Home > Uncategorized > All-natural carbon-free sugar

All-natural carbon-free sugar

June 29, 2009

H22O11?  Wouldn’t that just wind up as eleven water molecules?  And what do they do with the twelve leftover carbon atoms, make pencil leads?

OK, I know I’m being infantile snickering at this.  The truth is, they capture the carbon atoms and give them loving homes in a free-range carbon sanctuary run by Exxon oil.  Which totally doesn’t just burn them to enslave them to oxygen molecules and screw up the climate any more.  Yeah.

No, no, that’s not it.  Sugar cane leaves a lot of biomass, which they burn to produce energy in a carbon-neutral way.  (Which is just what Exxon would do anyway)  Then they count it against the carbon dioxide which would have been released if the same energy had been generated by burning coal.  It’s actually a very good thing, if you don’t think about what the sugar plantation itself does to biodiversity.  Which I don’t, because I like sugar on my cereal, and in my iced tea.  Hey, I lived in Tennessee for eight years and developed a taste for sweet tea. 

Categories: Uncategorized
  1. gruntled atheist
    June 29, 2009 at 22:17 | #1

    Where in Tennessee?  I live near Cookeville.  As to the article, I have zero knowledge on this topic.  But I gather you think this is a good idea, maybe.

  2. June 30, 2009 at 06:44 | #2

    Another great use for this sugar, which I use:

    Put 1 tsp sugar in an espresso cup. 
    Pour in freshly made espresso.
    Do not stir.
    Drink espresso.
    Allow remaining espresso/sugar slurry to dry.
    Eat dried espresso candy with favourite spoon.

    Two treats in one day. :)

  3. June 30, 2009 at 06:46 | #3

    I lived in Johnson City, about three hours to the East of you.  And for a while just across the NC border in Elk Park.

    I’m not sure how I feel about carbon offsets – it provides some incentive to develop carbon-neutral or carbon-free energy technologies.  But it also provides an incentive to cheat.  Better would be a simple tax on carbon dioxide emissions, splitting the revenue between energy research and helping low-income people reduce their energy costs.

  4. June 30, 2009 at 08:45 | #4

    I agree that a carbon tax is the best approach, but the word “tax” cannot be uttered; just ask Stephane Dion, former leader of the Liberal Party of Canada … if you get my drift.

    The truth is that cheap carbon, aka cheap fossil fuel, is TAXING us and future generations—should those generations even live.  But that, of course, is heresy in the religion of “free markets”.

  5. July 1, 2009 at 12:48 | #5

    I think that whole “carbon offset” stuff is a whole lot of smoke-and-mirrors crap. What does it matter who is putting the carbon in the air? Sheesh!

    The sugar industry does a lot of polluting, and uses a lot of water, to produce something which, in terms of nutrition, is about as useful as tobacco.

  6. July 1, 2009 at 15:44 | #6

    The sugar industry as a whole, yes … but I believe the sugar from this producer is from can, not beets, and their practices are probably pretty responsible.  At least I hope they are not greenwashing.  I use very little added sugar … this for my espresso, and that’s it… and it’s a very small amount.  For my morning tea I use pure glucose, aka honey.  That is good for you.

  7. July 1, 2009 at 16:05 | #7

    It does make a difference whether the carbon dioxide being emitted is current biomass or fossil carbon.  Generating energy from biomass is pretty much carbon-neutral.  Digging up sequestered carbon and un-sequestering it raises the CO2 total in the atmosphere.

    I think that whole “carbon offset” stuff is a whole lot of smoke-and-mirrors crap.

    This is why I would prefer a simple tax on CO2 emissions – and maybe a tax five times that high on methane emissions.  But as previously mentioned, “tax” is the thing which dare not speak its name…

    Another question is how to tax activities that reduce the effectiveness of carbon sinks, like rain forests.  Or how to incentivize their protection/restoration.  It would be of no small interest to the sugar industry, for example.

    Wonder how much fuel/sugar/land/plastic/building materials etc. we’d use if those products internalized costs that are currently externalized to the commons?

  8. July 1, 2009 at 16:45 | #8

    Ooops, I meant “cane”, not “can”.  And checking the website, it is made from cane, not beets.  If we can trust their “story”, the farming practices seem quite reasonable.

    Years ago I had a “discussion”, actually a mini-argument, with David Suzuki, about “green” products at a major grocery chain.  We left disagreeing, but years later, he has come around to my position.  :lol:

  9. July 2, 2009 at 13:47 | #9

    Maybe it’s 11 ice cubes for father Xmas…
    HOH HOH HOH HOH HOH HOH HOH HOH HOH HOH HOH

  10. July 2, 2009 at 16:24 | #10

    Any system of trying to limit greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which is what the cap and trade thing should really be about, is going to have flaws. Tax emissions, and you miss practices that serve to undo the effects of the emissions. The carbon cap and trade idea at least lets the market try to find effective ways of reducing carbon in the atmosphere in the most economically efficient way.

    I have no doubt that it will have to be tuned or even changed wholesale in the years ahead, but it sounds like a good idea if it’s implemented properly.

  11. July 3, 2009 at 22:01 | #11

    We just need to figure out a way to trap those pesky carbon atoms and confine them to charcoal paintings like this one:

    GuessmodelCharcoal.jpg

    Seriously though, how does burning biomass not release carbon into the atmosphere? I think somebody is being creative in their pollution accounting. Have you ever been to California when the wildfires are in full swing? If I harvest and burn blue-green algae, is that “oxygen neutral”? Or, am I doing something to the ecosystem that is adversely affecting equilibrium?

  12. breakerslion
    July 3, 2009 at 22:09 | #12

    Woah dude! I expected to leave you a link, not the whole picture. I wouldn’t presume to hang artwork on someone else’s blog… not hard to look at though….

  13. July 3, 2009 at 22:11 | #13

    That is an excellent use of charcoal!

    Burning biomass releases CO2 into the atmosphere, same as burning oil.  But the plants got the carbon from the atmosphere in the first place, so there’s no net atmospheric increase in CO2.  Burning oil is putting fossil carbon into the atmosphere, increasing the total amount.

    Recently it occurred to me that instead of recycling paper, we should be trucking it to a desert somewhere and burying it.  In a dry environment it would never decay, or it would take long enough so it wouldn’t matter.  But I have no idea if the tonnage would be enough to make a difference.

  14. July 5, 2009 at 08:31 | #14

    Huh? Burning anything organic releases carbon into the atmosphere which was not there before the burning. The fact that may have once been in the biosphere is sophistry, the carbon in coal was once in the biosphere, too.

    I am pretty much opposed to using tax incentives/disincentives for anything at all. Humanity made a big mistake starting down that slippery slope. It ends up enriching the already rich at the expense of more worthwhile policy. Like ADM (aka the “evil empire”). Hell, Scottie Pippin got a tax break because he had trees on his estate in Arkansas.

  15. July 5, 2009 at 08:33 | #15

    And don’t be fooled by “big sugar.” Much of Florida south of Lake Okeechobee has been permanently damgaged by “big sugar” and their environmentally-friendly practices. Now, we are planning to spend billions of dollars to help the Everglades, long deprived of water by “big sugar.”

    Seems the sugar industries, like almost all other industries, is in love with “greenwash.”

  16. July 5, 2009 at 09:46 | #16

    Huh? Burning anything organic releases carbon into the atmosphere which was not there before the burning. The fact that may have once been in the biosphere is sophistry, the carbon in coal was once in the biosphere, too.

    Nope, it makes a big difference what epoch the carbon comes from.  The question is: does it cause a net increase?  Fossil carbon was in the biosphere millions of years ago and isn’t part of the climate we are trying to preserve.  So burning it increases the level of carbon in the atmosphere, resulting in climating change.  Biomass is carbon-neutral across a timescale as short as one growing season. 

    Of course it would be better to use (nearly) zero-carbon energy where possible, like wind and solar. 

    You’re exactly right; the cost of restoring the Okeechobee is an example of externalized costs.  It amounts to a subsidy for big sugar, and for developers.

  17. Mika
    September 4, 2009 at 11:37 | #17

    With the threat of global warming knocking on the heels of our children and grandchildren, more dramatic storms to endure, it is now critical that we take a conscious decision to purchase from companies that allow us to help reduce the carbon footprint we leave behind us.

    It seems that our carbon footprint is a way we can personalize and look from within on doing our individual part to reduce greenhouse gases and avert the continuation of global warming. Global warming is a real and serious threat, and it is something that we can all combat in our daily lives. It means being responsible and taking responsibility for our actions, whether it’s filling up at the pump, or buying toilet paper, taking a trip, or sending flowers to a loved one.

Comments are closed.