Gore asked to help stop crop-sourced biofuels

[GliderGuider]

South Africa: Gore Urged to Put Brake on Biofuel Production

An international coalition has appealed to former US vice-president and environmental campaigner Al Gore to take up their concerns about the world's rapidly developing biofuels industry.

They have told him that large-scale biofuel production and new incentives to promote biofuels, based on "energy-crop monocultures", are having a devastating impact on biodiversity and contributing to global climate change.

"Energy yields are highest from crops growing in the tropics; hence much of the global biofuel demand is being, and will continue to be, met from Asia, Latin America and Africa.

"Already, biofuels production is leading to increased rates of deforestation in many rain forest nations, including Indonesia, Malaysia, Colombia, Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina and Cameroon."

Crop-sourced biofuels are unsustainable and unethical. Their development is a crime against humanity. Kick the addiction - Just Say No to crop-sourced biofuels.

[enough]

1. I wonder what Gore's position is on this.

Thanks for posting this.

[Shallah Kali]

6. He seems to be for non-corn based ethanol from cellulose

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12743273/

Grist: How about the other big, new contender, ethanol?

Gore: Cellulosic ethanol. Different from corn-based ethanol. I think it is going to be a huge new source of energy, particularly for the transportation sector. You're going to see it all over the place. You're going to see a lot more flex-fuel vehicles. You're going to see new processes that utilize waste as the source of energy, so there's no petroleum consumed in the process -- that makes the energy balance uniformly positive, so you can regrow it and it does become, in a real sense, renewable. You may also begin to see a new generation of fuel cells that run on cellulosic ethanol, where you can grow your own electricity. I think it's going to play a huge role.

[RestoreGore]

10. Utilizing waste as the source of energy

Sounds good to me. For we also need to feed people.

[GliderGuider]

12. Be cautious with that approach as well.

Using agricultural waste that would otherwise be plowed back into the land amounts to strip-mining the topsoil. The nutrients and nitrogen that are removed must be replaced, and if you're not careful you can end up back in the cycle of chemical fertilization that steadily increases the dependence on fossil fuels. This can be ameliorated by using low-impact crops to begin with and then returning all possible post-process waste back to the land. However, any such straw-to-gold transmutation process that at its heart only harvests low-efficiency photosynthetic energy may become unsustainable at high volumes.

Of course this whole discussion founders on the inconvenient truth that cellulosic ethanol is nowhere near ready for prime time yet.

[RestoreGore]

2. UNEP Warns Of Danger Of Biofuel Production

http://www.scidev.net/News/index.cfm?fuseaction=readNews&itemid=3397&language=1

And I agree that it would be devastating to places like Africa that are already suffering from the affects of climate change. It is only one more way for the rich to subjugate poor countries for profit. Since I have not heard Mr. Gore speak out for it however, I can only presume he too is against it but it would be good to hear him address this.

[NNadir]

7. Let me ask you something. Are you FOR anything?

If you want to live in a cave, why the hell are you using a computer?

I'm not a big fan of biofuels - I think that some of them, in particular biodiesel are OK but I am a big fan of something called reality.

Al Gore is not going to come out against biofuels. Nobody is. Biofuels are a big part of the renewable energy cliff the world is driving off while people sing happy horseshit to themselves.

Unlike you, Al Gore is almost certainly reality based. He'd better be reality based, or else there is absolutely no hope.

But let's forget about Al Gore. Do you have the remotest sense of where energy comes from? Do you think it drifts in from Pluto? Do you have any sense, any sense at all about risk?

Jesus Christ!

I am an Al Gore supporter and I really, really, really wish you had chosen another screen name.

[RestoreGore]

9. Why are you attacking me?

Do you even understand the topic here? Read it and get back to me.

NAIROBI] Environmentalists meeting in Nairobi say the trade in biofuels should be governed by environmental standards, and warn that planting crops solely for biofuels may cause catastrophic damage to the planet.

Speaking at the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) Governing Council meeting held in Nairobi yesterday (5 February), Danish environment minister Connie Hedegaard said that environmental standards were vital if the international trade in biofuels was to be allowed to begin on a massive scale.

"We should be careful on biofuels…not everything that is biofuel is good for the environment. We should focus on second-hand generation of biofuels, not first generation," she explained.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Depletion of water resources already resulting in severe food and water shortages in the very areas this FIRST hand generation would more than likely take place could be exacerbated if FIRST hand biofuel generation takes precedence. I suppose you want to see more people starving? I am AGAINST corporate and WORLD BANK dominance over it, especially should it take vital resources away from those who are already suffering from the affects of climate change, not the fact that we need it to sustain this planet. I am FOR environmental standards. I am FOR second hand generation, and I am FOR balancing the need for energy with the need for food and water for the people of this planet.

I am wholeheartedly FOR solar power as well which would allow that balance in a clean, safe way along with biofuel that is NOT corn based. I also stated that I did not know whether Mr. Gore was for FIRST hand generation or not, and wished he would address it if he has not. And as far as the attack on my name insinuating that I am somehow not a supporter of his based on my opinion here, it sounds very juvenile. Just because I am not for nuclear power you attack me, and I know that is what your response is all about. And guess what, Mr. Gore has also questioned it as well and I agree with him on that. I am FOR BALANCED sustainability with SAFE clean sources and not having this market fall into the same greedy hands as the OIL market and the NUCLEAR markets have.

[razzleberry]

18. we do these people talk gibberish

>should be governed by environmental standards,<

what are these standards?
who decides these standards?
do different rules apply to different countries?

no more 'trust me' from these people,
what do they want?

[razzleberry]

19. why do these....oops n/t

[glitch]

3. K & R

And I have a bio-diesel vehicle. The whole point was to use waste oil to keep it from landfills and water tables and to offset petro consumption.

Converting rainforests to cane fields for ethanol makes me literally sick.

[EVDebs]

4. We've only got a few years of oil left...'til 2031

Plan B 2.0 (ch. 1, Learning from China) shows us we have only until 2031

http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB2/PB2ch1_ss3.htm

""The inevitable conclusion to be drawn from these projections is that there are not enough resources for China to reach U.S. consumption levels. The western economic model—the fossil-fuel-based, automobile-centered, throwaway economy—will not work for China’s 1.45 billion in 2031. If it does not work for China, it will not work for India either, which by 2031 is projected to have even more people than China. Nor will it work for the other 3 billion people in developing countries who are also dreaming the “American dream.” And in an increasingly integrated world economy, where countries everywhere are competing for the same resources—the same oil, grain, and iron ore—the existing economic model will not work for industrial countries either.""

Do the simple arithmetic, one trillion barrels of oil remaining divided by 85 (and soon to be 120) million barrels consumed per day. What do you come up with ? Personally, I think we'll reach the last drop sooner than 2031...

[lakeguy]

13. does this even count stockpiling?

china is filling massive reserves and i would think other countries are, or will be shortly.

[EVDebs]

14. I know, it'll probably be way sooner than 2031

assuming current and projected consumption patterns into the future, if China and India keep mimicking US patterns. I've seen the current 85 million gallons per day figure and projections for 2020 to be at 120 million gallons per day (world consumption) but these projections could also fall far short or be too high, depending on whether something is done in time and the media highlights this ( I'm not really sure that'll happen).

[stonebone]

5. K&R

[razzleberry]

8. who decides what crops are grown?

who decides how crops are used?


Is it a 'crime against humanity',
to use a corn stove?

[GliderGuider]

11. When you are trying to achieve sustainability, it's all about scale

Corn stoves are at the moment very low-volume users of corn, and are likely to remain so for quite a while. The production of ethanol is enabled by massive industrial processes and has the potential to become an extremely large-scale consumer of corn. Corn stoves are unlikely to threaten the food supply in the near term, while ethanol production definitely will.

Who gets to decide? Given our current system it's a combination of big ag and politicians, unfortunately. People like me may be virulently opposed to this use of corn for transportation fuel, but our voices are frail whispers against the hurricane of cornucopian misdirection practiced by agribusiness along with their witting and witless shills.

[yourout]

15. Algae based Biodiesel growing on wastewater has great.

potential.

<http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html>

[jpak]

16. President Gore understands the science behind global warming

and presumably understands the differences between crop-based biofuels produced by sustainable methods in the US and clear-cutting tropical rain forests to produce palm-oil/soy monocultures for biodiesel...

...and has read and understands the peer-reviewed studies of US ethanol and biosdiesel production...

Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/30/11206

Jason Hill*, Erik Nelson, David Tilman*, Stephen Polasky* and Douglas Tiffany

Negative environmental consequences of fossil fuels and concerns about petroleum supplies have spurred the search for renewable transportation biofuels. To be a viable alternative, a biofuel should provide a net energy gain, have environmental benefits, be economically competitive, and be producible in large quantities without reducing food supplies. We use these criteria to evaluate, through life-cycle accounting, ethanol from corn grain and biodiesel from soybeans. Ethanol yields 25% more energy than the energy invested in its production, whereas biodiesel yields 93% more. Compared with ethanol, biodiesel releases just 1.0%, 8.3%, and 13% of the agricultural nitrogen, phosphorus, and pesticide pollutants, respectively, per net energy gain. Relative to the fossil fuels they displace, greenhouse gas emissions are reduced 12% by the production and combustion of ethanol and 41% by biodiesel. Biodiesel also releases less air pollutants per net energy gain than ethanol. These advantages of biodiesel over ethanol come from lower agricultural inputs and more efficient conversion of feedstocks to fuel. Neither biofuel can replace much petroleum without impacting food supplies. Even dedicating all U.S. corn and soybean production to biofuels would meet only 12% of gasoline demand and 6% of diesel demand. Until recent increases in petroleum prices, high production costs made biofuels unprofitable without subsidies. Biodiesel provides sufficient environmental advantages to merit subsidy. Transportation biofuels such as synfuel hydrocarbons or cellulosic ethanol, if produced from low-input biomass grown on agriculturally marginal land or from waste biomass, could provide much greater supplies and environmental benefits than food-based biofuels.

<end abstract>

Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/311/5760/50...

Alexander E. Farrell,1* Richard J. Plevin,1 Brian T. Turner,1,2 Andrew D. Jones,1 Michael O'Hare,2 Daniel M. Kammen1,2,3

To study the potential effects of increased biofuel use, we evaluated six representative analyses of fuel ethanol. Studies that reported negative net energy incorrectly ignored coproducts and used some obsolete data. All studies indicated that current corn ethanol technologies are much less petroleum-intensive than gasoline but have greenhouse gas emissions similar to those of gasoline. However, many important environmental effects of biofuel production are poorly understood. New metrics that measure specific resource inputs are developed, but further research into environmental metrics is needed. Nonetheless, it is already clear that large-scale use of ethanol for fuel will almost certainly require cellulosic technology.

<end abstract>

UC Berkeley press release...

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/01/26_...

Ethanol can replace gasoline with significant energy savings, comparable impact on greenhouse gases

BERKELEY – Putting ethanol instead of gasoline in your tank saves oil and is probably no worse for the environment than burning gasoline, according to a new analysis by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley.

The researchers note, however, that new technologies now in development promise to make ethanol a truly "green" fuel with significantly less environmental impact than gasoline.

The analysis, appearing in this week's issue of Science, attempts to settle the ongoing debate over whether ethanol is a good substitute for gasoline and thus can help lessen the country's reliance on foreign oil and support farmers in the bargain. The UC Berkeley study weighs these arguments against other studies claiming that it takes more energy to grow the corn to make ethanol than we get out of ethanol when we burn it.

<snip>

"The people who are saying ethanol is bad are just plain wrong," he said. "But it isn't a huge victory - you wouldn't go out and rebuild our economy around corn-based ethanol."

<end snip>

Furthermore, accusing US farmers of "crimes against humanity" for producing corn and soy for biofuels is just plain stupid.

(and please don't accuse them of CAH with your mouth open :evilgrin:)

Some people understand that in the Post Fossil-fuel Era sustainable organic agriculture will be have to be maintained by biofuels and renewable energy...

"Stopping" biofuels will solve absolutely nothing and create far more "problems" than they allegedly create...

[GliderGuider]

17. Even Lester Brown agrees with my point, if not my hyperbole

Exploding U.S. Grain Demand for Automotive Fuel Threatens World Food Security and Political Stability

Now that the year’s grain harvest is safely in the bin, it is time to take stock and look ahead. This year’s harvest of 1,967 million tons is falling short of the estimated consumption of 2,040 million tons by some 73 million tons. This shortfall of nearly 4 percent is one of the largest on record.

Even more sobering, in six of the last seven years world grain production has fallen short of use. As a result, world carryover stocks of grain have been drawn down to 57 days of consumption, the lowest level in 34 years. The last time they were this low wheat and rice prices doubled.

The growth in world grain consumption during the six years since 2000 averaged roughly 31 million tons per year. Of this growth, close to 24 million tons were consumed as food or feed. The annual growth in grain used to produce fuel ethanol for cars in the United States alone averaged nearly 7 million tons per year, climbing from 2 million tons in 2001 to 14 million tons in 2006.

Now the amount of grain used to produce fuel is exploding. Investment in crop-based fuel production, once dependent on government subsidies, is now driven by the price of oil. With the current price of ethanol double its cost of production, the conversion of agricultural commodities into fuel for cars has become hugely profitable. In the United States, this means that investment in fuel ethanol distilleries is controlled by the market, not by government.

The huge profits from converting corn into ethanol following the late 2005 oil price hikes have led to a jump in groundbreakings for new ethanol distilleries in the last few months. The World Ethanol and Biofuels reports, published biweekly by F.O. Licht, show construction starting on an astounding 54 new ethanol distilleries in the United States between October 25, 2005, and October 24, 2006. With a typical construction period of 14 months, virtually all of them will be producing by the end of 2007. Together these plants, with 4 billion gallons of annual ethanol production capacity, will consume 39 million tons of grain per year, nearly all of it corn.

(...)

In looking forward to 2007, how much will we need to increase the harvest to avoid a further drawdown in stocks? First, we need a rise of 73 million tons just to overcome the 2006 production shortfall. Beyond that we will need 24 million tons of additional output to cover the estimated annual growth in food and feed needs. If we then add 39 million additional tons to supply the 54 new distilleries cited above, for the U.S. alone we are looking at a growth in demand of 136 million tons of additional grain from the 2007 harvest if we are to avoid a further decline in stocks.

For a world where the growth in the grain harvest has averaged scarcely 20 million tons per year since 2000, the chances of such a huge jump in the harvest next year are not good, even with the stimulus of high grain prices. Beyond this, farmers must contend with spreading shortages of irrigation water and the prospect of even more intense heat waves as the earth’s temperature rises.

More at the link...

Anyone who keeps promoting crop-based biofuels in the face of facts like these is wilfully ignoring the probability of deaths in countries that have in the past been fed by American grain exports, or were fed by their own production that will be displaced in favour of higher-profit, subsidized biofuel production.

In effect the ethanol going into your gas tank will be pouring from the famine-bloated bellies of third world fathers, mothers and children. I don't much like that idea. I hope Al Gore thinks as little of it as I do.

[poopfuel]

20. Sigh. Myths of alcohol fuels perpetuated

87 percent of the corn in this country goes to animal feed, both for here and for export.

We use all that corn for animal feed, it's better quality feed after it's been processed for ethanol. Presently, ethanol takes up between 10-15 percent of this corn. Sounds like we have a lot of corn left to convert to better quality animal feed. No additional acreage needed. no food taken from starving babies' mouths.

Lester Brown and his ilk have done a disservice all these years with their bs. People have tried to explain it to him but he has tunnel vision. They even brought him food made from DDGS. I know there has been food made from petrolum byproducts but I can't imagine any of us liking it much.

The byproduct of DDGS is a healthier product because the starch and sugars are removed. DDGs can be human food as well.

There are countless other crops that can be used for making ethanol. It just takes a few trailblazers. And there are crops not even grown on land with enormous potential. THeir DDGs make feed as well. The yeast produced by the process makes feed.

Food in the Third World is about having money to pay for it. Food in the Third World is about countries being compelled to grow food for export. When I hear about countries making ethanol so they can export to rich countries while IGNORING their own energy needs, it makes me ill. Free trade as practiced makes me ill. Corporate agriculture makes me ill. Overconsumption of fossil fuels, lack of conservation is maddening. But while ethanol can be tied up in this business, ethanol itself is not to blame.

Too much time is spend on this blog blaming ethanol for unfair trade practices, unwise agricultural practices, meat eating and so on.

Al Gore's movie had tips at the end. One of them was to get your farmers to make alcohol fuels. I think that's where he stands.

For a balanced look at the food vs. fuel issue, check out Business Week
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_06/b4020093.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_top+story

A segment here:

"And some experts even argue that a boost in food prices could be beneficial to Americans' health. A doubling of corn prices makes corn syrup more expensive, lifting the price of a bottle of soda by 6 cents, calculates David Morris, vice-president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance in Minneapolis. That might lead people to consume less. "If Americans reduce our input of sugar, we could make 2 billion more gal. of ethanol and help overcome our obesity problem," he says.

And while grocery bills could rise modestly, higher agricultural commodity prices are a boon in many ways. Corn farmers are having a rare period of prosperity, and the federal government is getting a break. In 2006, Uncle Sam gave corn farmers $8.8 billion in subsidies. Thanks to high corn prices, subsidies are expected to drop to $2.1 billion in 2007. "All the price-dependent spending is getting wiped out," explains the USDA's Collins.

Higher incomes for farmers also mean healthier rural economies and more jobs in the U.S. and around the world. Contrary to Lester Brown's grim scenarios, " could be a lifesaver for Third World countries," argues Morris. "It can help keep farmers on the land without providing huge public subsidies." Plus, crop-based fuels could shift the global balance of power, as countries grow enough of their own fuel to cut back on imports from OPEC and other oil producers."

And on the affordability of DDGS to livestock farmers

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070309RichertBiofuels.html

The discussion on this matter is just getting too one-sided! And you do not have to be a Bush supporter to support ethanol, any more than you have to be one to support nuclear power. One blogger knows what I am referring to.

[jpak]

21. Farmer cooperative ethanol plants = nazi death camps: funny, I fail to see the similarities

and again, stupid...

There is no "ethanol holocaust" in the Third World, period...

War, misconceived agricultural policies and drought are the main causes of famine in the world - and famines in the Third World occurred well before the advent of the biofuels industry.

Furthermore, there is no data to support your claims of "deaths" related to biofuels production.

To the contrary, the recent rise in corn prices has greatly benefited impoverished Mexican farmers that suffered under low NAFTA corn prices.

Mexico is increasing its corn production - as are other countries (Brazil, Argentina, Egypt, Canada) in response to global increases in the price of corn.

Mexico's corn farmers expanding production to reap benefits of rising prices

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/20070219-1332-mexico-cornbonanza.html

<snip>

International corn prices driven by the burgeoning U.S. ethanol industry have soared to their highest in a decade, making farmers like Zacaula feel like they just won the jackpot.

“I have never seen prices like this,” said Zacaula, 66, who has been growing corn since he was 10. “We suffered for so many years, years in which no one even wanted to buy our crop – until now.”

<snip>

Latin America's corn farmers are gearing up for such a possibility, snatching up land and blanketing their fields with corn after decades of struggling to compete against cheap, U.S.-subsidized imports. They hope to sell more domestically, and maybe even export more corn.

<snip>

Mexican farmers who now plant corn on 21 million acres are proposing expanding that by 4.3 million acres this year alone. They also want the government to fund the irrigation of another 1.9 million acres, said Carlos Salazar of the National Confederation of Mexican Corn Growers.

<more>

There is no corn crisis or famine due to ethanol production, period...

[GliderGuider]

22. That would be because it's not my straw man.

I did use the word "probability", and nowhere did I say that deaths were already occurring due to biofuel crops displacing food. I have always maintained it's a possibility we should be extremely concerned about. You yourself say that "misconceived agricultural policies" are one of the drivers of famine. I agree, and I see the desire for biofuel profits as a potential driver of such misbegotten policies.

Indonesia's experience with palm oil production for biodiesel provides the counterbalance to your Mexican corn miracle. Let's keep an eye on things for the next year and see how they go. In the meantime the fact that the world is consistently falling short of its grain requirements makes me very nervous about anything that might further interfere with food production.

[jpak]

23. No these are your strawmen...

"Crop-sourced biofuels are unsustainable and unethical. Their development is a crime against humanity."

"In effect the ethanol going into your gas tank will be pouring from the famine-bloated bellies of third world fathers, mothers and children."

There is no evidence to back any of these claims...

Gee, maybe we should take ethanol oxygenate out of gasoline and put back that eco-friendly MBTE - at least there will be no "crime" committed...

[GliderGuider]

24. Do you believe that we can produce any quantity of biofuels we wish, forever?

If the answer is no, then you must believe there is a quantity and time period past which further production cannot be sustained. I think it's self-evident that such limits exist, though exactly where they are is less clear. Given humanity's past behaviour I think it's very likely that we will choose to ignore those limits and produce beyond them. Such production would be by definition unsustainable. Such unsustainable production would further erode an already-damaged biosphere. Such behaviour would be unethical.

IMO such behavior could easily raise the probability of food-marginal regions of the planet being pushed over the edge into famine. Therefore I urge rejection of the technology as the first line of defense. I'd rather see strong objections to the technology robustly addressed, because I think we have far too little margin for error any more to permit uncritical acceptance.

[jpak]

25. No, I want to starve babies so I can drive my E-85 Hummer to the mall

No one is claiming that biofuels will replace petroleum or that biofuel production can expand indefinitely.

That is another ridiculous straw man.

Furthermore, if biofuel production is "unsustainable" then agriculture in general is "unsustainable".

Sustainable farming methods exist - and biofuels will play a significant role in maintaining agricultural production - anything else is hyperbole...

[GliderGuider]

26. Certainly farming as it is currently practiced is unsustainable.

While there are good sustainable farming practices, I have strong doubts as to whether practices that do not include fossil fuel inputs for both fertilizer and irrigation can feed 6.6 to 9.5 billion people, especially since we're already falling short of grain. Given that fossil fuels have already started to wave goodbye, we should be paying very close attention to what and how we farm. We should plan on supporting whatever population exists in 30 or 40 years without the help of fossil fuels.

Of course, there are other ways to approach sustainability. If the human population settles near 1 billion by 2080 or so, we'll have a much easier time of it. From that point of view, perhaps a bit of biofuel-induced famine might not be that big a deal - it would be down in the noise and affecting places with bigger problems anyway.

[jpak]

27. Renewable energy can substitute for fossil fuels and produce H2 for ammonia fertilizer

Currently, US agriculture consumes 1.6 and 3.1 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel per year.

US agriculture produces 4.7 and 0.25 billion gallons of ethanol and biodiesel each year (note: US biodiesel production is expected to at least double in 2007)

If ethanol substituted for most of the current diesel demand, current US ethanol and biodiesel production together could supply all the liquid fuels used by US agriculture today.

Wind and PV farms could produce H2 for ammonia fertilizer production (replacing natural gas).

Biomass and solar thermal systems could replace most (if not all) propane used for crop drying.

Organic farming techniques sequester CO2, maintain production during drought periods and reduce the need for external nitrogen and phosphorus inputs.

All the tools needed to wean US agriculture off fossil fuels exist today...if we don't "stop" biofuel production that is...

[GliderGuider]

28. Look beyond your own borders

There are 6.3 billion other people out here who need to be fed as well. Most of them are much more vulnerable to food supply disruption than the USA is, and most of them don't have the industrial infrastructure needed to replace natural gas for fertilizer with spiffy new wind turbines. They also don't have a replacement for diesel fuel to power their irrigation pumps.

[hunter]

29. These high corn prices are decreasing the political stability of Mexico.

While some Mexican farmer smiles about high corn prices, and you think it's good, many people poorer people than Zacaula-soon-to-be-sold-out-to-big agribusiness, are not so happy. Higher corn prices are causing a lot of trouble throughout Latin America.

Everything you write about with such glowing enthusiasm is, overall, bad for impoverished people, and bad for the environment.

The positive Thomas Kinkade pastoral opinion Americans have of agriculture is entirely unfounded. Agriculture is a dirty, dangerous, debilitating, and environmentally destructive business. In many ways it is similar to coal mining. People get killed and maimed, while great swaths of the natural environment are destroyed, in most places essentially forever.