What the DR Can/Should Do Regarding Global Climate Change

[Keith R]

Yes, the operative word in my earlier post was "justified." I've seen many governments claim (as the DR is doing) to be switching to biofuels as a way to address global climate change, but few studies that demonstrate conclusively that most of these fuels actually would reduce CO2 emissions, have a lesser overall "carbon footprint" or in some cases, are even "carbon neutral."

I'm not sure that producing ethanol from sugarcane makes environmental and economic sense for the DR, but the authorities seem to think so (or so they say). They like to point to the Brazilian example, but frankly the Brazilian example is probably unique for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that they've been working on ethanol since the 1930s.

[Chris]

I have serious doubts about biofuels addressing the problem of climate change. It looks like the medicine could be much worse than the cure.

A study by a Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen talks about nitrogen fertilizers used in biofuel production, and he 'counts the cost' of productive food land being used for biofuel production. As I understand it, the nitrous oxide (a greenhouse gas) generated from fertilizer used in biofuel production is quite toxic within the stew of greenhouse gasses.

The 'big voices' in the sphere of biofuel are using very strong words .. 'A crime against humanity', because of the threat to food production.

The big news right at the moment, is that Australia, one of the last hold-outs, has just signed the Kyoto accord. We're sure in for an interesting two weeks. Does anyone know who the delegates are from the DR? I mean to the Bali Conference.

[Keith R]

As for the emissions involved in the life-cycle of biofuel production, that varies according to the input utilized, Chris, as does its impact on food security. Not all biofuel inputs require nitrogen fertilizer, and not all replace food crops. I'm perfectly willing to discuss biofuels and what does and does not make sense (environmental, economic, food security, soil and water use, etc.) among them for the DR, but probably best done in another thread. Let's not get side-tracked into a long talk on biofuels here.

[aegap]

Originally Posted by Keith R

al."


I'm not sure that producing ethanol from sugarcane makes environmental and economic sense for the DR, but the authorities seem to think so (or so they say). They like to point to the Brazilian example, but frankly the Brazilian example is probably unique for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that they've been working on ethanol since the 1930s.

two words: DR-CAFTA, Export (To the largest ethanol market in the world).

[aegap]

Originally Posted by Chip

As far as my understanding goes about greenhouse gases, the purported culprit of gw is carbon dioxide. Which is released during combustion of petroleum/alcohol fuesl. Therefore, using ethanol or natural gas will have no effect, as they release carbon dioxide. They are good substitutes, which is great for two main reasons - less dependence on the Middle East and their troubled politics and cleaner air - but they will not reduce greenhouse gases.

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Natural gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ethanol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, they will. The process can be made largely carbon neutral.

Hydrogen may well become another great alternative.

fun trivia: the Untied Statesproduces more fuel ethanol than Brazil. It's actually the largest producer in the world.

The United States Ethanol Market 2007



Account Login and Registration

[Keith R]

Originally Posted by aegap

two words: DR-CAFTA, Export (To the largest ethanol market in the world).

no kidding! ¡Claro que si! And I have no issue with that if it makes economic and environmental sense (exporting sugarcane-based ethanol to the US because of its CBI or DR-CAFTA tariff status for a quick buck does not necessarily make economic sense for the country overall).

But if so, say so, don't go claiming it's being done to reduce the DR's GHG emissions as some Dominican officials have. Exported fuel that has no impact on local consumption patterns (i.e., the fuel mix) does not help the DR's GHG emissions, nor its energy security picture.

But as I said, let's please not get side-tracked into debating the overall sense/nonsense of different biofuels on this thread.

[aegap]

Originally Posted by Keith R

no kidding!

But if so, say so, don't go claiming it's being done to reduce the DR's GHG emissions as some Dominican officials have. Exported fuel that has no impact on local consumption patterns (i.e., the fuel mix) does not help the DR's GHG emissions, nor its energy security picture.

I don't know much about UN and EU type international agreement (i.e. Kyoto, Contanou and its future reincarnations) . But like wind farms and solar ,private enterprises from, say from the EU, may get some kind of credit/public financing help in their country for building such industries in DR(reducing what the world wide amount of GHG would otherwise be, I suppose). The governments might also get some kind of financial rewards for incentivesing such largely carbon neutral enterprises.

[Chirimoya]

(aegap - Cotonou is the name of the ACP-EU agreement, encompassing far more than environmental issues). It's certain that the EU would support this sort of venture but it's open to abuse.

I know that in "my" part of Spain, there are massive windfarms and that the EU pays generously to farmers and landowners to place turbines on their land, but it's got out of hand and they break the rules on minimum distance from houses, with no penalties. Tarifa, a small city of under 20,000 inhabitants, is powered entirely by windpower. It is also said to be the town with the highest suicide rate in Spain, due to the relentless winds... but that's beside the point.

The point being, there's good and there's bad. The venture in Las Galeras is a start, but if in Spain it gets abused, it's likely to be at least as bad in the DR.

[aegap]

I rather a wind turbine than a large smoke stack and all the noxious fumes that come out of it , lol.

dam: some fish can't migrate, pollution accumulation.

There are environmental and financial costs (as well as benefits) to all worthwhile energy sources.

[Chirimoya]

Originally Posted by aegap

I rather a wind turbine than a large smoke stack and all the noxious chemicals that come out of it , lol.

Absolutely - I can't understand campaigns against windfarms - although local people should ensure that rules are respected - would they rather have a power station???