Mean Green

In January it seems there are two things on almost everybody’s minds: New Year’s resolutions and shopping. These may seem hard to reconcile, but with the growing market of ‘green’ and ethical consumer products, it may actually be possible to combine the two and put your money where your mouth is in terms of those good intentions. Some of the most exciting developments for environmentally aware consumers in 2008 will surely come from a surprising source: motoring and car companies.

If you’re tiring of your current car – but you’re not ready to go totally green and trade it in for walking, then public transport or a bike (cycling, incidentally, is a great way to shift some of the ‘festive plumpness’ that’s often another top January concern) – it’s worth looking into the environmental impacts of various vehicles’ production and manufacture. Find out about the fuel economy and emissions levels of cars before you buy, and you could be doing a big favour to the planet, human health and your bank balance too: obviously, smaller engines with greater efficiency mean you’ll spend less on fuel while producing less harmful CO2.

Climate change has been the hot topic of the year, from dinner tables to boardrooms and from muddy campsites to Westminster and Washington. Even California’s Governor, one Arnold Schwarzenegger, previously seen saving the world from killer robots and Harrier-surfing terrorists, has added his distinctive voice to the lobby for cleaner, greener transport by setting ground-breaking goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions across the state. He plans to increase the number of hydrogen fuelling stations in California (currently 25) to 200 and create a ‘hydrogen highway’ there by 2010, making it a Mecca for owners of carbon-neutral vehicles like his very own, wildly inefficient and expensive but still hydrogen-powered, ‘green Hummer’.

Good news for green consumerism, then, which is big news on this side of the pond too – several hybrid and electric cars are already available here and there’s a fast-growing network of ‘biodiesel’ fuelling stations across the UK, with a mix of 5% biofuel to regular diesel already common thanks to the RTFO plan. The ‘half-way house’ in the shorter term is represented by small, efficient vehicles like the new diesel Mini and the funky Smart range from Mercedes-Benz, which both also happen to be pretty fantastic in terms of looks.

Another thing to bear in mind whether you’re looking for a new vehicle or just to cut the costs of your driving is car insurance – it’s vital to ensure this is up to date each year, as the law is quite clear that you can’t drive without it. The car you choose will affect your premium, as will many other factors like your driving history, whether the car is kept in a garage, and even having a tracking device installed (often included with satellite navigation systems) can mean a big saving. You can also often save by taking out car and home insurance from the same provider, or simply through a loyalty discount once you’ve found the company that’s right for you.

Biofuels Market – Finland report covering one of the industries expected to grow dynamically. Government initiatives and the large demand for green fuel are expected to attract investments in the sector. In order to meet renewable energy targets, implementation of certain policies have been forecasted. This is expected to boost the market. ( http://www.bharatbook.com/Market-Research-Reports/Biofuels-Market-Finland.html )

The report begins with an introduction of the biofuels market in the European Union (EU) indicating the segmented use of various biofuels, total import-export and consumption levels. It also includes the major policies forwarded towards developing the biofuels market in the EU. An overview of the energy market in Finland has been provided followed by an analysis of the biofuels market. Details regarding the production levels of major biofuels as well as the total bioenergy levels have been proffered. This section also includes data regarding the major energy sources in the country, the level of energy consumption by sector and the sources contributing to electricity production.

The characteristics of the market have been analyzed and include – large forests which provide raw materials for biofuels, usage of forest land to develop energy crops, biofuels dominated by high levels of imports, usage of biofuels as a route to reduce CO2 emissions, expected direct benefits to green car owners, policies towards mandatory sale of biofuels and reduction in dependency on oil.

The major government programmes and investments towards the development of the industry have been discussed including the climate and energy policy and the expected introduction of feed-in-tariff for biogas generation as well as various research and development projects carried out by TEKES, VTT Technical Research Centre and other government bodies. Competition section profiles the major players in the market. The section contains a snapshot of the corporations’ financial performance and business highlights, providing an insight into the existing competitive scenario.

To know more and to buy a copy of your report feel free to visit : http://www.bharatbook.com/Market-Research-Reports/Biofuels-Market-Finland.html

Or

Contact us at :

Bharat Book Bureau

Tel: +91 22 27578668

Fax: +91 22 27579131

Email: info@bharatbook.com

Website: www.bharatbook.com

Blog: http://bharatbookresearch.blogspot.com

Follow us on twitter: http://twitter.com/3bbharatbook

Carbon offsetting provokes a powerful emotional response in some people. They just don’t like the idea that you can pay someone else to mop up your carbon emissions. It smacks of indulgence and cheating. Critics say buying an offset while continuing to fly, or drive an SUV, or live in a mansion with all the lights on, is at best hypocritical, and at worst, downright dangerous. It simply avoids the issue, which is that we should be reducing our carbon footprint, and simply encourages the delusion that we can go on living in an environmentally profligate way.

Some even compare offsetting with the Papal indulgences of the late Middle Ages, where Catholics were offered redemptions for their sins in return for donations to the Church – buying their way out of punishment for wrongdoing. Critics say this is exactly what modern-day carbon offsetters are trying to do. They think money will buy them a clear conscience while they continue to fill the sky with fumes.

Certain high profile stories, mainly about celebrities trying to offset carbon-intensive lifestyles, give credence to the criticisms, but it is far from the whole picture. Offsetting is something that is practiced by thousands of individuals and organizations who are neither hypocritical or delusional. Let’s look at the argument more closely.

First, let’s acknowledge that our number one priority must be to reduce our carbon output in every way possible – switching to a renewable energy supplier, insulating our homes, driving less, etc. But let’s also acknowledge that even if this is done with the best intentions in the world, most of us will reach a point where we cannot easily, or perhaps affordably, do much more in the short term. Few of us have lived our lives entirely by environmental priorities, and most of us have woken up to climate change at a point where we inhabit houses or offices, or own cars, or hold down jobs that were never designed with carbon neutrality in mind.

Even if we take whatever steps we can to reduce, recycle and reuse now, and make a commitment that our next car will run on biofuel and that we will fit solar panels to our house, etc., most individuals or organizations endeavoring to go carbon neutral will be left with a residue of current emissions. Now we have two choices – we can ignore them or we can offset.

Ignoring them might avoid having to think through the ethical issues around offsetting, but it is not going to help the planet. On the other hand, offsetting them will ensure that as long as we continue to produce emissions, they will be counterbalanced by a saving or sequestering somewhere else. It is the environmentally responsible thing to do.

We’ve been talking about the residual emissions left after taking a reduction strategy as far as we can. Now let’s go back to the case of the pop star or movie actor who appears to have no immediate intention of giving up flying, or selling their SUV, but who decides to offset. On the one hand, we could cry, ‘Hypocrite!’ and denounce them for trying to buy environmental redemption. Or we could recognize that they have at least acknowledged that their lifestyle has an environmental price. For the wealthy, this price is relatively trivial at the moment if they are simply accounting for their flying or driving, but it is the start of a cultural process – a process of accepting the cost to the planet of our actions, and building this into our economy.

Over time, the cost of carbon will rise and will be factored into all the products and services we consume, and this will begin to have greater impact on our behaviour as the price differential between our old habits and a new greener lifestyle increases. Celebrities have a part to play in highlighting issues such as climate change, and in endorsing the concept that we must pay for our impact on the planet.

We need to be realistic too. Many people are going to continue to take long-haul holiday flights, drive SUVs and run high energy households no matter what anybody says. The process of persuasion and change will be slow. Denouncing people for taking a step towards environmental awareness and carbon neutrality is counterproductive. It will discourage positive action, and polarise the debate. We should be trying to move people on in their environmental thinking, not alienate them.

Some individuals and organisations will no doubt abuse offsetting in order to indulge environmentally irresponsible behaviour, but to condemn all offsetting on this basis is to overlook the best intentions and goodwill of the majority who participate. We are all trying to find a way forward with global warming. We know it will take a combination of many individual, community, corporate, government and international efforts. Offsetting has a role to play. It is empowering at the individual level. And, unlike the Papal indulgences of the past, offsetting can have a real effect in reducing the carbon levels in our atmosphere, and slowing the pace of climate change.

Carbon offsetting provokes a powerful emotional response in some people. They just don’t like the idea that you can pay someone else to mop up your carbon emissions. It smacks of indulgence and cheating. Critics say buying an offset while continuing to fly, or drive an SUV, or live in a mansion with all the lights on, is at best hypocritical, and at worst, downright dangerous. It simply avoids the issue, which is that we should be reducing our carbon footprint, and simply encourages the delusion that we can go on living in an environmentally profligate way.

Some even compare offsetting with the Papal indulgences of the late Middle Ages, where Catholics were offered redemptions for their sins in return for donations to the Church – buying their way out of punishment for wrongdoing. Critics say this is exactly what modern-day carbon offsetters are trying to do. They think money will buy them a clear conscience while they continue to fill the sky with fumes.

Certain high profile stories, mainly about celebrities trying to offset carbon-intensive lifestyles, give credence to the criticisms, but it is far from the whole picture. Offsetting is something that is practiced by thousands of individuals and organizations who are neither hypocritical or delusional. Let’s look at the argument more closely.

First, let’s acknowledge that our number one priority must be to reduce our carbon output in every way possible – switching to a renewable energy supplier, insulating our homes, driving less, etc. But let’s also acknowledge that even if this is done with the best intentions in the world, most of us will reach a point where we cannot easily, or perhaps affordably, do much more in the short term. Few of us have lived our lives entirely by environmental priorities, and most of us have woken up to climate change at a point where we inhabit houses or offices, or own cars, or hold down jobs that were never designed with carbon neutrality in mind.

Even if we take whatever steps we can to reduce, recycle and reuse now, and make a commitment that our next car will run on biofuel and that we will fit solar panels to our house, etc., most individuals or organizations endeavoring to go carbon neutral will be left with a residue of current emissions. Now we have two choices – we can ignore them or we can offset.

Ignoring them might avoid having to think through the ethical issues around offsetting, but it is not going to help the planet. On the other hand, offsetting them will ensure that as long as we continue to produce emissions, they will be counterbalanced by a saving or sequestering somewhere else. It is the environmentally responsible thing to do.

We’ve been talking about the residual emissions left after taking a reduction strategy as far as we can. Now let’s go back to the case of the pop star or movie actor who appears to have no immediate intention of giving up flying, or selling their SUV, but who decides to offset. On the one hand, we could cry, ‘Hypocrite!’ and denounce them for trying to buy environmental redemption. Or we could recognize that they have at least acknowledged that their lifestyle has an environmental price. For the wealthy, this price is relatively trivial at the moment if they are simply accounting for their flying or driving, but it is the start of a cultural process – a process of accepting the cost to the planet of our actions, and building this into our economy.

Over time, the cost of carbon will rise and will be factored into all the products and services we consume, and this will begin to have greater impact on our behaviour as the price differential between our old habits and a new greener lifestyle increases. Celebrities have a part to play in highlighting issues such as climate change, and in endorsing the concept that we must pay for our impact on the planet.

We need to be realistic too. Many people are going to continue to take long-haul holiday flights, drive SUVs and run high energy households no matter what anybody says. The process of persuasion and change will be slow. Denouncing people for taking a step towards environmental awareness and carbon neutrality is counterproductive. It will discourage positive action, and polarise the debate. We should be trying to move people on in their environmental thinking, not alienate them.

Some individuals and organisations will no doubt abuse offsetting in order to indulge environmentally irresponsible behaviour, but to condemn all offsetting on this basis is to overlook the best intentions and goodwill of the majority who participate. We are all trying to find a way forward with global warming. We know it will take a combination of many individual, community, corporate, government and international efforts. Offsetting has a role to play. It is empowering at the individual level. And, unlike the Papal indulgences of the past, offsetting can have a real effect in reducing the carbon levels in our atmosphere, and slowing the pace of climate change.

Loss of forests contributes as much as 30 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions each rivaling emissions from the global transportation sector. The Kyoto Protocol’s offset mechanisms allow credits to be given for replanting trees or establishing new forests, which capture carbon dioxide through photosynthesis. But the current policy regimen does nothing to prevent existing forests from being cut down in the first place.

With Kyoto set to expire in 2012, a new round of talks is under way to develop the next framework for climate change. Experts believe a policy to avoid further deforestation will be a major topic at the conference. But some environmentalists remain wary of forestry climate policy, fearing it will draw attention away from the need to reduce emissions caused by fossil fuels.

The world currently has about ten billion acres of forest. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) 2007 report on the world’s forests, the world lost about 3 percent of forest area between 1990 and 2005, and the net rate of loss has declined since 2000 (the world loses on average 32 million acres per year). Growth in northern hemisphere forest has helped offset tropical deforestation. There is disagreement, however, on the extent to which increases in temperate-zone forests offset the loss of carbon sinking in tropical zones.

Deforestation is caused by exploitation of natural resources, including expanding populations, logging, agriculture, biofuel production, and wildfires. Clearing forests for the production of biofuels is causing major concern, as experts contend that it has a significant negative impact on forests without doing much to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The FAO report shows that the greatest overall loss is occurring in Africa, followed closely by Latin America and the Caribbean. Indonesia has the fastest deforestation rate of any single country in the world. When emissions from loss of forests are taken into account, Indonesia could be considered the world’s third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, according to a recent World Bank report. Indonesia recently has made a show of planting 80 million trees ahead of the Bali conference, but some question the country’s long-term commitment to slowing exploitation of its valuable resources, such as stemming illegal logging.

China’s rapid growth in the production of manufactured goods that need wood also poses challenges. The country’s consumption of forest products leads the world. According to Forest Trends, a nonprofit research group, China’s increasing demand has lead to unsustainable and sometimes illegal logging practices in many of the countries seeing significant deforesting activities, such as Indonesia and Papua New Guinea.

China has a seemingly limitless appetite for cheap wood, says Don J. Melnick, a conservation biology professor at Columbia University. Products made from this timber often wind up in U.S. and European markets. Richard Z. Donovan, chief of forestry for the Rainforest Alliance, an advocacy group, says that right now China is not only adding to climate change by burning large amounts of fossil fuels that emit greenhouse gas but also by being a non-discriminating buyer of wood.

The potential of biomass as an energy source is enormous: experts have calculated that the planet produces eight times more biomass each year than its energy needs overall (though it currently puts only 7 percent of that available resource to use in energy production). It’s not only a renewable resource, it’s also a seemingly inevitable one; to paraphrase a common aphorism, biomass happens.

Any fuel created from biomass can be called biofuel, although the term gets the most media attention when used to denote biomass-based fuels that power internal combustion engines especially cars. These include biodiesel, biobutanol, biogas and bioethanol. The fuels can be created from plant materials specifically grown for the purpose or from the recycling or re-use of other biomass resources.

Energy Crops

Crops have long been grown to feed people and animals, but until recently were not raised specifically as energy sources. Even trees, which have been used for thousands of years as a heating source, were not “farmed” for just that purpose. Today there is even a term for trees and woody plants cultivated for the specific purpose of creating fuel: dendro-energy. The products of any agriculture dedicated to producing fuel of any sort are called “energy crops” the high-falutin technical term would be “closed-loop biomass” and are steadily becoming an important resource in global energy development.

There are literally hundreds of different dendro-energy resources alone, from abies balsamea (balsam fir) to Zizania aquatica (wild rice) around the world. In countries with no proven reserves of fossil fuels, investments and research in dendro-energy resources have helped otherwise energy-poor nations such as Sri Lanka develop alternatives to costly and politically dependent imports, giving a whole new meaning to the phrase “power plant.”

Some of the energy crops grown around the world include corn, soybeans, flaxseed and sugar cane. Additionally, biofuels are also manufactured frequently from the unused portions of crops grown for other purposes such as the chaff, stalks, shells, husks, and roots.

Energy crops add fewer emissions to the air and water supply than do petroleum products in general and coal in particular. Energy crops contain almost no sulfur and far less nitrogen than fossil fuels, so their combustion does not contribute to acid rain and smog (sulfur dioxide, or SO2) and smog (nitrogen oxides, or NOx). And unlike fossil fuels, they do not have significant quantities of mercury to leach into the water supply. In general, energy crops do not release nearly the amount of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) as anthropogenic sources (that is, human-made concoctions such as natural gas, gasoline, solvents, pesticides, and paints).

There are biogenic sources of VOCs, however, and these do represent significant contributors. Pine and citrus trees, for example, release large quantities of isoprene (a chemical compound found naturally in plants and animals, including humans, isoprene is nevertheless a pollutant, especially as it contributes to the production of ozone) and terpenes (a family of hydrocarbons that are the major components of resin and, not surprisingly, turpentine), although these trees are used as biomass.

One promising source of biofuels is microalgae, which can be grown on aquaculture farms. A pilot program demonstrated in during the 1990s showed that algae can be used to create diesel and jet fuel. This is particularly good news given the efficiency of algae relative to some other energy crops. For example, corn, which is a common energy crop, yields just 18 gallons of fuel per acre. Thanks to its fast growth cycle, algae can yield up to 10,000 gallons per acre. There’s another benefit to algae, too. Some power plants are already using algae bioreactors to reduce CO2 emissions by pumping the gas into a pond or tank for the algae to feed on.

Recycled Energy

Another way in which biomass gets put to use as an energy source is through recycling biodegradable materials or water products. Industry and agriculture are major sources of biodegradable by-products, but every household generates potentially useful biomass. On a large scale, manufacturers and other industrial and commercial services generate biodegradable materials they no longer need.

ght (c) 2009 Wes Fernley

The recent breathtaking spike in oil prices has finally awakened professionals in the energy field to the very real need for alternatives. As a result, we are seeing liquid fuels developed from plant materials entering the market. Sugar components of various plant materials if fermented will yield an alcohol called bioethanol. Even cellulosic biomass (trees and grasses, for instance) can be used to produce this kind of biofuel. Ethanol, widely used in Brazil as well as in the United States, can, actually, be used in a pure form; however, it is used more as an additive to boost octane in addition to reducing emissions.

Biodiesel, on the other hand, is made from oils—vegetable or animal. Very often, greases are recycled and used for biodiesel. Like ethanol, it can be used in its pure form for diesel engines but is more often treated as an additive. This is the most common biofuel in Europe. The process for producing it from fats and oils is called transesterification.

In 2008, 1.8% of the world’s transport fuel was biofuel. Investment in the production of this new approach to fueling transportation vehicles for the world is expanding rapidly. It was $4 billion in 2007. The liquid biofuels are the most popular ones for these purposes because they can be pumped, and they can directly replace gasoline. Not only do internal combustion engines run cleaner on biofuels, but pollution is also minimized. Biofuels are generally classified as first generation, second generation, and third generation.

First generation biofuels are made from sugar, starch, vegetable oil, or animal fats. Grains such as wheat are fermented into bioethanol; sunflower seeds are pressed to yield vegetable oil for biodiesel. The most common first generation biofuels:

- Bioalcohols

- Biodiesel

- Vegetable Oil

- Bioethers

- Biogas

- Syngas

- Solid biofuels

Second generation biofuels are made from non-food crops such as waste biomass, stalks of wheat, corn, wood, and certain grasses. To avoid the political issues that have arisen from the use of food that is needed for humans and animals to produce fuel, the pressure is on to develop more of these sources. Some of the second-generation biofuels under development:

- Biohydrogen

- Biomethanol

- DMF

- Vio-DME

- Fischer-Tropsch Diesel

- Biohydrogen Diesel

- Mixed Alcohols

- Wood Diesel

Third-generation biofuels are made primarily from algae, which can produce up to 30 times more energy per acre than land crops such as soybeans. However, they have not yet been produced commercially. These are biodegradable and will not harm the environment if they happen to be spilled. Algae can be grown agriculturally. It’s estimated that 15,000 square miles of algae would meet all the needs for petroleum fuel in the United States.

- Agricultural Algae

- Ethanol from Living Algae

- Helioculture (collection of carbon dioxide from the air using solar power)

For the non-scientist, this seems somewhat complicated, but more and more professionals in the appropriate fields are switching to this quickly-emerging industry, and we can hope that many of the problems the world faces now in obtaining energy without jeopardizing our environments will see solutions in the coming years.

In this document I would like to outline some of the deficiencies in the use of ETHANOL as a proposed

“alternative” carbon-free, low-gas emission fuel.

Let’s start by taking a look at where ethanol comes from, how it is produced, and why it is being touted as an energy efficient environmentally friendly biofuel.

Ethanol can be produced as a petrochemical via the hydration of ethylene, and biologically, by fermenting sugars with yeast. In this paper we will leave aside the ethanol produced petrochemically and digest some facts relating to the field crops required to produce ethanol.

In the U.S.A ethanol as a fuel is derived mainly from maize (corn). According to the “Renewable Fuel Association, in October ‘07, there were 131 grain ethanol bio-refineries in the U.S.A. with a further 72 refineries under construction. So lets ask how much maize will these refineries consume just to produce a biofuel?. Well America alone produces 270 million metric tons annually which is almost half the worlds harvest.

It has been calculated that 500lbs of maize is required to provide one full tank for the average american car; simple arithmetic will show that equates to approximately 12 tons of maize for 1 car for 1 year. If America is producing 270 million tons p.a., which is the approximate amount required to keep 20 million cars on the U.S roads for one year then ALL of America’s maize production is used on the production of fuel and there is none left to use as FOOD.

Brazil now has a policy of supporting ethanol as a car fuel which is provided from domestically grown sugar cane, which not only has a greater concentration of sucrose than corn (approx. 30% better) but is also much easier to extract.

The policies of both the Brazilian and the U.S.A. governments who supply 69% of the worlds ethanol- regarding the production of ethanol biofuels is directly at the expense of the food supply chain. Both sugar products and corn have soared up in price as a direct result of these policies and the huge subsidies paid to farmers and industrial conglomerates. In fact the Asian Development Bank stated on Monday the 21st April this year “that developed nations should stop paying agricultural subsidies to encourage biofuel production because those payments are making staple foods more expensive.”

Sweden does not help this situation either as its said that 13% of new cars sold there now run on biofuel and practically every other car maker in the world is trying to make their own version of a biofuel car.

In following their policy to produce ethanol biofuel systems they have turned their backs to the fact that this policy has a negative effect on the environment by removing crops (food) from the food chain and where it is the case (Brazil,S America) where tropical forests are being demolished to plant biofuel producing crops, they are removing those vital trees from from the land which themselves can literally absorb a ton of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in their lifetime.

Finally, a recent article in Science magazine states: “the use of US croplands for biofuels causes increased greenhouse gas emissions through emissions from land use change”.

Having read the above it is incredible how anyone could perceive ethanol to be an ethical alternative fuel.

There is an ethical, environmentally friendly system available NOW, but nobody in government nor anyone in the oil industry supports it. WHY, – simply because they have a vested interest in the status quo.The big conglomerates with government officials aiding them have invested BILLIONS in the aforementioned so called alternative fuels and they have made huge mistakes, but their shortsightedness in trying to protect their bad investments at all costs, is at a cost to the world’s precious delicate environment.

As mentioned we do have an alternative system that is eco-friendly and it is available NOW; it is the water to fuel conversion system which for a very small fee is yours to benefit from immediately.

What are the immediate benefits of installing a water to fuel conversion system?

a)..Your vehicle will dramatically produce significantly cleaner gas emissions thus reducing the amount of carbon dioxide discharged into the air.

b)..You will reduce the amount of land required for crops to convert to biofuel which can then be re-utilized for growing vital food crops.

c)..Reduced petrol/diesel consumption via improved m.p.g.

d)..Both a & b help to provide a better, healthier environment, and incidentally and very happily with c) you will find you have more cash left in your pocket.

South Park parodied hybrid car owners creating clouds of ‘smug’, but do they really have anything to be smug about? In the battle against man-made global warming and reducing pollution ethanol powered cars, not hybrids, are touted the way to go and politicians and the environmentally conscious alike are jumping on the bandwagon.

There is no doubt that ethanol burns far more cleanly than diesel or petrol – we could radically reduce the pollutants in our atmosphere by switching. Or can we? You see, to create ethanol, crops need to be grown. Because ethanol is not as potent as petrol, more ethanol is burned per kilometre. It takes between 75-90% of the energy yielded from ethanol to actually grow it – ploughing, harvesting, processing and shipping all add up – and ethanol still releases a lot of carbon dioxide. Then there’s the environmental destruction caused by the conversion of land to biofuel production. This either takes forests or fallow land, or removes land from the general agriculture pool which pushes up food prices. Both of these reduce biodiversity. Add to that the increased erosion, fertiliser pollution and waterway silting and the argument for ethanol is fizzling rapidly.

Even if we manage to eek out a saving using hybrids as opposed to ethanol, at best these cars get only marginally better fuel economy than, for example, a diesel VW Polo, and they take as much if not more toxic metals and fossil fuels to produce. The most we can hope for is a fraction of a percent reduction.

There is one radical change we can make, though. Cows, sheep, pigs and chickens account for a whopping 9% of GHG emissions, but 18% of the GHG effect (methane from farts is over 20 times more damaging than carbon dioxide in terms of its global warming potential). So, would a better solution to reduce greenhouse gases be to change to a diet of lentils and beans? Our own emissions might then match those of the livestock! It’s a no-win situation, then, so where’s my chicken sandwich.

To see more motoring articles and new car reviews visit Car and SUV

You would be forgiven if you thought that in these present times when world economies are slowing down due to a major banking crisis coupled with steeply rising energy and food prices that when a solution to a part of that problem is available the powers that be would support and promote it to ease the everyday burdens that now exist for us all.

For example there is a system which enables motorists to increase the fuel economy of their cars (or any vehicle) while literally steam cleaning the inside of their engines and hugely lowering carbon gas emissions to help save the environment and on top of all that leaves more of our hard earned cash where it belongs, in our pockets, thus easing the ever increasing higher daily costs of living; its called water to gas fuel conversion.

Instead of supporting the above system, governments including America and Brazil are pumping Billions into the production of ethanol,a so called wonder biofuel, (when Americans get it wrong they really do get it wrong.)

Consider this, even the President of the World Bank stated there could be a global disaster if the west continued to replace food crops with the crops for the creation of biofuels. He also stated that as a result of the doubling in the price of food over the last 3 years that this could result in 100 million people in the poor developing countries being pushed further into poverty.

How bad is the situation? The UK Guardian newspaper recently reported that in less than a year the price of wheat had risen 130%, soya by 87%, and rice by 74%, added to that is the U.N report that there are only 8-12 weeks of cereal stocks in the world, while supplies are at their lowest since the 1980 decade.

When you also take into consideration that a factory producing ethanol at the rate of 50 million gallons p.a. requires 500 gallons of water a minute, water that in some areas is a very precious commodity, you begin to realise what an all round disaster this production of biofuels from crops is.How much longer will they persist with this life threatening policy?

So why, why, why are governments not helping us utilize the water to fuel gas system for lowering fuel consumption, reducing carbon gas emissions to safeguard our environment and easing our financial burdens to make life that little bit easier?