Environmental News, Articles & Information | Global Warming News | EcoWorld

Just six months after Tesla Motors announced the return of a 100% battery car, the Tesla Roadster, we have another great leap forward. As reported in the Los Angeles Times in a story entitled “GM To Present A Modified Electric Car” (courant.com) on November 10th, General Motors has announced a series hybrid car. Early next year they will present a prototype of the vehicle.

If you are wondering just exactly what “series hybrid” car means, you’re not alone. But this is a car that will take the market by storm. A series hybrid means that the car has two engines, hence it is a hybrid, but only one engine is connected directly to the drive train, hence it is a “series” hybrid. By this logic, your Prius is a parallel hybrid, or just a hybrid. For a detailed explanation of a series hybrid car, including diagrams and energy conversion charts, read our feature from October 2005 entitled “The Case for the Serial Hybrid Car.”

The advantages of a series hybrid car are huge. They are far, far less complex than conventional hybrid cars, because only the electric motor, with its huge range of usable RPM, is connected to the drivetrain. Another huge advantage is that series hybrid cars have their second motor, a small, ultra-low-emission gas or diesel engine, connected to a generator to recharge the battery pack while the car is being driven. By doing this, a cheaper and more reliable battery pack can be used, and there is no need for a complex heat management system that is still necessary for the lithium ion batteries.

It is well and good to criticize General Motors for discontinuing the EV-1. But they are back with another green car which is as ahead of its time as the EV-1 once was, and this car is going to attract a much bigger market.

Critics may claim the EV-1 was a zero-emission vehicle, while a series hybrid car has a small, ultra-low emission onboard motor, and therefore it isn’t as green as the EV-1, or the Tesla Roadster, or any 100% battery powered car. Someday, when all electricity generated everywhere is done so with no combustion or other form of environmental degradation, this concern may be valid, but until that time, this is pure poppycock.

A detail of some interest regarding GM’s bold and groundbreaking new green car initiative are some performance specifications as reported in the Los Angeles Times story. “The new car, if developed as a production model, would be recharged daily by owners and probably would deliver sufficient power from the batteries to cover the typical daily commute of 20 to 30 miles before depleting the battery charge and switching to electricity generated onboard.”

If these figures are true, GM’s planned series hybrid car could be dirt cheap. Theoretically, a car like this could run on lead-acid batteries. Remember, a series-hybrid car would only need a two-speed transmission, if that, for the electric motor that provides traction, and no transmission at all for the small gas (or diesel) engine that powers the onboard generator. Maintenance would be negligible. If GM used a nickel-metal hydride battery pack, it is likely that their series-hybrid car will go much further than “20-30 miles” just on previously stored battery power, and the onboard generator engine could be smaller. The people’s car is here.

However General Motors designs their series hybrid car, it will be carefully calibrated to create a car with so much value for money that we all want to buy one, and don’t be surprised if they call it the EV-2. Redemption is a sweet thing.

If we believe anthropogenic CO2 causes catastrophic global warming, we deforest the earth to grow “carbon neutral” biofuel.

The Congo Rainforest

Deforestation causes droughts, and deforestation, for a variety of reasons, may be a greater contributor to global warming than rising levels of CO2.

What if the deforestation to produce biofuel crops causes more harm, like droughts and global warming than it does good?

Some Relevant Facts:

• Land surface of planet earth – 56 million square miles
• Total arable farmland on earth – 5 million square miles
• Biofuel potential with conventional crops – 5,000 barrels per square mile per year
• World biofuel production using all farmland on earth – 25 billion barrels
• World petroleum production 2005 – 30 billion barrels
• Desert area 150 years ago – 5 million square miles
• Desert area today – 8 million square miles
• Forest area 150 years ago – 30 million square miles
• Forest area today – 18 million square miles

This month the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meets in Kenya, with the effects of global warming in the developing world at the top of the agenda. To kick this conference off, the United Nations Development Program has published a report entitled “Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis.”

As dutifully reported in the world press, this report is filled with dire predictions regarding the impact of global warming on the developing world. Lead author Kevin Watkins says climate change “now poses what may be an unparalleled threat to human development.”

The impact of global warming in Africa is being particularly highlighted. As reported in the BBC in March 2006 “Africa could face more droughts,” Africa could be faced with 25% less water by the end of the century because of global warming. And the situation in Africa is already dire – the Africans are enduring their worst drought in over 100 years.

The solution however is not going to be found through most of the programs being kicked around this week in Nairobi. Africa’s drought, first of all, is having severe impacts because Africa’s population has increased at exponential rates with virtually no proportional economic development. In 1960 Africa’s population was 277 million. By 1980 it was 470 million, and by 2005 it was an astonishing 890 million.

If this population growth was matched by a proportional increase in railroads, power plants, industrial manufacturing, agricultural modernization, an efficient water distribution infrastructure, and a health and educational infrastructure, then Africa’s population growth would not be part of the problem. But this population growth has been accompanied by steady deterioration in infrastructure, mushrooming disease and tribal conflicts, deforestation and desertification. As a result, the impact of population growth on Africa’s economy and environment has been huge and entirely negative.

Africa has become the biggest welfare state in the history of the world, and the only thing there is to show for all this welfare is more misery than ever. If Africans wish to improve their lot, they will have to find the strength in their own communities, and via their own innovations. A very positive example comes from India, where a local community is “greening the desert” by channelling rainwater through drains to replenish groundwater.

The way to bring increased rainfall back to Africa is not through planting biofuel crops so western oil companies can earn “carbon credits.” This disastrous strategy will increase deforestation and in turn it will exacerbate Africa’s drought. In a study published by MIT entitled “Deforestation, Desertification and Drought,” the authors conclude “deforestation along the southern coast of West Africa (e.g., in Nigeria, Ghana and Ivory Coast) may result in complete collapse of monsoon circulation, and a significant reduction of regional rainfall.”

There are other studies that point to similar results. Deforestation in the Amazon has reduced rainfall in that region. Deforestation in East Africa is the reason the glacier atop Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking. There is evidence that deforestation is not only the reason for droughts, but is also the most significant cause of the slight global warming we have experienced so far.

It is ironic and tragic that the global hysteria over global warming, and the virtual collapse of any credible public debate over the cause of global warming, may result in global warming and droughts getting worse. What if it isn’t anthropogenic CO2 that is the primary cause of global warming, but instead it is deforestation? Would we still want to chop down forests to plant sugar cane and oil palms for fuel?

Here come the lawyers. There is an excellent recent Business Week article entitled “Global Warming: Here Come the Lawyers” that summarizes the impending wave of global warming lawsuits. Did global warming cause hurricane Katrina to devastate New Orleans? If you think the answer is yes, then naturally, it’s time to sue the oil companies and their fellow travelers.

There are several problems with this. We really aren’t convinced industrial greenhouse gas is the cause of global warming, and even if it is, we are extremely skeptical that anything effective can be done about it. Read our many global warming commentaries before deciding to jump on the bandwagon. Or read our feature stories “Climate Catastrophe?” and “Global Warming Facts.” authored by noted global warming skeptic, Dr. Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric scientist at MIT. Are we going spend trillions of dollars, curtail important freedoms, and pressure other nations to the brink of war – to fight a problem that may not exist?

The Amazon Rainforest

Here are some points we’ve raised in our reports on global warming: Human industry only accounts for 3% of CO2 emissions on the planet. Deforestation, which has consumed 40% of the world’s forests, combined with desertification, has reduced the planet’s ability to absorb CO2 at the same time as it has created hotter global surface temperatures. Urban “heat islands” also contribute to global warming. Instead of countering this by replanting forests and urban trees, we are now accelerating deforestation to plant “carbon neutral” biofuel plantations (read “Deforestation Diesel”). This is a disaster, and must be challenged.

Here’s more: Global warming models predict that most of the effect of increased levels of CO2 has already happened. Ice melt in Greenland and Antarctica is being offset by increased snowfall in the interior of those land masses. Projected ice melt from Greenland will increase sea levels by only 1.5 inches per century. All measured warming over the past 150 years is only about .5 centigrade, and this amount of change does not exceed statistical margins for error and cannot yet be scientifically considered a trend. The only scientific consensus that currently exists is that there has been slight climate warming over the past 100 years, not that this is an alarming trend, nor that increased levels of CO2 are the cause.

A further concern we have is that many proponents of action to stop greenhouse gas emissions are under the mistaken impression that by doing this we will eliminate air pollution. If California’s Global Warming Bill is any indication, this is completely false. As we report in “Filthy Air With Less CO2,” California’s 2006 Assembly Bill 32, hailed by environmentalists and politicians all over the world, mandates modest reductions in California’s CO2 emissions, but mandates absolutely nothing in terms of reducing emissions of actual pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, microscopic particulates, lead, ozone, and nitrogen dioxide. This is unacceptable.

We’re not going to indulge in the predictable lawyer-bashing that one regularly finds in the business press. Sometimes the courts are the only place left to find justice, and in America the justice system forms an essential check on the power of the legislative and executive branches of government. But for elected officials to abuse the legal process is worthy of criticism. California’s outgoing Attorney General, Bill Lockyear, has been using the power of his elected office to sue automakers, and even worse, harass atmospheric scientists who still question to what extent industrial greenhouse gas actually causes global warming. This is reprehensible. It constitutes government harassment of free speech and scientific inquiry. It is cynical grandstanding, it is dangerous to American rights and freedoms and it will stifle the truth.

So don’t blame the lawyers. They go where they are called, and often they are our only hope. Instead help to expose scientific corruption, political opportunism, environmental non-profits who have acquired new momentum by milking this hysteria, and irresponsible members of the media who have abdicated their duty to seek to report the truth.

In response to our post of October 20th, “The Photovoltaic Revolution,” a reader made the following comment: “It seems that there are dozens of companies announcing that they are about to produce megawatts of low cost solar cells. When they actually ship and with a warranty for ten or twenty years I will believe it. Until then they are just like the hundreds of other companies whose main output is press releases.”

This is absolutely true.

We have been watching photovoltaics very carefully for over ten years, and there have been a lot of false alarms.

It isn’t easy to find information about the commercial status of thin film photovoltaics. When we searched in Google, our investigation led us to the U.S. Energy Information Adminstration’s website, to a page entitled “Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic Collector Manufacturing Activities 2005.”

In this report, on table F-9 “Market Share of Thin Film Shipments, 1996-2005″ you can see that last year thin film accounted for 25% of U.S. photovoltaic manufacturing. This is up from only 12% in 2004, 10% in 2003, and around 5% for most of the preceding years.

A related statistic can be found from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s report, with data through 2004, entitled “U.S. Market Share” (of worldwide photovoltaic manufacturing). In this report you can see that in 2004 1.2 gigawatts of photovoltaics were produced worldwide, and the U.S. only contributed about 140 megawatts, less than 12%, to that total. Moreover, ten years ago, the U.S. manufactured nearly 50% of the world’s photovoltaics, but as the world production went up by an order of magnitude, the U.S. production merely doubled.

It would be interesting, therefore, to see the thin-film share of world photovoltaic production. But it is safe to say that the growth in U.S. production, if it does take a great leap forward, will be in the thin film arena. And the fact that the U.S. is already commercially manufacturing 35 megawatts per year of thin film photovoltaics proves that claims of imminent increases to thin film production of orders of magnitude are not entirely unfounded. A commercial product does already exist.

By the way, in 2001 we covered the thin film manufacturer First Solar, in the story “First Solar – Production Line PVs.” Apparently they were within months of launching a 100 megawatt per year thin film production line. A false alarm? Perhaps, but that was then. Today First Solar did their IPO, as reported on the excellent website SolarBuzz, among other places.

Will the promises of thin film technology turn out to be hype? Another bubble, kind of like the fuel cell IPOs? You never know, but my money is on thin film photovoltaics to change the world.

We are very close to learning whether or not what we’ve been waiting for all these years has finally come true: Cheap abundant energy via photovoltaics. What was required was a way to manufacture them for, say, one-tenth the current costs, and from what representatives of several photovoltaic manufacturers are telling us, that day has come.

We’re closely watching two Silicon Valley standouts in this field, Miasole and Nanosolar. According to Martin Wenzel at Miasole, they are within a month or so of starting up a 25 MW photovoltaic manufacturing line. Nanosolar, not far behind, claims they will start up a whopping 430 MW photovoltaic manufacturing line by the end of 2007. For a more complete list of companies producing photovoltaics read “The Photovoltaic Revolution,” posted on 10-20-06.

Photo: DayStar Technologies

Here are two more companies, both well established, who are diving into the breakthrough technology of thin-skin photovoltaics: DayStar Technologies, a public company located in New York with a branch in Silicon Valley. They claim their 3rd generation tools to manufacture thin-skin photovoltaics will be in place and profitably manufacturing by the end of 2008. DayStar already ships thin-skin photovoltaics (pictured above), but they believe sometime in 2008 they will be positioned to produce “gigawatt scale” quantities of PVs.

Another company already shipping thin-skin photovoltaics is Global Solar Energy, located in Tuscon, Arizona. From this sunny place they too are joining the hordes of companies that are poised to bring photovoltaics firmly into the mainstream.

The entire energy consumption of the world in 2005, expressed in electrical terms, was about 16,000 gigawatt-years. The current installed base of photovoltaics in the world contributed a paltry 5 gigawatt-years to that total. The entire manufacturing output of photovoltaics in 2005 was only about 1.5 gigawatts. But thin-skin photovoltaics don’t depend on finite supplies of polysilicon, and they are far less expensive to manufacture.

For these reasons, it may be that projections of how much photovoltaics are going to contribute to global energy supplies are way, way understated. Photovoltaic technology is the most promising alternative energy source we’ve ever seen to quickly usher in the era of clean, cheap, abundant energy.

We have just published a feature story “Saving Endangered Species” covering the courageous activities of the organization WildAid, a San Francisco-based organization that prosecutes people who traffic in wild animal parts. WildAid also works to raise public consciousness, especially in Asia, in an attempt to reduce demand for wild animal parts.

There are a few issues here worth exploring: Some are crystal clear, such as the need to strictly regulate hunting animals when the hunting itself is leading a species towards extinction. From that standpoint, hunting game animals even for food is hard to justify.

There is also the issue of keeping animals in captivity in order to harvest, for example, the bile from a bear’s gallbladder. This is typically a dreadfully cruel practice that can leave an animal in agony for literally decades. Again, this is pretty hard to justify under any circumstances.

But what if an animal species that isn’t endangered is hunted, killed humanely, and harvested so its organs can fulfill the demands for traditional Asian medicines? Is this any more justifiable than hunting for trophies? One would be hard pressed to explain why.

Well-regulated and humane hunting can be a force for conservation. An underreported fact about hunting and hunters is that in a properly regulated environment, hunters and the fees paid by hunters provide huge funds for wildlife conservation. Trophy fees for African big game provide the means to patrol against poaching and have helped many species recover from the brink of extinction. In many cases, animals have gone from being endangered to being so numerous that hunting is necessary to manage their populations.

It isn’t just hunting groups who have patiently attempted to spread the message that well-regulated hunting can help endangered species to recover. Not only will you get this message from groups such as The Hunter’s Institute, or the American Hunters & Shooters Association, but even from such environmentalist stalwarts as The Nature Conservancy.

Perhaps along with reducing demand for these traditional remedies, the welfare of some endangered species might be furthered by making provisions for legitimate hunting of animals who are sought for the perceived medicinal value of their organs.

While this may sound objectionable, the logic of the following assertion shouldn’t be beyond debate; there is no reason that trophy hunting should be condoned if hunting for medicines is banned. And if all hunting is banned, a powerful source of funding and support for wilderness preservation and wildlife management is lost, to the detriment of the very species we wish to protect.

Caged helplessly, with permanent catheters, Bears can yield gall bile for decades before dying. (Photo: International Fund for Animal Welfare)

Rangers provide protective cover (Photo: IFAW/Richard Sobol)

A person will do anything to feel better when they are sick.

While in Korea, one might find themselves sipping Asiatic Black Bear bile to cure an ailing liver. In China, ground tiger bone has been used to treat arthritis for centuries while a tiger’s penis makes a soup believed to work as an aphrodisiac. A rhino horn is believed to cure everything from fever to convulsions.

With a price tag of over $5,000 dollars for a bear’s bile producing gall bladder and up to $400 for a bowl of libido inducing soup, these are extremely costly remedies. Not to mention the cost of losing yet another wild animal to harvest its parts.

Billions of dollars worth of animal parts are bought world wide on a yearly basis. Traditional medicine is a major reason for the illegal trade of wildlife, a taste for the exotic is another. It might seem like a good idea to try some of the delicacies made from wild meat, but even if one finds shark fin soup, snake fillets, or pangolin (Asian ant-eater) steaks appetizing, it is important to realize that an animal (often endangered or threatened) was killed unnecessarily for the experience.

Illegal animal trade is most acute in Asia, and this is where one of the most successful environmental groups, WildAid, has managed to make the biggest difference. WildAid fights illegal trade aggressively by working with the local governments, communities and celebrities. The organization’s website explains that their “programs disrupt the trade at every level by reducing poaching, targeting illegal traders and smugglers, and drastically lowering consumer demand for endangered species parts and products.”

Co-founder of WildAid, Peter Knights, travels the world in an effort to help governments protect the endangered species of their country from poachers by any means necessary. In the past, it was not unheard of for Knights to expose poachers by taking the dangerous role of an undercover buyer. Most of WildAid’s current work, however, involves more traditional methods such as training the local rangers or educating the public.

Once majestic and fearless, this Congolese Elephant was no match for guns and the huge market for his ivory. (Photo: IFAW/Richard Sobol)

WildAid is unique on its focus on addressing world demand for animal parts.

“Over 80 celebrities, mostly Asians, have recorded public service announcements that they have stopped buying wild caught products. Top advertising agency J. Walter Thompson has produced amazing Nike quality commercials pro bono,” says Knights with pride, “and most importantly our message goes out all over the world to up to 1 billion people a week. We’ve had a tremendous response from Bollywood in India and great support from stars and the media in China, the largest source of demand. Our messages have aired prime time on the main government TV stations. Last month Yao Ming [the 7"5 foot tall basketball player famous for being the best and most dedicated player in China and welcome addition to the NBA], held a press conference for WildAid and vowed never to eat shark fin soup again.”

Jackie Chan, arguably the most famous celebrity in the world, known for his action packed Kung-Fu movies, is also a representative of WildAid. As one of the International ambassadors for WildAid’s ‘Active Conservation Awareness Program’ (ACAP), Jackie delivers WildAid’s message. A variety of Media Partners such as CNN, Discovery, National Geographic, StarTV, CBS, NBC, Fox, Bloomberg and China’s CCTV, provide WildAid with free air-time where celebrities can voice their opinion on wildlife trade.

“It is basically analogous to the drug trade,” Knights continues to explain, “law enforcement alone is not going to make the problem go away. If people want to buy drugs and enough people have the money to do so, then there will be people willing to grow, smuggle and sell the stuff no matter how many coca fields you destroy. The long term solution is for people to stop buying products. We need to stop demand. To do that you need to raise awareness and make it socially unacceptable.”

Shark fin is the most widely spread product in China. One can even purchase prepackaged, ready made soups that contain shark fin at most grocery stores. The sharks harvested for their fins are not classified as endangered largely because fishing records are too poor to document the declines. These sharks will eventually reach the endangered list if current trends continue. Knights explains why shark fin is so popular: “It is a prestigious thing to eat shark fin in China. It is a sign of respect because people know it is expensive. Wild animal meat is seen as an exotic luxury&We did a survey and 35% of the surveyed urban Chinese reported having eaten it in the last year. The Survey included 24,000 people in 14 cities. Snakes are another wild animal often eaten and China has recently banned the eating of snakes to discourage this. So there is hope that the government will act as well as supporting the education efforts.”

Dried Seal penises such as these await buyers succumbed to promises of traditional medicine (Photo: IFAW)

Various surveys were taken before and after WildAid launched their campaign to stop shark fin soup consumption, and the results are promising. “We don’t know the exact number of other illegally traded goods, “says Knights, “In Thailand, 30% of those surveyed said they stopped eating shark fin altogether. In Taiwan, 38% of the public said they ate less shark fin and 15% stopped completely. Another sign that our campaign has made a difference is that in Thailand, people of the shark fin trade actually tried to sue us.”

Wildlife poachers and traders are not too happy about WildAid reducing the appeal of their product, but Knights insists that they will be out of work shortly anyway if they continue their activities. “Finding alternative income sources for poachers is part of the solution, as is beefing up law enforcement,” he says.

What many people don’t know is that eating wild meat is risky. Many diseases are found in wild animals. What is worse is that illegally traded meat does not undergo a real health inspection. The meat from a tiger looks the same whether the animal is sick or not, and a poacher will get paid either way.

“There is a high risk of disease transmission,” says Knights, “the risk is also increased because it is unregulated. SARS was thought to initially be related to the trade and many are unaware of the anthrax and Ebola transmissions that could occur through bush-meat trade; there have been cases in Africa where animals have died from anthrax and this bush-meat was still sold for consumption. The most likely source to new disease outbreaks to which we have no immunity is from wild animals that haven’t been in close contact with humans previously. As deforestation goes on, new areas become accessible and bush meat hunters follow, shipping potentially tainted meat to cities and even internationally…You couldn’t find a better way to spread disease.”

A rescued Chimp in Northern Zambia whose parents were killed for bushmeat (Photo: IFAW/John Hrusa)

Commando, a rescued baby chimp, at Chimfunshi Wildlife Orphanage in Northern Zambia. Commando was orphaned as a result of illegal bushmeat trade in Central African Republic. Photographer: Jon Hrusa

Pets can also harbor dangerous diseases: The monkey-pox outbreak that affected dozens of people in the U.S who bought prairie dogs was traced back to a Gambian rat imported from Africa that was caged with the prairie dogs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warns that macaques can transfer the herpes B virus to humans and imported parrots carry psittacosis and reptiles salmonella. It can also be a threat to domestic livestock: Newcastle disease, carried by smuggled parrots, resulted in the deaths of millions of chickens and turkeys in the past decade.

Apparently, with illegally traded and wild caught animals, you never know what you’re going to get. You might have purchased an exotic virus to go along with the exotic animal. Importing wild animals and their parts is not just harmful for the species in question, but also for the consumer. In a bizarre way, these animals are retaliating.

Things are not just risky when it comes to eating wild animal meat, but can also be a waste of money. With the knowledge that a bowl of exotic tiger soup can bring in $500, restaurant owners will obviously try and sell that product whether the ingredients are at hand or not. Consumers will not be happy to know that the tiger penis soup they enjoyed earlier that evening actually contained a donkey tendon marinated in tiger urine instead of the main ingredient they had paid so much for.

Local populations are not the only ones that provide the demand for illegally traded products; Tourists have a major impact on wildlife trade. Tourists are drawn to remote locations where a variety of products can be bought from local merchants. Some of the most popular items sold are made from turtle shells, reptile skins, animal fur or ivory. The coasters, combs, forks, carpets or jewelry might look beautiful, but purchasing these items only encourages poachers to continue killing the animals that supply the necessary parts.

In a beautiful silk box, Rhino horn and Rhino horn medicine. (Photo: IFAW)

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s brochure ‘Facts about Federal Wildlife Laws’ includes a large list of items sold to tourists worldwide. Items falling into the endangered species category which are commonly sold abroad but are prohibited entry into the U.S [and most other countries] include:

Whole shells or “tortoise” shell jewelry made from shells of sea turtles.

Sea turtle soup and facial creams.

Rugs, pelts, hunting trophies, and a wide variety of manufactured articles (such as handbags, compacts, coats, wallets, key cases etc.) made from the skins and/or fur of endangered or threatened animals.

Asian elephant ivory and whale teeth decorated with etchings (scrimshaw) or made into figurines (netsuke), curios, pendants, and other jewelry.

African elephant ivory, both raw and worked.

Sea turtle and some crocodile leather shoes, handbags, belts, wallets, luggage, and similar articles.

Sealskin toys, purses, wallets.

Whalebone and whale and walrus ivory.

Rescued too late – an elephant-foot footstool comprises part of an IFAW exhibit. (Photo: IFAW)

One of the more obvious and tasteless items sold abroad is a stool made from an elephant’s foot, cushioned with zebra hide.

“Many species are close to extinction, and many more may become endangered at a faster rate than ever before sometimes while the trade is still legal. Illegal trade is causing a decline in certain species, but the problem is that with globalization and economic growth trade has spread to different species sourced from all over the world. China’s middle class of potential consumers has grown to 250 million people in the last decade and is projected to double in another decade. So today’s legal wildlife trade can soon turn into tomorrow’s endangered species.

The illegal animal trade is a moving target. There are definitely areas where the situation has improved; elephant ivory poaching has decreased since the trade was banned in 1989, rhino horn poaching has gone down since major awareness efforts in 1993, but other animals like sharks are being hunted unsustainably now with some populations declining 80% in fifteen years. Tiger poaching is still a major problem and as some animals disappear new species replace them because there is a demand.”

According to the State Department of China, the United States is the second largest importer of illegal wildlife in the world. Knights attributes this to the countries’ wealth and ethnic diversity: “A lot of these trades are derived from specific areas and peoples of the world,” says Knights, “So while smuggled Russian caviar may be a rich Caucasian delicacy, shark fin soup is largely an East Asian dish. Rhino horn, tiger bone, bear bladder and sea horses are imported for Chinese health remedies, while sea turtle eggs is served in some Hispanic bars, and bush meat is served in some African restaurants.”

Sea horses are more appealing swimming in the ocean than in a pot. Rhino carcasses are left to rot for a horn that has not been proven to cure any illness. Massive flocks of colorful parrots are netted in the wild and only a few survive the trip out of the country hidden in tires and pipes. Protecting a habitat means nothing without protecting its wildlife. State parks exist all over the world, but they are meaningless if they are empty. The illegal wildlife trade needs to be stopped, and this is where WildAid comes in. As the only group that focuses on stopping the role of demand, they are protecting the parks and the animals that reside within them, too. Their slogan says it best: “when the buying stops, the killing can too.”

References:

- Shark Trust

- SeaShepherd (various Marine fish and mammals)

- White Shark Trust

- Shark Project

- Bear Bile Farming Info

- Earth Trust – Bear Farming

- Allied Effort to Save Other Primates

- MonkeyLand

- National Wildlife Federation

- Elephant Protection

- International Rhino Foundation

- Wildlife Trade Monitoring Network

- World Wildlife Fund

- The Humane Society of the United States

- Wildlife Conservation Society

- International Fund for Animal Welfare

- World Conservation Union

- Conservation International

- Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species

- Wildlife Protection Society of India

- Defenders of Wildlife

Forests are considered sacred by most environmentalists. Over the past twelve years we’ve reported on deforestation and reforestation, and there has always been a consistent refrain from environmentalists: Monocultures are not forests. This point of view, while debateable, is one we basically agree with.

So why are environmentalists relatively silent on the potential problems with biofuel plantations?

Most environmentalists as well make much of the “carrying capacity” of the planet. They point out, correctly, that there is a limit to how much the Earth’s biosphere can generate. Their concerns are manyfold – we will run out of forests, we will run out of farmland, we will run out of wilderness, we will run out of water – with all the attendant catastrophes that each of these depletions would cause.

So why are environmentalists so happy that we’ve just found a new way to deforest the planet and plant monocultures? Why are the Americans in particular suddenly embracing biofuel as though it is the solution to everything from global warming to energy shortages?

The following reports constitute just a small example of how dangerous the worldwide craze to develop biofuels could become:

Palm oil plantations decimating orang-utans says report

China funds massive palm oil plantation in rainforest of Borneo

Biofuels threaten rainforests as important European Commission decision lies ahead

Biofuels: Green energy or grim reaper?

Clearly, some environmentalists are beginning to understand how problematic massive development of a global biofuels industry could become. For biofuel to even make a dent in world energy hunger, literally millions of square miles of biofuel plantations would be necessary.

In a brilliant presentation to the California Air Resources Board in September 2006, Martin Eberhard, CEO of Tesla Motors, included a slide “What About Ethanol?” (see pages 25 and 26 of the .pdf file). In this slide he superimposes on a map of North America a square representing how much land, planted with biofuel crops, it would take to offset 50% of the car miles driven in the United States. The area covers about 1.0 million square miles.

We’ve covered the quantitative trade-offs between biofuel production and land use extensively in the past year. Read our Biofuel section for more information. What you find may concern you.

It is incredible that groups such as the Global Footprint Network can release stories such as “Ecosystems Face Collapse” yet take a nuanced position on biofuel. Anybody who claims we are already “Eating the Planet” ought to be horrified that now we’re also going to grow our fuel. The unpleasant fact is biofuel production will not be easily regulated in the places where regulation is most required, the developing nations. The genie is out of the bottle, and environmentalists are now going to have to undo the momentum they’ve encouraged.

One of the more interesting propositions to face California’s voters in November 2006 is Proposition 87, which would tax in-state oil producers to fund alternative energy projects. Proponents of this bill air a television commercial, narrated by Bill Clinton, where the Brazilian ethanol industry is referenced. The closing message is “If Brazil can do it, so can California.”

This is preposterous. First of all, Brazil, which only replaces a bit more than 10% of their petroleum with ethanol, has a per capita petroleum and ethanol consumption of about 4.0 barrels per year per citizen (ref. EIA). California, the most energy-efficient of all US states, nonetheless has a per capita petroleum consumption of over 20 barrels per year per citizen (ref. DOE). For this reason, California, with 33 million inhabitants and sitting on maybe 40,000 square miles of fully utilized farmland (ref. NetState), requires nearly 700 million barrels of petroleum per year. This is almost as much as Brazil; with 186 million people, and nearly 10,000 square miles of farmland already dedicated to growing sugar cane, Brazil requires only about 800 million barrels of petroleum and ethanol per year.

Where is California going to find enough land to make any dent whatsoever in their petroleum consumption through planting biofuel crops? Let’s not forget that sugar cane doesn’t grow in California, but corn does. Sugar cane, best case, will yield maybe around 11,000 barrels of ethanol per square mile per year (ref. UCLA), but corn yields less than half that, around 4,700 barrels per square mile per year (ref. USDA).

This math is not encouraging: For California to replace 10% of its current petroleum consumption with ethanol, California would have to convert 50% of its existing farmland to grow biofuel crops. Not a chance.

Obviously California can import ethanol from America’s cornbelt, but the issue remains of how to find sufficient land. As we note in Biofuel vs. Photovoltaics, there are around 5.0 million square miles of arable farmland in the entire world, and even at yields of 11,000 barrels of oil per year, to get 80 million barrels per day (to match world petroleum consumption), you would pretty much have to replace 100% of the world’s farmland.

Proponents of biofuel correctly point out that it isn’t meant to completely replace petroleum, and that new techniques to extract biofuel from cellulose or to grow it in self contained reactors may greatly increase capacities. What they aren’t saying is that meanwhile food prices are being driven up all over the world, particularly in poorer countries, and deforestation is accelerating, because of this new cash crop.

Bottom line – if this is the best proponents of Proposition 87 can come up with, they don’t have anything worth voting for. Let’s not forget it was government bureaucrats who wasted billions of dollars on hydrogen fuel cells, delaying the introduction of hybrids and all-electric cars by a decade or more.

It’s tempting to support Proposition 87 if the bureaucrats would use 100% of the funds to expand photovoltaic capacity. But investments are already going into photovoltaic research and new manufacturing. And the private funds going into photovoltaics today are coming from the Silicon Valley, where investors are managing their own money with an eye towards breakthroughs, not patronage.