[Artie Fufkin]

The bus chain National Express have decided against a biofuel trial because of doubts over it's greenness [should there be 2 ns or 1 in greeness?]

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2142240,00.html

To me, this is more confusion along the lines of the "walking to the shops does more damage than the car". By this I don't mean it's nonsense...what I do mean is that it's all still undecided and unclear. I might agree that man is damaging the climate, but I'm utterly sick of the lack of consensus amongst those whom we trust to give us reliable advice regarding how we can help offset the effects.

"Hybrid cars are the way"
"No they're not...have you seen the dust to dust figures for a Prius?"

"Windfarms are the future"
"No they're not..do you know how much CO2 is expended in their manufacture and upkeep?

"Local recycling satations help the environment"
No they don't...see how many cars are driving to them daily - the CO2 from them alone must negate any savings

etc, etc.

Well, bog off the lot of you. I'll do what I want from now on:
Low voltage lamps? Yep, save me money.
More wall insulation? Yes, saves money.
Prius? No, not cool.
Turn off instead of standby? No, not convenient.
Solar panels on the roof? No, not cost-effective in my lifetime.
Windmill in my garden? See above.
Anybleedinggreenthingyoucanthinkof? No, China and India will negate it in 6 minutes so forget it.

And, yes, I have children. They're smart. They'll figure a solution when it's time.

[johntheexpat]

Nice summing up of why the whole topic is tricky. But as far as I am concerned, you hit the nail on the head with what you would and wouldn't do. If it saves you money overall, do it.
Biofuels aren't that environmentally friendly and personally I think its rubbish to say that they ever will be. Biofuels are a part of the technology that will keep us mobile when petrol is limited, any claims to be green are somewhat spurious. They require fertilisers, processing etc etc and while economies of scale will help, they are a long way from being brilliant.
Another fuel of the future is being developed by Shell, currently available as diesel V Power. Its clever, in that a fraction of the fuel is made from natural gas. But because its less dense than normal diesel, the mpg is right down (20% down in the case of my 2.0 HDi Peugot Partner) and more expensive, so that will not currently catch on either.
As for leaving things on standby, well you will more than cover the footprint by driving gently for one day a month (or even more gently than usual is what I meant to say). The fuel saved will more than cover the emissions caused by leaving things on.
Local recycling is also farcical. One vehicle for rubbish, one for glass etc, one for garden rubbish, one for the rest. And then it gets transported to China. In the UK the problem is availability of landfill and the proximity of landfill to urban areas. Not a lot to do with being green.

IMHO, Europe should however move towards a more efficient society for much more pragmatic reasons. With the far east industrialising at an astonishing rate, the best way for Europe to survive economically is to be way more efficient than the east. An that will take investment. We can't fight the developing nations on labour costs, energy costs the same wherever, so our advantage must be through efficiency. And while MMGW may or may not be a problem, the economic framework that it suggests ie cutting consumption, which will by default cut costs, without compromising output and living standards via huge increases in efficiency, (which won't come cheap) is actually a model that has some mileage.

You are right in saying the east will more than cover any slack that we generate in the system, I can't really see any way out of mankind burning fossil fuels as fast possible. If the west creates any slack in the system, the east will snap it up. If the IPCC are right, we are heading for disaster and only the fittest will survive. If we wipe ourselves out, the only good thing from my point of view, is that it won't (probably) be in my lifetime. And the last man or woman standing, will have the honour of awarding the last ever Darwin Award to him/herself for a fine example of gross stupidity in the face of adversity.

And the firefox spell-checker suggests greenness as the way to spell it.

[Steve.J.Davies]

Bio-fuel a minefield. The acreage involved has severe consequences which is discussed elsewhere.
The aspect of it that does not see very much light at all is that a mass bio-fuel movement would tie the price of animal feed (and hence our food) to the price of oil. Economic madness IMV.

[pjclark1]

Now you don't have to pay tax (on the first 2500 litres)
Supermarket veggie oil for your diesel car is starting to look very attractive @ 50p a litre
(no mods needed if you just pour in a bit with the normal fuel)

And you can claim you are saving the environment!

Cheap as chips (or should that be "cheap as chip fat")

It's a shame biofuel promised more power along with green credentials, no one could turn that down, but apart from the known issues, imagine the imapct of crop failures due to drought or flood.

[Corey USA]

As was demonstrated with the wood pellet heating system when you saturate the demand to exceed availability you go from green to environmentally unsustainable.

It also matters the technique and technology to make the green things. The problem is not the green things them selves but the human factor of greed. In pursuit of profit, corners are cut and the technique and technology is changed to a more cost effective means but usually the cost effective way of doing it is not efficient or environmentally friendly. Growing corn to replace wood pellets to meet demand and thus profit(greed). Rather than say that is enough people using this tech for that is the energy limit.

biofuels derived from our waste is good. this is example of workable, as long as you limit the number of people using to match the waste biofuels