Biofuels – Are they a Valid Alternative?

Many great things are being said about Biofuels – where they are depicted as ‘the solution’ to traditional carbon polluting oil. When hearing the word ‘biofuels’ – picturesque images pop up in one’s mind of beautiful corn, soya and sugar cane fields.

It’s plants, it’s green, and generates anywhere between 50 to 90% less carbon dioxide when being used than gasoline – so it must be good, right?

Let us investigate what goes on ‘behind the scenes’ – meaning – ‘how are these biofuels produced’ – to get an idea of the implications of replacing our current oil consumption with new ‘green fuel’.


First, we’ll have a look at the manner in which corn is processed to become a usable fuel:

-          First, the corn is ground and mixed with water
-          This mixture gets heated
-          Added enzymes convert the starch into sugars
-          Then, the mix gets transferred into a fermentation tank
-          In the fermentation tank the sugars gradually transform into alcohol
-          The alcohol gets separated from the water by a process of distillation
-          The leftover which are known as “distillers’ grain” are fed o the cows
-          Some of the wastewater being high in nitrogen are applied to fields as fertilizers

This whole process gives off large amount of carbon dioxide. Most ethanol plants (=biofuel) make use of natural gas and coal to create the heat and steam which is necessary for the process of distillation.

The growing of corn also uses up a lot of natural gas and diesel. This is because in the planting and growing process of corn nitrogen fertilizers and farm machineries are used – which run on diesel. Some studies even reveal that the amount of carbon dioxides released during the process of creating ethanol pretty much cancel out the later ‘carbon dioxide reduction’ through replacing oil with ethanol as an energy source.

If this isn’t already bad enough, considering the rising prices of corn crops which give incentive to farmers to expand their production -- there’s as much as 35 million acres of marginal farmland which was actually set aside for soil and wildlife conservation which will be used for corn production for farmers. This may potentially cause an increase in the release of more carbon in fallow fields. Corn is also a highly erosive crop which means a lot of time and energy will have to be placed in rehabilitating the soil.

Furthermore, we are directing food crops towards an energy consuming industry and society while everyday 25 000 people die (of which most are under 5!) of hunger – which is completely unacceptable. In addition, we cannot simply shift our dependence from oil to ethanol as current and future climate changes may very well undermine this type of agricultural activity. The soya story goes much the same way, although is maybe a bit less disastrous.

Sugar Cane

Brazil seems to have had some success in using sugar cane as medium for biofuels.

Unlike corn, sugar cane already contains 20% of sugar in an entire sugarcane stalk, and it already start to ferment the moment it has been cut. Sugar cane fields also yield much higher rates of ethanol per acre compared to corn: 600 – 800 gallons an acre, which is almost twice as much as corn. In general sugar care seems to have much higher and better benefits than corn – though again, it is not without its implications and side-effects.

Most Brazilian cane is cut by hand. Although this type of labour is well paid, the conditions are hot and extremely strenuous to the back. To facilitate the cutting by hand of the cane fields, the fields are mostly burned before harvesting to kill any looming snakes and to make the canes easier to cut. This process fills the air up with soot while releasing methane as well as nitrous dioxide – which are both potent greenhouse gases.

Similarly as with corn, as biofuels will boom and thus the prices as well – this will push farmers to take up more land. This in turn will drive cattlemen deeper into territory such as the Amazon and the ‘cerrado’ (biologically diverse savannahs). So even though all these biofuels are deemed as ‘clean’ and ‘environmental friendly’ – the process behind their creation tells us quite a different story.

Replacing oil with any other ‘alternative energy source’ is always going to end up in a disaster at this point. We simply cannot replace oil with any other fuel at the rate that we are producing and consuming things. The rate at which we are producing, consuming and creating waste, is so disproportionate in relation to the resources available on Earth – that we’re always going to end up with some undesirable consequence that we want to ‘fix’ – but won’t be able to fix. The problem is not the fuel/energy source itself – it’s us humans and our ridiculous obsession with consumption and greed. As long as we do not fix the core problem – which is us – we’re not going to get anywhere (except maybe our own annihilation as a race and the destruction of our home planet).

Times is running out and we must decide NOW, act NOW. We must consider an alternative socio-political and economical system within which we live our lives. We must design and implement a system that is in total balance and equilibrium with planet Earth, nature and all its living beings. The Equal Money System is this new system. It is the only way through which we are going to be able to sort out this mess and ensure a safe and secure future for the children to come.

It’s time to let go of our greed, it’s time to let go of our self-interested obsessions and start considering Life as a whole. You can play a part in this transformation for a better life and future. Investigate Equal Money and let your voice be heard!

National Geographic Magazine, October 2007, “Green Dreams”, pp 38

Oil – How much longer can we sustain our Lifestyle?

Sadad I. Al Husseini, a former head of exploration and production for the state-owned oil company ‘Saudi Aramco’ – made a discovery in the year 2000 through his own research where he concluded that many oil experts “were either misreading the global reserves and oil-production data or obfuscating it”.

Mainstream projections display a steadily rising output of oil which keeps up with global demand – Housseini’s calculations however show a decline in output as early from 2004. In addition, he asserted that this new declining level of production would stay at the same rate for at least 15 years – after which the output of conventional oil would merge into “a gradual but irreversible decline”.

The so called ‘optimistis’ dismiss Housseini’s results and that of other who have come to similar data on the grounds that the Earth still has so much oil yet to be discovered. And where previously a “peak” was predicted in history, new technology surfaced in the oil-field which kept oil output rising.
Nobody really knows ‘how much’ oil the Earth really holds. What we do know is that it is not an infinite reserve which will last us into eternity at the current rate that we are consuming it.
We are not finding oil as easily anymore as all the “elephants” (= very big, easy located oil fields) were discovered decades ago – and what remains of them currently is only a fraction.

The rate at which we are finding new oil fields is declining – and these oil fields are significantly smaller than the old ‘elephants’ everyone was used to. This means that in order to reach the same level of output as before, we have to find x-times more oil fields, which means x-times more oil rigs, which means x-times more expenses = everything gets x-times more expensive. So all we are seeing is decline, decline, decline – yet our consumption is just rising and rising and rising. This is a lethal combination.

Even the most ‘optimistic’ of oil professionals believe that if a peak is not in sight in the very near future – that we will hit peak oil before mid-century – which is honestly also not that far away. 
Oil is running out – whether we’re ‘optimists’ or ‘pessimists’ – it’s going to happen, it’s inevitable and 2020 seems to be the year all the data is pointing to.
So we still have time – for now – to change our lifestyle and take a different course will oil production and consumption. 
Let’s have a look at all the various products for which oil is needed:

One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline. The rest (over half) is used to make things like:
Diesel fuel
Motor Oil
Bearing Grease
Floor Wax
Ballpoint Pens
Football Cleats
Bicycle Tires
Sports Car Bodies
Nail Polish
Fishing lures
Golf Bags
Dishwasher parts
Tool Boxes
Shoe Polish
Motorcycle Helmet
Petroleum Jelly
Transparent Tape
CD Player
Faucet Washers
Food Preservatives
Vitamin Capsules
Panty Hose
Life Jackets
Rubbing Alcohol
TV Cabinets
Shag Rugs
Electrician's Tape
Tool Racks
Car Battery Cases
Insect Repellent
Oil Filters
Hair Coloring
Toilet Seats
Fishing Rods
Denture Adhesive
Ice Cube Trays
Synthetic Rubber
Plastic Wood
Electric Blankets
Tennis Rackets
Rubber Cement
Fishing Boots
Nylon Rope
Trash Bags
House Paint
Water Pipes
Hand Lotion
Roller Skates
Surf Boards
Paint Rollers
Shower Curtains
Guitar Strings
Safety Glasses
Football Helmets
Ice Chests
CD's & DVD's
Paint Brushes
Sun Glasses
Heart Valves
Artificial Turf
Artificial limbs
Model Cars
Folding Doors
Hair Curlers
Cold cream
Movie film
Soft Contact lenses
Drinking Cups
Fan Belts
Car Enamel
Shaving Cream
Golf Balls

Most of these products are your everyday consumption articles – many of them with which we can go without, or find more environment friendly alternatives.

Within an Equal Money System, we do not propose a drastic decrease in production and consumption of objects of consumerism from the starting point of preference or opinion. We propose drastic measures because we are facing a real life-threatening scenario.

Unless we change our lifestyles and let go of all the products designed for the purpose of consumerism only – or by redesigning and re-engineering products to a level of absolute effectiveness and perfection so that they will actually last so people aren’t forced to keep on re-buying the same items over and over which adds to our waste pile --- we are literally ripping apart the future of the children to come.
Putting a limit to our level of consumption is not a choice – it is a MUST – Equal Money is the Future.

-          National Geographic Magazine, June 2008, World Oil Bust pp 86-91


I recently started studying ‘Environmental Economics’, which basically deals with analysing and observing the impact the economy has on the environment and how we can find more effective ways to reduce negative impact for the sake of everyone’s health and the future of our planet and the generations to come.
In the book they started off with explaining how there are two views/stand points within environmental economics – where you have the ‘pessimist view’ and the ‘optimist view’.

Now, what does the pessimist view consist of? It basically says that we ought to get our shit together and start looking at new ways of dealing with production and our energy usage because we’re going to come to a point where our resources are going to run out, if not now then in future generations  - and then we’re going to be in big shit.

The ‘positive view’ takes the standing that we shouldn’t worry, and that if we leave everything to the market forces we will automatically adapt to scarcity and that somewhere in the future we will probably have technology to release us from the ‘scarcity of resources’ limitation.
What I find fascinating is how they could have possible named these two perspectives ‘pessimist’ and ‘optimist’. All the so called “pessimists” are stating, is the actual state of affairs that we’re faced with and taking into consideration the practical consequences of our actions. There’s nothing ‘pessimist’ about it – it should have been called the ‘realist’ point of view!  It might not be what everyone wants to hear, and it might not be a situation that we want to be in – but that is not the point.  It is what it is and just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean you should label it as ‘pessimist’. Or maybe it should have been labelled as the ‘optimist view’ as it’s the only view that will lead to a bright future.

And ‘optimist view’? More like ‘La-la-land view’. Basing a theory and perspective on a future that is completely uncertain is stupid and irresponsible. Instead of dealing with the problem it just gets shoved to ‘out there’ in ‘the future’, where market forces, future people and some other technology can deal with it (technology you’re not even sure is going to exist). It’s probably the same line of thinking people were used to a hundred years ago, which make US those future people, it makes US the ones who probably would have ‘invented new technology’ – the time is here, and we don’t have much more to waste!

The labelling of these views is absolutely ridiculous but nicely shows how one wants to ‘dress up’ the situation. Negative energy and vibes are BAD, we must focus on the POSITIVE things in Life!
It’s so easy to call someone a ‘pessimist’ and completely ignore their input, as if it’s just that they’re in a bad mood, they got up on the wrong side of the bed and if they just get a nice night’s rest they’ll be just fine the next day – ready to join the optimists again!

People just don’t seem to see and understand how our ‘positive views’ of valuing ‘liberty’, ‘free choice’ and ‘free will’ - is exactly that which creating the mess on Earth we so dearly want to ignore.
That’s why it is important to study the Desteni material and the Desteni message, so we can wake up and tear this veil of blind optimism away from our eyes – so we can actually see what is going on and thus see what it is that we practically have to do to ensure a bright and secure future for all.

Equal Money – it’s the only way.