User:JohnFarrell5/sandbox

Biofuelwatch is an environmental organization based in the United Kingdom and the United States, which works to raise awareness of the negative impacts of industrial biofuels and bioenergy, on biodiversity, human rights, food sovereignty and climate change, human rights abuses, the impoverishment and dispossession of local populations, water and soil degradation, loss of food sovereignty and loss of food security. Biofuelwatch opposes the expansion of industrial monocultures driven by demand for bioenergy, and instead advocates for food sovereignty, agroecological farming practices, ecosystem and biodiversity protection and human rights.

In the UK, Biofuelwatch has an active campaign against bioliquid and biomass power stations and the subsidies (Renewable Obligation Certificates) available for those. In the US, Biofuelwatch works closely with network of groups and campaigners against industrial biomass developments and policies. Internationally, Biofuelwatch works with a variety of groups and networks and is European Focal Point of the Global Forest Coalition. A lot of Biofuelwatch's recent work has focused on providing a critical perspective on biochar as well. Biofuelwatch also campaigns against market based solutions to climate change, especially the inclusion of soil and forest carbon offsets.

Biofuel Trends

Biofuel is a biomass that is converted into a liquid that can be used to power motorized vehicles. The main source of biomass that can be used for vehicle fuels is food crops. These crops are cultivated using modern, mechanized agriculture. Crop-based biofuels (e.g., ethanol: produced from sugar cane or corn) have globally increased in production by 75% during the 2000-2006 period. In particular, the United States produces 50 billion liters of corn based ethanol per year. This production of corn based ethanol consumes a third of all planted corn.

Ideology

Biofuelwatch sees that there are pros to biofuels, but argues that these are outweighed by the cons of biofuels. BIofuelwatch wants people to see these benefits, but also see the cons and stay away from biofuels until they are produced with more efficiency. A commonly talked about benefit of biofuels is that it is a renewable resource, so it could replace non-renewable resources such as oil. Another benefit is that when biofuels are burned they release ${\ce {CO2}}$(carbon dioxide). This is a food source for plants, which they use during the process of photosynthesis. This in turn increases the biomass' (the plants needed to make biofuel) growth. Conversely, biofuels damage the planet more than they help. There are two main points that Biofuelwatch brings up when arguing that biofuels cause environmental conflict. The first one is that biofuels are made out of food crops; these food crops are traded on international markets. When there is an increase in production of biofuels globally, the price of these crops will increase. Food is less accessible because of the increase in price (e.g., Tortilla Crisis) and the crops that are bought are being used to make fuel and not used for human consumption. The second more obvious argument against biofuels is that the sheer amount of crops needed to produce the amount of biofuel demanded by the world is staggering. This leads to heavy dependence on pesticides, fertilizers, and energy to produce the crops. These three factors contribute heavily to pollution.

"Agro-fuel"

Biofuelwatch has argued that the term "Biofuel" is misleading. The prefix "Bio" comes from "life". This implies that the fuel comes from life or is pro-life. Biofuelwatch argues that we need to find a term that translates in every language to a more true definition of what biofuel really is. They came up with the term "Agro-fuel", the prefix "Agro" comes from agriculture. They believe this is fitting because the production of biofuels taint land and water, which are directly related to agriculture. This term "agro-fuel" is pejoratively based.

See also

• Food vs. fuel

Further listening

• Boswell, Andrew (6 May 2008). "The whole biofuels enterprise is in doubt" (audio; 3:06; embedded player or MP3 download). The Guardian. Retrieved 8 May 2009.

External links

1. Biofuelwatch official website
2. Biofuelwatch's Yahoo group

Biofuelwatch

History of Biofuelwatch

Almuth Ernsting helped to found the organisation, Biofuelwatch in 2006. Rachel Smolker is a co-director of Biofuelwatch.

Aims of Biofuelwatch

• Educating the public of the environmental, climate, social and public health implications of bioenergy and bio-based products.

• Promote energy policies and investments of renewable energy, that result to greenhouse gas reduction, protect the environment and basic human rights
• Promote environment decision making related to bio-energy and bio-based products such as land use, social justice, active citizenship and public health

Points I've (Jack) Gathered

• Biofuelwatch U.S. monitors developments in bioenergy, including burning of biomass for electricity, biochar, biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel) and the growing “bioeconomy”.
• Our work has recently been focused largely on the rapidly expanding practice of generating “renewable” electricity by burning – everything from wood, to agricultural residues, animal manure, municipal waste and more.
• In the US, new incinerators are under construction across the country, and many facilities that have traditionally burned coal, are switching to burn biomass, or a mix of coal and biomass.
• Burning wood releases more CO2 per unit of electricity produced than does burning coal. In theory, trees may regrow and re-sequester the carbon emitted when they were burned, but this regrowth can take several decades or longer.
• Around 13,000 tons of wood are required to generate one megawatt of electricity for a year.
• For perspective, consider that Ohio is permitting upwards of 2400 MW of biomass electricity – requiring near 27 million tons of wood.
• Burning biomass releases very large amounts of particulates as well as nitrogen oxides and other toxins depending on the type of biomass.
• We are working with allies across the US to form a national level coalition in opposition to biomass incinerators, demanding an end to federal subsidies, based on the myth that biomass burning is “clean, green and carbon neutral.”

Above points are from a website that is very pro Biofuelwatch. Have to fact check these points.

• Bio fuel is a natural alternative from other fossil fuels and is attained from living or biological material that has just died.
• Basically biofuel is produced by using ethanol from naturally grown plant matter which allows for a more sustainable and environmentally friendly earth.
• at present the most widely used source of bioeenergy is wood.
• Some for example, say that wood-fueled biomass systems contribute no new carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, when the forests from which the wood came are sustainably managed.
• By providing a market for the low-grade wood that foresters agree needs to be thinned from our forests, biomass energy contributes in significant ways to forest health and sustainability.
• The term "biomass" refers to organic matter that has stored energy through the process of photosynthesis.
• Biomass has become one of the most commonly used renewable sources of energy in the last two decades, second only to hydropower in the generation of electricity.
• It is such a widely utilized source of energy, probably due to its low cost and indigenous nature, that it accounts for almost 15% of the world's total energy supply and as much as 35% in developing countries, mostly for cooking and heating.
• There are as many environmental and economic benefits as there are detriments to each issue, which presents a difficult challenge in evaluating the potential success of biomass as an alternative fuel.
• the replacement of coal by biomass could result in "a considerable reduction in net carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to the greenhouse effect."
• the use of wood and other plant material for fuel may mean deforestation
• Supplying the United States ' current energy needs would require an area of one million square miles. That's roughly one-third of the area of the 48 contiguous states.
• Biomass cannot replace our current dependence on coal, oil, and natural gas, but it can complement other renewables such as solar and wind energy.
• For the purposes of this paper the term biofuel refers to biomass converted into a liquid (bio)fuel for use in powering vehicles. Gasoline substitutes are produced from starch (the grain of wheat or corn), sugar (stalks of sugarcane, root of sugarbeet) or, less commercially, cellulose (cell walls of all plants). These plant materials are broken down to sugars by enzymes and fermented to ethanol in industrial factories for eventual use in vehicles. Diesel substitutes are produced from oils of soybean, palm oil, jatropha or waste vegetable oils. Currently the main source of biomass used for transport fuels is food crops produced with modern, largescale, mechanized, high-input agriculture. Worldwide production of crop-based transportation biofuels such as ethanol derived from corn or sugarcane and diesel derived from soybean or palm oil increased 75% over the period 2000-2006 (FAO 2007). In the United States, annual corn based ethanol production reached 50 billion litres and uses close to a third of all planted corn (USDA, 2010).
• First, biomass is a renewable resource, which - in theory - can substitute for the non-renewable resource oil. Second, substituting biofuel for fossil fuels should mitigate climate change because the dominant greenhouse gas - carbon dioxide (CO2) - is a food source for plants during photosynthesis. CO2 is metabolised into carbon-containing biomass and oxygen. When biofuel material is burned, CO2 and other gases are released. Those emissions are, in turn, available for subsequent biomass growth. While combustion is accepted as greenhouse gas neutral, participants in the debate differ with respect to the added greenhousegas impact of processing fuels and planting fuel crops.
• Biofuel production exhibits two major dimensions that create environmental conflict. First, the biomass used for fuels are food crops traded on international markets, and an increase in production of biofuel around the world, timed with a rise in energy and cereal prices, has led to concerns that food is less accessible because cereals are diverted to fuel production. This concern is typified by media coverage of the so-called Mexican "tortilla crisis" whereby the cost of corn used as a staple food in tortilla production doubled and tripled in six months (RoigFranzia 2007). Coverage has been propelled by highly rhetorical condemnations such as that by the UN special rapporteur on the right to food who labeled biofuels a "crime against humanity" (Ferrett 2007). Second, the reliance on industrial agriculture introduces a suite of criticisms familiar to environmentalists, Including reliance on pesticides, pollution of waterways from fertilizer use and high energy requirements.
• We can 't call this a biofuel program . . .such phrases use the prefix 'bio' to subtly imply that the energy in question comes from 'life' in general. This is illegitimate and manipulative. We need to find a term in every language that describes the situation more accurately, a term like agro-fuel (Biofuelwatch 2007-2009 online).
• In this new "agro-fuel" discourse, agriculture is a pejorative, necessarily large-scale and "monoculture" based. The general sense created was one of improper and tainted use of nature creating "land and water degradation" presumably in contrast to a low-Impact rubber-tapping based livelihood. This maneuver engages with justice in a profound sense by seeking to address a perceived power imbalance in the biofuel discourse. The justice that Biofuelwatch pursued goes beyond the conventional focus on procedural injustice In environmental decision making towards a fundamental resistance and re-negotiation of the power exercised - through language - by the state, industry and science. This level of engagement may be closer to what Harvey (1 996) foresaw for environmental justice and I return to discuss it in the final sections of the paper.

Biofuelwatch and Protests

Biofuelwatch has been known to join forces with various other organizations with similar views towards the biomass and biofuel industry in attempts to sway public opinion on public policies. Through actions such as public protests, demonstrations and press statements regarding their views on governments positions towards biofuels and the biofuel industry.

Notable Protests:

·        April 20, 2016, London, England; Protest during the Drax Annual General Meeting

·        June 25, 2012; African Land Summit protest. Joined with ActionAid and Friends of he Earth

·        April 19, 2012; Edinburgh, Scotland, outside the Scottish Parliament building. Joined with Friends of the World (Scotland), No Leith Biomass Campaign and the Grangemouth Community Council

·        October 22-23, 2011; London, England. Action Against Agrofuel Campaign

·        September 14, 2011; Edinburgh, Scotland. Joined in the Moving Planet protest against fossil fuels and large-scale biomass plans.

·        May 16, 2011; Grangemouth, Scotland. Action Against Agrofuel protest

·        February 24, 2011; Holyrood, Edinburgh, Scotland. No Leith Biomass protest

·        August 23, 2010; Grangemouth, Scotland. Action Against Agrofuel protest

Notable Demonstrations:

·        September 25, 2010; Portland, Oregon, USA. Demonstration against W4B’s palm oil plans

·        August 10, 2010; Bristol, England. Demonstration during the W4B public inquiry

·        May 11, 2010; Portland, Oregon, USA. Demonstration during the No Oil Palm Energy (NOPE) rally

Boifuelwatch Campaigns

#AxeDrax Campaign

The #AxeDrax Campaign is a UK based campaign based around the UK company Drax Group and the Drax power station. The aim of the #AxeDrax Campaign aims to bring public awareness towards Drax and their CO2 emissions in the UK. It is also aimed to bring awareness to now Drax and its electricity production and how it relates to large scare deforestation. The #AxeDrax Campaign and its efforts have provoked a response from the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change

Genetically Engineered Trees Campaign (GE Trees)

The Genetically Engineered Trees Campaign (GE Trees Campaign) pertains to companies that genetically engineer trees in attempts to increase the profits f their tree plantations. The GE trees campaign seeks to examine the affects that these trees will or do have as they relate to climate change. The campaign also examines and evaluates the risks involved with the commercialization of genetically engineered trees.

Sovereignty Wikipedia Page

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Everything in the article related to the term, and the article did a great job of explaining all the different types of Sovereignty. Including the history of it, for example the medieval version of Sovereignty. The only thing that distracted me was under the heading " Sovereignty and independence" there was little in terms of verification so it made me wonder if the information there was considered legitimate.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The article is almost completely neutral. It should also be noted that the page states that the more modern concept of "State Sovereignty" is the same as the general term of "Sovereignty". For the most part, the page is only dealing with definitions of the term Sovereignty, and it would be very challenging to bias a particular position on the term.

Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented?

Again, where this page is dealing with definitions it would be hard to over-represent a viewpoint. I do believe the summary of the term at the top of the page is underrepresented, because of the fact that it is such a small line of text and I feel that much could be added to it to give readers a clearer idea of what Sovereignty really is.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

All of the citations seem to be in working order. I did not have an issue opening any of the cites I did. As for the sources themselves, they are all very credible because they are academic journals with many resources of their own and very lengthy. The information inside these resources is considered legitimate.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

As stated above, I believe all the references come from extremely reliable references since they are all academic journals. These journals are all relatively neutral since they are dealing with the term itself. Even journals with titles such as "Problematic Sovereignty: Contested Rules and Political Possibilities" sound like they would be biased to a certain side of an argument, but upon reading, it is not.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

Some of the sources come from early dates, for example a main source comes from the year 1996. Nevertheless it does not appear to be dated upon reading. As for things that could be added, I mentioned above that the summary section on the top of the page is almost too brief. This could definitely be expanded on.

Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

There are very few conversations going on in the talk sections of this article. However, on the conversations that are going on, most of the conversations are based on the accuracy of examples when State Sovereignty is used. For example a reader believes that that the ICRC is represented as being a sovereign power, but in reality it is not. Its members only employ some of the benefits of sovereignty. I am not well informed on the ICRC so I can not say if this reader is right or wrong.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

The article is part of three WikiProjects... WikiProject Philosophy, WikiProject International Relations/Law, and WikiProject Politics. On all three projects it is rated "Start-Class", meaning that the article is still developing. It has many usable parts to the article but it is still weak in many areas, meaning that readers will read the article and end up wanting more information. It is also rated "High Importance" on WikiProject Philosophy, and "Top Importance" on the other two WikiProjects. This means that this article is fundamental to the topic.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

For the most part, we have been talking in class about what Sovereignty is. How it has to be recognized internally and externally to be considered legitimate. This article talks about such things as well, but it also dives much deeper than our discussions in class by giving definitions of what Sovereignty was in certain time periods. It also gives different approaches on how Sovereignty can be used, and also the many ways that someone can acquisition Sovereignty.