of water bodies, I believe that the weight of the phytoplankton and the photosynthetic bacteria is much greater in the assimilation and absorption of inorganic carbon than the tropical forest. The coral reef and animals that deposit chalk are also of utmost importance in this area.
You used the term "considered" in your message and I am indeed aware of what the rainforests and unicellular algae are considered. These are considered so, in my opinion, for historical reasons and the way of thinking about them, so I believe, we will change with the progress of time and science. Historically, the witness forests are indeed considered to be green.
Best regards,
Ami Bachar
In relation to cars:
Until the solution of storing hydrogen in tanks, only a vehicle with two engines: electric (alternator), and mechanical that will be operated with all types of fuels, will be a solution in the meantime.
Note: In one of the responses (by the writer of this response) to Dr. Rosenthal's article on energy issues, as far as I remember in early 2006, details were given about the importance of charging an alternator on downhill sections, during vehicle trips, when the alternator can also be used as a main engine, and of course can also as a secondary engine.
Ami you are right...
The day the car you drive in will be able to assimilate like a tree, the power station from which you receive electricity will release oxygen into the atmosphere like a forest,
Your cooking stove will absorb carbon dioxide like the phytoplankton, on that day the forests will be "only" important
In the biological variety of them!
Until that day, the forests and phytoplankton "still" count
For the best carbon dioxide absorbers and oxygen producers!
The rainforests are one big bluff when it comes to the carbon dioxide balance. Of course, their real value is in the preservation of the enormous diversity of species which is probably irreplaceable in more desert ecosystems. A wide variety of species is the cornerstone of the success of all populations.
As for the bluff - let's look at the carbon balance of the tropical forest: a carbon dioxide molecule is fixed photosynthetically to the body of the tree that builds the rainforest. This molecule is kept inside the tree for several hundred years until the tree dies and then through simple decay processes it returns to the atmosphere. The rainforests are a gunpowder keg that holds a huge amount of carbon that we would not want released into the atmosphere. But they are not green lungs and certainly not air purifiers. In the tropical forest, for every molecule that enters there is an identical molecule that is emitted. This is the definition of a tropical forest - it is loaded to exhaustion and the amount of material in it is maximum per unit area (maximum ecologically).
To me
How is vegetable fuel better for the environment than other fuel?
The amount of carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere is the same amount.
At least to produce oil you don't have to burn forests.