Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

poopfuel

(250 posts)

4. Actually Muriel, this one statement is QUITE positive

Reply to Bill USA (Original post)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 09:23 AM

Jun 2014

Bioenergy deployment is more beneficial when it is not an additional land‐use activity expanding
over the landscape, but rather integrates into existing land uses and influences the way farmers and
forest owners use their land"

That's what I've been saying for years as a pro-biofuels advocate.

This company wants to do just that. Small to medium scale production close to agricultural source. On-site at the farm.

blumedistillation.com

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

IPCC's Climate Report: Ind Land Use Change estimates:"highly uncertain, unobservable, unverifiable" [View all] Bill USA May 2014 OP

This site is Ethanol Central pscot May 2014 #1

Industry spin; as far as I can tell IPCC made no such broad conclusions about ILUC caraher May 2014 #2

I'm pretty sure you have found the true document they've taken the quotes from muriel_volestrangler Jun 2014 #3

could you provide a link to what you found. I tried to find it but could not. Bill USA Jun 2014 #5

The document is a .pdf and I provided the correct title caraher Jun 2014 #6

Actually Muriel, this one statement is QUITE positive poopfuel Jun 2014 #4