WWF Report On Biofuel

The WWF has published a new report on biofuel. You can find it here. [SWE]

The general consensus is that biofuels cannot replace oil in the long term. The production of biofuel will, if increased, threaten nature and increase the possibility of explotation in countries which have the right type of environment.

There are good and negative aspects when considering the production of biofuels. We cannot simply use biofuels per se as a means of lowering the need for oil as well as reducing the climate gases.

The risks will increase alongside the increase of production. And the lesser nations will essentially be exploited by the more influential nations and corporations. When the market turns lucrative (I'm not critiquing the market itself), the production will affect food prices, cause more illegal forest explotation, destroy rainforests, damage soil from using fertilizers etc. People and local farmers will be driven away due to the expansion of the big corporations wanting to seige market and land as their own. How will the increased production affect the water? It will most likely become more polluted unless someone starts to financially support the need for improved water treatment plants.

The report also raises the question about how important certifications are. They are important, but they also require restrictions and a lot of money. Certifications will mostly benefit the ones who have the funds to maintain them. Certifications are not in themselves enough to make a difference.

The discussion about biofuels have been another binary affair. Those who are against it only seem to discuss the negative aspects and those who are for biofuels only see the pros. Why not flip these views in favour of a dialectic affair? Let the supporting forces disccuss the cons and the ones who are negative about it can discuss the pros. What a totally unrealistic suggestion, but still, it would benefit the general debate.

Lasse Svärd @ DN recognizes that, even though the WWF are biased, that the report is somewhat balanced.

The report also features recommendations on what different countries, corporations and governmental structures (such as the European Union) ought to do in this matter.

Key words:


Another Post From HAX Concerning Climate & Technology

The blogger HAX has posted yet another thoughtful and provoking post about the myth-like claim that our societies should start dismantling our industries in order to save our environment.

HAX raises some very good points here. Why should we dismantle our very means that enable technological breakthroughs? The same breakthroughs will help us either solve the problem (if we really are doomed unless we act) or enhance things like: energy conservation, environmental friendly products and recycling- and cleaning management.

It is hard to think outside of the box, but the breakthroughs will come to those that dare to do it.

Greenpeace Tagged City Hall In Stockholm

Greenpeace tagged City Hall in Stockholm earlier today with a political statement against GMO. With the help of a projector (or some other digital device), their 'throwup' covered (what I think was) the tower's west wall, thus made the building their canvas and the city became a serene and dynamic backdrop to their message. Their message was white and said "Keep our food safe - Stop GMOs" signed with the Greenpeace logo.

Perhaps they should have written "Keep mankind safe" instead.

Sweden's government ought to look into GMO and really sit down and contemplate about this (along with a lot of problems on the agenda). I've come to realize that our government (politicians I mean) have made some terrible decisions recently, decisions that will lead to consequences; consequences which will radically alter our society over time and reshape the foundations of our society as we know it.

I feel that politicians have been lobotomized (kopimi) to vote for or against certain legislations due to fierce lobbying. The larger corporations have the economical means, manpower, lawyers and cunning to silence concerned people and to trick politicians into choosing sides with the economic heavy weights. More recently people in Sweden have been really concerned about laws such as "FRA", as well as another directive our government wants to implement: namely IPRED. The government and our democratically elected politicians have more or less ignored large parts of the swedish people in these issues. Will they neglect information about GMO as well?

Activism come in many forms, however, guerilla projects with projectors, led-throwies, laser tagging and other ways of using light, is not a new phenomenon. For more info on what is possible to do with current technologies you should check out Graffiti Research Lab.

As for GMO, do you want to see all organisms being claimed by shady conglomerates? Do you acknowledge that large corporations hypothetically will be able to buy all the legal rights and means/control for all the organisms (like fruits, vegetables etc.) that we'll eat in the future?

For more info about related topics see:

Culture Jamming & Hacktivism.


Global Temperatures Lower Than Expected In October?

HAX posts yet another interesting little write up on global temperatures. If you read swedish you can find it here.

A lot of people are concerned about the status of our planet. However, it seems as if these concerns of ours raise a lot political motifs besides caring about out planet.

Another Perspective On Global Warming

The danish researcher Henrik Svensmark has an alternate view on the problem of global warming. Check out the documentary here.

Fight Against Monsanto's Marketing Practices

With their fight against Monsanto's abusive marketing practices, Percy and Louise Schmeiser have given the world a wake-up call about the dangers to farmers and biodiversity everywhere from the growing dominance and market aggression of companies engaged in the genetic engineering of crops.

Percy and Louise Schmeiser

Barack Hussein Obama - Difficult Actions Await You Sir

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have compiled a massive list on Actions For Restoring America.

After eight years in office, Bush is the least popular president ever. By far. This is due to obvious actions such as the war on terror, the war in Iraq as well as the war in Afghanistan. Most importantly, it is due to the fact that the United States of American came together as a nation in the wrong way. They should have tried to reflect on what had happened and on their own actions in the world. This did not stop and ask themselves why there are people out there who hate their politics and ideals. As this isn't enough, the United States as FAILED CONSIDERABLY in nurturing their own economy and country:

Major economic concerns in the U.S. include national debt, external debt, entitlement liabilities for retiring baby boomers who have already begun withdrawing from their Social Security accounts, corporate debt, mortgage debt, a low savings rate, falling house prices, a falling currency, and a large current account deficit. As of June 2008, the gross U.S. external debt was over $13 trillion,the most external debt of all countries in the world. The 2007 estimate of the United States public debt was 65% of GDP. As of October 1, 2008, the total U.S. federal debt exceeded $10 trillion, about $31,700 per capita. Including unfunded Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, and similar promised obligations, the government liabilities rise to a total of $59.1 trillion, or $516,348 per household

You should take this information from Wikipedia with a pinch of salt rather than truth. However, these tendencies are real and should be dealt with.

After 9/11, there was no contemplation at all. Instead of looking forward and reevaluate their position + attitude towards the rest of the world, the administration went conservative and chose the aggressive perspective down a path oozing from conservatism and religious norm. Other countries had to be either on their side or against them. This rhetoric and thinking is stale and outdated, they should have been self critical. They should have let their laws and human rights do its job.

A lot of people wanted Barack Obama to become president. Obama is the right choice right now. But will he govern as he preaches? Will he live up to the world's expectations? Will he turn out to be a puppet - A hawk like the rough republicans? Or will he pave the way for a new America, a new America which says NO to enhanced control of society and NO to an increased influence from lobbyists?

On the agenda for the forthcoming president of the United States:

By the way, I think he will find the time to save the global environment during his first year...

Other links:

CNN - Obama's First Priority: Fixing The Economy
Economist - America's election: Great Expectations
NY Times - For Obama, No Time to Bask in Victory As He Starts to Build a Transition Team
The Wall Street Journal - Difficult Choices Await New President

Correction Concerning The Article On GMO

I was sloppy (or tired?) when I wrote the about GMO. and did not post the correct information about who wrote the article I referred to . The article was written by both Maria Hagberg AND Jimmy Sand. Jimmy writes a lot about problems and issues concerning culture, philosophy, society and politics. If you read swedish then you should check out his blog "Strötankar och sentenser".

If he writes something else about GMO or eco related stuff in the future, then I'll post about it.

U.S. Elections

John McCain or Barack Obama? We will know the outcome during the forthcoming week. Who will be the one to lead a nation in crisis? The United States is facing a recession and the financial crisis is far from over. Will the war on terror come to an end over the next four years?

The United States is facing a probable bankruptcy due to Federal Reserve with their dodgy ways, medicaid, medicare among other highly complex and large economic and sociocultural sequences. This is taken from an article in The Economist:

Abroad a greater task is already evident: welding the new emerging powers to the West. That is not just a matter of handling the rise of India and China, drawing them into global efforts, such as curbs on climate change; it means reselling economic and political freedom to a world that too quickly associates American capitalism with Lehman Brothers and American justice with Guantánamo Bay. This will take patience, fortitude, salesmanship and strategy.

I am highly sceptical that these 'problems' will be solved unless radical changes were to be made within economics, sociolinguistics, politicals, foreign/national relations, academics and education. However, not changes within systems but changes concerning how people alter or 'hack' complex processes. The US citizens will have to say no to a society based on control by doing something about it.

The world awaits an answer to this question...


I recently posted an article related to GMO, highlighting the book Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food by Pamela Ronald, Raoul Admachak published in april 2008.

I have come across an article in swedish with the same controversial outlook as the one which I was focusing on. This stance creates a new perspective and critiques the methodological approach within the eco community and its scepticism against GMO. The article is written by Maria Hagberg from the political party Feminist Initiative (EDIT: AND Jimmy Sand).

Even though the argumentation and rhetoric is based on binary oppositions and choices, one still gets to confront the idea that GMO isn't 'bad' or 'evil' per se. She mentions the problem with large corporations and their profitable market approach through investment in chemicals - they are deliberatly blocking positive advancements of the eco community and even GMO. Other problems that are mentioned includes: the issues of patents, 'third-world countries' with their needs, as well as ethics & trading. Be sure to read the criticism from Kathleen McCaughey, GMO-spoke sperson @ Greenpeace and Lars Igeland of Miljöförbundet Jordens Vänner. The chemical market and the GMO market seem to be intertwined:

The Monsanto Company is an American multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is the world's leading producer of the herbicide glyphosate, marketed as "Roundup". Monsanto is also by far the leading producer of genetically engineered (GE) seed, holding 70%–100% market share for various crops. Agracetus, owned by Monsanto, exclusively produces Roundup Ready soybean seed for the commercial market. In March 2005, it finalized the purchase of Seminis Inc, making it also the largest conventional seed company in the world. It has over 18,800 employees worldwide, and an annual revenue of USD$8.563 billion reported for 2007

Oh the problem of patents... haven't we heard this before?. This problem has to be addressed and not looked down upon! Have a look at this Pirate Party related text on the patent system:

An abolished patent system

Pharmaceutical patents kill people in third world countries every day. They hamper possibly life saving research by forcing scientists to lock up their findings pending patent application, instead of sharing them with the rest of the scientific community. The latest example of this is the bird flu virus, where not even the threat of a global pandemic can make research institutions forgo their chance to make a killing on patents.

The Pirate Party has a constructive and reasoned proposal for an alternative to pharmaceutical patents. It would not only solve these problems, but also give more money to pharmaceutical research, while still cutting public spending on medicines in half. This is something we would like to discuss on a European level.

Patents in other areas range from the morally repulsive (like patents on living organisms) through the seriously harmful (patents on software and business methods) to the merely pointless (patents in the mature manufacturing industries).

Europe has all to gain and nothing to lose by abolishing patents outright. If we lead, the rest of the world will eventually follow.

Moreover, Later on in the article Greenpeace seems to be positive about the technology of genetics but still criticizing the 'unnatural' GMO.

"The debate on GMO" was published in Göteborgs Fria Tidning (which aims to be non-profitable and free from ads) and can be read (Swedish) at Jimpan's blog.

Göteborgs Fria Tidning

Combating Climate Change

Science and sci-fi come together in the most radical forms when scientists want to hack and modify the earh's environment on a large scale.

I read another article from Wired, this time about geoengineering, which Wired describes as:

the large-scale, deliberate modification of the planet to counteract the consequences of ever-increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gas.

The article is called Can a Million Tons of Sulfur Dioxide Combat Climate Change? and it's from 2007.

Wired Article - The Year's [2007] 10 Craziest Ways to Hack the Earth

I've just read an article from Wired which deals with last year's 10 craziest ideas to hack the earth. Hacking nature is here meant to work as an analogy to hacking technologies.

Scientists have come up with extreme -- some might say crazy -- schemes to counteract global warming. This year saw the most radical geo-engineering ideas yet: man-made volcanoes, orbiting mirror fleets and ocean re-engineering to cool the planet and absorb carbon dioxide.

Some say the extreme temperatures predicted for the near future call for extreme measures. Others say the solutions could be worse than the problem. In increasing order of unorthodoxy, here are the 10 craziest geo-engineering schemes of 2007.

I like the fact that at least one of these ideas (vertical farming) actually enhances our perspective on both nature and our environemnt. However, a lot of them are hypothetically even worse than the 'problems' themselves. The article is a must read and it can be found here: The Year's 10 Craziest Ways to Hack the Earth.

Hack the status quo!