[extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ?

[The Avantguardian]

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:

> On the contrary, and contrary to the Green agrarian
> mythology, putting
> the burden on the agricultural system means much
> more farmland put
> under plow, and much more forest re-re-claimed for
> farmland, means
> ecological devastation. It is farmland that destroys
> wildlife habitat.
> VT and NH were once 90% farmland for only two
> things: a) to grow hay
> for all the horses in New York City and Boston, and
> b) to grow sheep
> for wool for keeping NYers and Beantowners warm in
> those cold cold
> winters of the late 19th century when we were headed
> into an ice age.
> 
> Today it is reversed: VT and NH are 90% forest, we
> have more wildlife
> than before the europeans came here, and NY and
> Boston are not hip deep
> in horseshit, disease, and stink.
> 
> Insisting on agri-ethanol will push us back to a
> 19th century economy
> and ecological devastation. Anyone who advocates it
> is a luddite who
> knows not what they ask for.

I could probably supply all the ethanol and biodiesel
the United States would need by harvesting seaweed
from the sargasso sea. This would not require one
additinal acre of farmland.

> 
> Besides all that, all the distillery mash will
> release much more
> methane into the atmosphere. Scientists had thought
> methane was six
> times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. A
> report just came out
> that its actually 12 times more powerful.

A well designed bioreactor would use the methane
generated to power the distillation process. You are
making your judgements based on unenlightened technology.

The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com