Greece is going to default. This will mean the Euro collapses. Nations other than Greece within the Eurozone have no option to let Greece default, as in the long run, it will be cheaper for them them let Greece default and have nationally fixed currencies rather than the rest of the world junking the Euro. Expect the reamergence in trade of bonds issued by the German and French governments, along with smaller Northern European nation bonds - basically, we will see trade in the Deutschmark, the Frank and the Krone of several nations very soon. They may not have such names, but they will be nationally protected bonds rather than bond fixed to the Euro.
Next year, oil will no longer be traded in US dollars. This will be in part an American designed policy. Being that China holds so much US debt, the devaluation of the dollar by a large amount will help the US national debt.
You have been warned.
Comments
Horses are the next decades growth sector.
Theres a few different ways to get viable natural oils - http://www.abc.net.au/rural/content/2010/s2841562.htm
Using biomass in a pyrolysis generator has a net reduction carbon effect while generating energy; the question is the same with the palm oil/biodiesel questions. Where will we put all these new plantations when we are already using the majority of the worlds arable land.
Im not comfortable with the idea of destroying more wilderness just so that people can keep putting more LCD screens around the place.
There are definately energy solutions but the problem is that we are consuming resources at a rapid and unsustainable rate. I say it all the time but demand side abatement is better than building new sources; especially because building new sources discourages greater efficiency.
[SOUNDCLOUD]
Extraction of the oil to create fuel is not quite as efficient as the pyrolosis which has a greater carbon sequestration capability; and the biochar produced from the process is a powerful and safe fertilizer that has proven to increase yields. Also you need to think about the actual space required VS volume, hemp plants are smaller compared to malle trees which they are currently using.
And in the context of working within the legal framework of developed nations its much easier to get project approval for malle tree projects.
Because a monoculture is destructive to biodiversity and can interfere with ecosystem processes. A managed plantation forest is superior to an empty field of harvested trees but it still will not provide the same services, food sources, inputs to soil processes or nutrient cycling as a diverse and natural forest profile.
These are really really tough questions and throughout it all you need to remember that farming is an economic activity. If these blokes rip up their vines/citrus or whatever to put in some sort of experimental crop and the project gets canned they have lost BIG time.
Its the carbon sequestration and creation of biochar that really make the malle trees the viable choice; especially if you put a price per ton on the carbon.
ok well you dont have to worry about farmers losing out cause this is a gas company growing these trees... and there not ripping down forrest they are planting in unused grasslands...
im not arguing with you that hemp may be a more superior plant for this .. im just defending them in that this is better than putting holes in alaska
carbon believes in you
I disagree with the tax on many levels; but I believe the climotology behind the concept of climate change is sound. But thats not so relevant if we're talking about oil. Carbon has a market value and the market will behave as such.
As an alternative to coal and oil the malle trees are high yeilding, resilient to Australian conditions (including recover after bushfires), legal, create powerful byproduct and being a native tree would be less destructive to the landscape than a hemp plantation.
Groundwater salinity would kill those plants within 3 or 4 years of putting in one of those plantations while the malle trees would actually reduce this.
For USD, CHN and EUR market dynamics the AUD is in a strong position. We have a strong tech/service sector that works as a gateway and regional capital for the Asia-pacific region and are a net exporter of food, energy and minerals. If the chinese dollar aprecciates we will benefit even if their demand for our resources is lower - if the US and EU climb out of recession; we still have them as trading partners and our resources will grow in value.
A paradigm shift from conventional oil to hemp oil is not even possible - to create enough biodiesel to meet consumption would require more than %100 of arable land on earth.
DEMAND SIDE ABATEMENT is the way.
Where do you get that over 100% figure from?
A plant based alternative to oil just isnt feasable.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1313165
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/4/044004
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0961953405000978
Whereas the malle experiments works like high grade coal and produces a carbon offset, energy and a environmentally safe fertilizer as the end product.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef900494t
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880908002375
http://www.eeo.ed.ac.uk/homes/sshackle/WP2.pdf
So in other words it is just a number you pulled out of the air.
^This is not a study it is a research paper that clearly states, "...attempts to provide a comprehensive evaluation of large-scale biofuel production as an alternative to fossil energy depletion are few and controversial", so I fail to see how this supports you opinion that "A plant based alternative to oil just isn't feasible"
This research letter, not study but letter, was published by the A. P. Giannini Foundation. The founder of the Bank of America, established the A. P. Giannini Foundation, in 1945. You don't suppose a banker would have any interest in keeping the status quo by sponsoring a research letter which is essentially a scare campaign warning a food shortages if we stop using the precious oil that they and their cohorts protect and procure by using NATO forces like pawns do you?
One of the authors of this "study:, Bruce E. Dale turned around 3 years later and wrote this in support of biofuel and was "...set to debate Dr. David Pimentel, professor of ecology and entomology at Cornell University, today (Nov. 18) at Wellesley College regarding the benefits of biofuels."
This far you have offered nothing more than opinions both yours and those of others. Furthermore those opinions are on corn, soybeans, and some tree that apparently only grows in a limited region of the planet. The opinions of others that you have cited are either funded by sources that have a vested interest in the petroleum industry or have turned around and taken up the cause for biofuel at a later date.
The abstract of this paper states, "Biomass as a fuel suffers from its bulky, fibrous, high moisture content and low-energy-density nature, leading to key issues including high transport cost and poor biomass grindability". biofuel from hemp is derived from hemp oil which is derived from the seed. So clearly this paper was focused on something like corn or soy which is bulky and fiberous not hemp seed. Once more you are comparing apples to oranges.
Being as you posted this at 1:36 AM server time and replied to this thread 9 minutes later at 1:45 AM server time it is clear you simply did a Google search for a string involving biofuel research or something to that effect, scanned a few results without looking into them at all and pasted the links here.
Than is not thinking for yourself. That is allowing others to think for you. When we researched for the first episode of the Red Pill Podcast, which dealt with hemp, tow of us spent close to 10 days off and on looking into various source of information before recording our findings. Now I am in no way trying to put forth that the opinions we formed in 10 days are scientific, conclusive, or absolute. But that experience certainly holds more weight in forming my opinion on the matter than your 9 minutes of typing and Googling research letters published either published by parties with a vested interest in petroleum, who took and opposite side of the argument at a later date, or dealt with some other plant then hemp.
It is for this reason I do support carbon sequestration in the form of bio char. As has been shown with all naturally active high carbon soils, the depth of natrual mulch and massive water holding layer of the organic matter in the in the soil itself could not be maintained in lower carbon soils. From the Terra Petra in the Amazon, the soils of the Mid West USA before its exploitation was began and the Russian Steppe, which still has some very deep soils remaining.
One simply cannot add chunks of carbon and hope for it to work - it needs to be very active and have something to bond and exchange with in the soil - a very fine balancing act until their is enough of a carbon 'sink' to hold and manage excess - or already intert and stable in the form of compost produced from carbon rich waste.
It is better to somehow use it rather than inject it into holes in the ground we have made getting oil, coal and gas out.
The world isnt growing enough food. To grow enough biodiesel would be stupid. Biodiesel is silly.
Its not feasible.
If it was feasible with any other crop it would be happening because thats how markets operate - the technology is there, people are clearly investing time and money into research and development - if it was economically viable it would happen.
But there IS a food shortage.
Hey look the corn lobby! And whats that? subsudies to conduct environmentally destructive activities not supported by the market?
Yes. Generally thats how theories are arrived at in the absence of hard evidence. And i dont know anywhere that is growing plantations of hemp for fuel purposes - meanwhile there are power plants running on malle trees and the program is expanding.
They were also on sugar cane and general crop waste.
But the point remains "Today, the industrial corn-ethanol cycle generates on 4.9 million hectares about 10.8 million
metric tonnes of equivalent CO2/year over and above the energy-equivalent gasoline."
Like Dr Rocker says; biochar is the way - and the carbon saving makes a huge economic plus to the activity.
Once again i'm extrapolating figures in the absence of actual hard evidence. Assume that hemp oil is twice as productive as corn AND IT STILL IS NOT VIABLE. And claiming hemp is not bulky and fiberous is laughable, it is grown for its fibres and while slightly less bulky its still a huge amount of plant matter - and the VOC's that will come up from that plant decaying would completely negatve the carbon savings.
The closest comparison would be rapeseed which was also studied in one of the papers i posted and it also failed the viability test.
Or maybe I research this and had it all memorised and bookmarked. Maybe. Who will ever know.
I do have full access to the articles beyond the abstract.
Unless you're conducting field trials, or having your own theories tested by others on your behalf - then you are allowing others to think for you. But thats ok. Its not cheating, its a staple of the scientific community to use both peer review and work off the results and conclusions of others.
I've been to a variety of conferences on the subject and they generally just get on with their presentation without handing everyone in the room a long list of every related study - but you learn pretty fast what ideas are popular, which ones arent - and why.
I will let you have your opinion and illusion of "victory" ITT.
I aint left wing - not by a long shot. But i am an environmentalist. Im not fighting, not chalking up victories or losses - just saying things i believe.
I believe in a price on carbon, and i believe in free market trading mechanisms solving this problem better than governments in line with my right wing conservative views on property rights. Regardless on if you believe climate change is real or not you cant deny that there is a market failure to account for air pollution in a meaningful way.
I dont care who funded it; and most of those journals are considered academically independent. The magic of peer reviewed science based on actual fieldwork means that the conclusions speak for themselves.
Unfortunately there is no hard evidence to back hemp as a viable oil alternative although if you want to use it to remediate land with heavy metal poisioning there is a huge potential - people are conducting experiments with hemp, but hemp seed oil is not seen as a viable alternative energy source. In general biodiesel is not seen as a viable energy source although pyrolysis fired power plants are real and do work.
Combined with demand side abatement and improvements in electrical efficiency (not to mention the carbon abatement) that is seen as a huge step forward to future energy.
You dont seem to grasp the concept of scientific theory and peer review. Hemp oil isnt being produced as a fuel because it is not viable. My malle tree power plants are in actual fact generating power right now.
Beyond the whole 'HERP LEFT DERP RIGHT' divide and conquer arguments is where intelligent political though lays. I have very little to do with the left wing side of politics - environmental advocacy is something that anyone who understands the value of ecosystem services and natural resources can understand.
People believed the world was flat because that was believed to be right.
And seeing as the malle trees are being grown and harvested for energy RIGHT NOW on an industrial scale I would suggest that the science behind this is pretty damn solid.
You were arguing that hemp is some sort of saviour plant. I showed you another better plant that is being produced on an industrial scale and actually meeting power needs WHILE PRODUCING OTHER FRINGE BENEFITS - PRESENTING ITSELF AS CLEARLY SUPERIOR.
And i retorted with the fact that biofuel is a silly idea for silly people; so silly that the science guys around the world arent conducting any real trials with it.
And hemp can be legally commerically grown here in Australia where we do all kinds of energy research so riddle me why they would pick malle trees instead of magical hemp when they have the option of either?
And again pointing out that the malle tree programs are hugely successful and being implemented on an industrial scale.
You were saying something like 'shadow organisations are using nato soldiers to secure oil and keeping hemp down' and i was pointing out that there has been successful research, development and implementation of alternative energy sources that arent hemp. And it wasnt because of some sort of conspiricy - it was because it was a clearly superior choice.
Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. Have fun with your repetition born of blind faith in "science" that is bought and paid for by those who get rich off of your blind faith in science guys that you know as well as you know the man on the moon.
Maybe in America that was the case - but its about as hard as starting a citrus orchard here. and we have a hemp industry.
BUT IT JUST SO HAPPENS THAT THERE IS A SUPERIOR PRODUCT!!!!
Fact: The malle power station is up and running
Fact: If someone wanted to they could grow hemp for energy
Fact: Growing hemp for energy would be silly - it is not economically viable.
Jean-Claude Trichet is finishing his term in 6 days and then goldman "sell ninja loans & short our own clients" sachs boy is being put in place.
The euro is already systematically broken; the regulations and compliance requirements for liquidity, solvency and debt levels have been changed - and the 'stress tests' done by the ECB to mislead the market did not include a variety of likely scenerios.
A good indicator of the right move to make is being shown by England right now; a large fraction of the conservative base wants a refferendum on EU membership. They already had the foresight to abstain from merging currencies - getting off the sinking euro ship (with the wave of economic refugees it is already bringing) is a great idea.
Unfortunately England has been poisoned by years of New Labour; but there are still some tories who understand that England will get hurt jumping from a moving train - but its best to do it before it derails completely.
They know that the people, the people they claim to represent - will vote to leave the EU.
They are avoiding allowing the people to have their voices heard. Literally. It is seriously dark days for england.
China has already given assistance to Italy in exchange for special trade priviliges and theres more where that came from.
China will stay on board if the Euros pledge their gold as collateral and "leverage up" a bailout fund; but even that plan will continue treating the sympton while the debt disease keeps melting away.