Effects of Bio fuels on the Environment Essay Example for Free

Effects of Bio fuels on the Environment Essay Bio fuel is a type of fuel that is made out of both living or lifeless biological material and specifically, the plants as per the definition given by Shepardson, (2009). According to Shepardson, most bio fuels are in the form of esters, alcohols among others and a good example of this type of fuel is bio ethanol and bio diesel. This fuel is mostly used in vehicles and for it to be considered as a bio fuel according to Connor Steve (2008), it must consist of about 80% of renewable materials. The production of this kind of fuel has been said to be impacting negatively on the environment however though this is the case, the benefits of bio fuels cannot be dismissed altogether. As a result of this disagreement, a lot of discussions have been held over this issue something that has polarized the society between those who argue that it does not impact negatively on the environment and those that maintain that it does. This becomes the basis of this essay where the paper will take a stand and support the claims that indeed bio fuels impact negatively on the environment. According to Mongobay. com (2008), there are various types of bio fuels and one of these is E10 which over time has been greatly improved in terms of quality in that initially it contained about 90 percent of petroleum and 10 percent of ethanol but of late it is called E100 because it is almost made up of ethanol alone and about 4 percent of water. The invention of this type of fuel according to Shepardson (2009) is something that has greatly revolutionised the transport industry. These fuels have particularly been cited as one of the best ways to reduce green house gas emissions unlike it is the case with other types of fuel especially fossil fuels. Even though they are praised for this, the negative environmental consequences they have are innumerable. One of these effects according to a scientific study that was conducted in 2008 contradicts the alleged potential of this fuel to reduce greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide among others; this is as per the Mongobay. com (2008). As per this study, Mongobay. com (2008) argues that growing crops with an aim of producing bio fuel leads to an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This claim according to the Green Website. co. uk is given weight by reports that were published in a science journal known as Journal Science that showed that plants that are specifically grown for the production of this fuel produce more carbon dioxide than what these plants can naturally absorb. According to these scientists Mongobay (2008), it would take decades to reverse the trend or to balance what they termed as ‘carbon debt’. Or in other words the amount of oxygen released to the atmosphere in the course of growing these crops and is yet to be absorbed. The US and the European Union have particularly been on the forefront in propagating the idea for the production of biomass as the surest way of controlling global warming (Shepardson, 2009). According to Shepardson this has forced researchers from all over the world who aims at protecting the environment to conduct researches in their bid to understand better how this would impact on the environment. One of the researches that were conducted as per the report compiled by Connor, (2008) shown that clearing Amazon’s forested land to grow soybeans would create a carbon debt that would take 319 years to be restored not mentioning the magnitude in which forests and bushes would be destroyed to grow these crops Production of biomass is labour intensive and requires a big land according to Sawahei (2009), what this means is that a lot of bushes and forests are cleared to produce raw materials for bio fuel thereby leaving the ground with no cover thereby increasing the possibility of soil erosion taking place. To Sawahei, the world requires large tracts of land for it to feed its population now amounting over six billions. By growing biomass as an alternative source of fuel would require more land that what is needed for growing crops as per the Action for Global Health (2008) and eventually there will be no natural vegetations as all land will either have been cultivated for crop production or biomass production or both. According to the Action for Global Health (2008), this greatly destroys the environment considering that vegetation cover protects soil erosion and again it is a habitat to millions of animal species (Sawahei, 2009). Apart from this, the risk of polluting water sources with phosphates and nitrates from fertilizers that are applied to boost crop production are very high (Biofuel, 2003). Water is also polluted by chemicals that are used in the production of biomass such as pesticides sprayed to get rid of pests that attack and destroy these plants. These chemicals not only pollute water but they also kill micro organisms present in the soil that in one way or the other keep the eco system working (Action for Global Health. 2008). Rogercopenh (2008) contends that by the United States embarking on campaigns to push for the use of bio fuels might mislead many third world countries into substituting land meant for growing food crops for biomass production because of the money this business would bring. According to Rogercopenh (2008) this might in turn lead to the encroachment of forests and other natural habitats which are home to millions of wild animals. It should also not be forgotten that when this green matter is harvested, there are chances that some will rot thereby producing a very bad smell and apart from rotting, some of these plants produce bad odour naturally and thus they are an environmental hazard in that they pollute the air. As per the evidence given by Franke and Reinherdt (1998), Bio fuel also kills biodiversity in terms of the variety of plants growing in a field. For biomass to be produced in large quantity, enough to keep the world going, then its production must be professionally done. What this means according to Franke and Reinherdt (1998) is that a whole field is filled with only one type of plants leading to what is known as monoculture and by doing this, other types of plants are not given a chance to grow something that indirectly leads to their extinction (Franke and Reinherdt, 1998). In doing this according to Randooke (2009), animal are also not spared in that deforestation must take place, grasslands must be cleared and wetlands are destroyed. The truth is that these areas are habitat to many species of animals and thus what this means is that these species will be killed while others are displaced. Trees naturally preserve water catchments areas and thus when land is prepared for the cultivation these reserves are destroyed (Randooke, 2009). According to the Action for Global Health, (2008) the whole bio fuel production process requires a lot of energy and basically the type of energy that is used is fossil fuel. The argument raised by the Action for Global Health (2008) is that the amount of carbon that is emitted by burning bio fuels is absorbed by crops that are grown purposely for bio fuels production but the problem is that the amount of carbon that is emitted during their production considering that carbon emitted during planting, spraying, treating and harvesting season where machines that uses fossil fuels is not cleared from the air. This claim is supported by Sawahei, (2009) who argues that even after these crops are harvested, more carbon is emitted to the atmosphere in that coal or other forms of fossil fuels such as gas are used to heat the raw materials that are used in the production of bio fuels. Though bio fuels are heavily criticised in that they cause serious negative environmental ramifications according to Connor (2008), there are other various researches that have been done which prove otherwise. Researches show that production of other forms of fuel such as fossil fuel leads to the release of more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than it is the case with bio fuels (Science for environmental policy, 2008). One research that strongly supports this claim is the one that was done in the United Kingdom. According to the same source, what they call first generation process Life Cycle Analysis, carbon dioxide emissions are reduced by over sixty percent unlike other forms. As per Biofuels (2003), the second generation process carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced by over 80 percent. Generally according to this report, carbon dioxide emissions can be saved by an average of about 50 to 60 percent. Another advantage of using this kind of fuel according to the Greencar website (2009) is that bio fuel does not contain sulphur which is one of the main components that causes acid rains. Also considering that it is made by bio degradable materials, its chances of destroying the soil are low unlike other fuels such as fossil fuels which contaminate water sources and destroy soil when they leak into them (Science for environmental policy, 2008). In consideration of the massive evidence that is provided here above, one is justified to say that biofuels are an environmental hazard. There are a lot of researches that have been done by different researchers and most of them point to the fact that the production of bio fuels produces many effects that in one way or the other destroys the eco system for example, fertilizers that are applied on crops meant to produce biomass releases phosphates and nitrates thereby destroying soil and water. Another way through which biofuels destroys the environment is that despite the fact that a lot of forests and bushes have already been cleared for crop production, more land is snow needed for biomass production something that leads to soil erosion due clearance of bushes and the destruction of habitats that are home to many species. This indirectly leads to the extinction of these species whether plant or animals. Bibliography: Action for Global Health. 2008. New study demonstrates bio fuels negative impact on poverty, hunger and environment. Available at http://docs. google. com/gview? a=vq=cache:elry2KJk0UgJ:ec. europa. eu/environ ment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/1si4. pdf+biofuels+,+negative+impacts+,e nvironmenthl=engl=ke Biofuel, 2003. Bio diesel Impacts on the environment. http://www. biofuelus. com/biofuel/biodiesel/biodiesel-impact-on-the- environment. php Connor Steve, 2008. Biofuels make climate change worse, Scientific Study concludes. Available at http://www. independent. co. uk/environment/climate-change/biofuels- make-climate-change-worse-scientific-study-concludes-779811. html

Rockefeller :: Free Essay Writer

Rockefeller John Davison Rockefeller, a U.S industrialist was the founder of the infamous Standard Oil Company, through which he dominated the U.S oil industry in the late 19th century and early 20th century and created the first major business trust in the United States of America. His business trust made him the world first billionaire .he also created a lot of controversies and opposition because of his business practices and form of organization especially from the US government. Together being a billionaire Rockefeller was one of the first major philanthropists in the U.S establishing several important foundations and donating a total of $540million to charitable purposes. Rockefeller was born on 8th July 1839 on a farm at Richford, in Tioga County, New York. He was second of the six children of William A. and Eliza (Davison) Rockefeller. The family lived in modest circumstances. The family moved to Owergo, New York and then headed west to Ohio in 1853. The Rockefeller’s bought a house in Strongville , Moravia near Cleveland. John entered Central High School in Cleveland where he rented a room in the city and joined the Erie Street Baptist church; he was very active in its affairs and became a trustee of the church at the age of 21. Rockefeller left high school in 1855 in order to take up a business course at Folsom Mercantile College. After completing the six month course in three months and after looking for a job for six weeks he landed a job as an assistant bookkeeper with Hewitt & Turtle , a small firm of commission merchants and produce shippers .He was not paid his salary for three moths when Hewitt gave him $50 ($3.57a week) and told him that his salary will be increased to $25 a month. A few months later he attained the position of the cashier and bookeeper. In 1859, with $1000 he had saved and another $1000 borrowed from his father at a rate 10% per annum, he formed a partnership in the commission business with a British Immigrant, Maurice B.

Law of Tresspass

LAW OF TORT LAW2002-N 20011/12 Lectures 3 and 4: Trespass to the Person Lectures 5 – 12:Negligence TRESPASS TO THE PERSON Reading: Steele Chap 2 to page 81; Street Chap 3; Winfield Chap 4. ASSAULT AND BATTERY Introduction Battery: intentional application of force to another person. Assault: act of the defendant which causes to the claimant reasonable apprehension of the infliction of an immediate battery on him by the defendant. Battery 1. The character of the act of D a)It must be a positive act. b)D must have control over what he is doing. c)There must be force and contact. Collins v Wilcock [1984] All ER 374Wilson v Pringle [1987] QB 237. In Re F (Mental Patient: Sterilization) [1990] 2 AC 1 2. State of Mind ie. the relationship between trespass and negligence. Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232; [1964] 3 WLR 573; [1964] 2 All ER 929; [1964] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 339. Note that since Fowler v Lanning [1959] 1 QB 426; [1959] 2 WLR 241; [1959] 1 All ER 290. C must prove that D acted in tentionally or negligently. 3. Livingstone v Ministry of Defence (1984) 15 NIJB – transferred malice 4. No consent by C and the burden is on C to prove it. Freeman v Home Office (No 2) [1984] QB 524 5. No damage need be proved. Assault 1.This means the act of putting another person in reasonable fear or apprehension of immediate battery. eg. pointing loaded gun shaking one's fist under C's nose. But not shaking fist from window of departing train. Thomas v NUM [1985] 2 All ER 1, 24 2. Mere words are not assault however menacing: there must be threatening acts Meade's Case (1823) 1 Lew CC 184 â€Å"No words or singing are equivalent to assault†. cf. R v Wilson [1955] 1 WLR 493 However a)There is no clear authority on this rule. b)In the nature of things threatening words are usually accompanied by threatening gestures. c)Words accompanying a menacing gesture may negative ts being an assault. Turbervell v Savadge (1669) 1 Mod. Rep. 3; 2 Keb 545; NoteStreet says that it i s preferable to treat this statement as merely an illustration of the principle that D must have caused C to apprehend an immediate contact rather than to make it a separate rule. A case to be distinguished is where there is a conditional threat: Ansell v Thomas [1974] Crim LR 31 See also Read v Coker (1853) 13 C. B. 850 3. Pointing a loaded pistol is obviously an assault. What if it is unloaded but C does not know this? There is one criminal case where it was the ratio that to point an unloaded gun at P is an assaultR v St George (1840) 9 C&P 483, 492. 4. If D's blow is intercepted by a third party this will still be an assault. Stephens v Myers (1830) 4 C 349; 34 R. R. 811. 5. The act of D need not produce actual fear just reasonable apprehension. 6. There can be battery without assault. FALSE IMPRISONMENT Definition:The infliction of bodily restraint which is not expressly or impliedly authorised by the law. – Winfield. State of Mind This tort normally involves an intentio nal act in the sense that D must intend to do act which is at least substantially certain to effect the confinement.It is, however, a tort of strict liability in that there need be no intention to act unlawfully – R v Governors of Brockhill Prison ex parte Evans No. 2 [2001] 2 A. C. 19 Malice is irrelevant. On principle negligence ought to be enough. â€Å"Accordingly, if a person locks a door being negligently unaware of the presence of somebody in the room, this should be false imprisonment. †: Street â€Å"False† – wrongful. â€Å"Imprisonment† – â€Å"Every confinement of the person is an imprisonment, whether it be in a common prison, or in a private house, or in the stocks, or even by forcibly detaining one in the public streets† – Blackstone.The character of D's act 1. There need be no actual incarceration. 2. Physical force is not necessary. Meering v Graham – White Aviation Co 122 LT 44 3. The area of confinemen t may be very large. 4. Restraint must be complete. Bird v Jones (1845) 7 QB 742; 9 Jur 87; 66 RR 564. 5. If a person has the means of escape, but does not know it, it is submitted by Winfield that his detention is nevertheless false imprisonment unless any reasonable man would have realised that he had an available outlet. 6. Act must be direct. 7. There must normally be a positive act rather than an omission.Herd v Weardale Steel, Coke and Coal Co [1915] AC 67; 111 LT 660. Knowledge of C Herring v Boyle (1834) 1 CM&R; 6 Car&P; 4 Tyr 801; 3 LJ Ex 344 cfMeering v Grahame – White Aviation Co (Supra) Murray v Minister of Defence [1985] 1 WLR 692 No proof of actual damage is necessary. INTENTIONAL PHYSICAL HARM OTHER THAN TRESPASS TO THE PERSON: The Rule in Wilkinson v Downton An act wilfully done which is calculated to cause, and does cause, physical harm to a person is a tort, although it may not be trespass to the person or other specific tort. This principle was laid down by WRIGHT, J. in Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 QB 57; 76 LT 493.Upheld by C. A in Janvier v Sweeney [1919] 2 KB 316; 121 LT 179. In Wainwright v Home Office [2002] 3 WLR all three judges in CA held the view that either actual intention or objective recklessness would suffice. Protection from Harassment Act 1997 But see also Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997] AC 655 DEFENCES TO AN ACTION FOR TRESPASS TO THE PERSON Self Defence Main question is whether force used by D was reasonable in the circumstances. Prevention of trespass to land or ejection of trespassers from land Note that unless the trespasser is entering by force, D must ask him to leave before using force against him.Volenti Burden is on C to establish lack of consent. Parental or other authority Inevitable accident Not relevant as a defence. Since Fowler v Lanning (supra) the burden has been on C to prove that D's act was intentional or negligent. Failure by C to fulfil a reasonable condition This is a defence to false imprisonment . Note:Robinson v Balmain Ferry [1910] AC 295 Herd v Weardale (supra) D acting in support of the law Dallison v Caffery [1965] 1 QB 348; [1964] 3 WLR 385; [1964] 2 All E 610 cfHogg v Ward (1858) 27 LJ Ex 443.

Money Supply and Demand and Nominal Interest Rates