We need manure to feed the world. Anything else will pollute earth and water even more.
Rain forest is also destroyed to make room for "bio" fuel plantations and other monocultures.
Maybe we find a way to collect sheep farts and use them, like here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqL4DRZ2EkA

Perhaps in some minor 'unknown' areas for unknown reasons that could be true, but overall it's far from true. The rotting material creates exponentially more methane than any mechanism could trap. You and they don't even mention the mechanism that traps methane at all, the methane being released is from bacteria eating thawed organic material.

EDIT: Actually, your study quote did not say that "they've identified regions up north where the soil absorbs more methane the warmer it gets"...it said "numerical simulations predict" they exist, "but the drivers, magnitude, timing and location of methane consumption rates in High Arctic ecosystems are unclear." This means places where methane capture outpaces release, or happens at all, have not been found-'location unclear'.

OK, you did say 'if we magically remove all the CO2 we've ever produced' (ignoring methane and other greenhouse gasses) in your second post. I missed the 'magic removal' part. My mistake, but that makes it a silly argument since we can't do magic. If we could, there would be no problem....and if I crapped diamonds I would be rich.

Well, in the context of talking to a person from 1912, if you explained to them that the 'progress' (by which I guess you mean population explosion and technical advancements) of the last century comes at the cost of the environment, nature, and may destroy the planet over the next century (at least for human survival), I would bet anyone with an IQ of 90+ will say 'selling (or even gambling) our permanent future for temporary industrial progress is a terrible idea, no thanks'.

Well, you must see that some of that great 'food production' is actually corn and grain for livestock, bio fuels, palm oils, etc., not human food stuffs. In order to make that 'food', forests are destroyed, removing entire eco systems that provided 'bush taco' (natural foods) which wasn't included in the equations about overall food production. Food HARVESTS of natural foods have declined rapidly worldwide, just look at the ocean. It may be unfishable in 15-20 years at current acidification rates. Kill the base of the food web, and the web falls apart. It's a rare place today that can support a human population without industrial agriculture and food importation, both of which have failed to solve starvation issues to date.

You can only be ignoring that data about it being catastrophic. I referenced it earlier. Just to mention ONE way, by 2025 it's estimated that 2/3 of people worldwide will live in a water shortage. In most cases, there's absolutely no way to fix this. For instance, Northern India/Southern China is nearly 100% dependent on glacial melt water, glaciers that have lost 50% in the last decade, and that rate is expected to continue to accelerate. With no water, industrial agriculture fails instantly, and people die in 3 days or so. There's NO solution for this disaster, not a plan, not an idea, nothing. There are already immigration problems worldwide, how to solve that when the immigration increases exponentially everywhere?

The downvote was not for your opinion, it was for your dangerously mistaken estimations and conclusions, and insistence that, contrary to all human history and all scientific evidence, this time humans will find and implement a working solution to the problem in time (already too late IMO) that's not worse than the problem was, and so we should not be bothered by the coming massive shortages and upheaval that comes with them, because somehow in that upheaval we'll find and implement massive global solutions to currently insurmountable issues. We can't even slow down the rate of increase in CO2 emissions, it's unbelievable to think we'll turn that to a negative number in 20-30 years even if the tech is invented (which still leaves us in Mad Max times at best, IMO), much more so to think we could erase 100 years of emissions in that time. EDIT:...and I find that kind of dangerous unrealistic suggestion insulting.

Climate change-The hot-topic for a new age of ineffectuals...something for the insects to rally-around and discuss which produces nay but fodder for the same passive-aggressive types who are being seduced by their desire to trade practical action (whatever that could be) for polemic intercourse with themselves and others like them on the internet....

....people who are passionate to a fault and use forums like this to espouse their anger and frustration with tomes of keystrokes AT and not WITH others they deem unworthy, those ignorant and simpering few with opinions or observations dissimilar to theirs (and lower than 130 I.Q.'s....*cough), who know they are helpless to act to stop the high-speed train of planet-fucking (wage-slave-required and dutifully induced through the programming by adepts of semantic mind-fucking).This delusional empowerment, with all the invisible superpowers of new 'information' gives them the license and ability to do absolutely nothing to correct or marginally disrupt the pace of the so-labeled change while becomming better dicks in doing-so.

This fan-driven subject of climate change they use not only to deride those with any dissenting opinion and doubt regarding the mechanics and unfolding of what our big, blue marble is handing the creatures onnit, but also and most evidently obvious, to bolster their own superiority and self-satisfaction in their ability to process the distraction of disinformation/information/datum-ad-nauseum, and then condense it into how clever they can be in being complete assholes without breaking rules of accepted decorum so they can hear themselves bark, howl, and foment.

Smug, helpless, and irritatingly predictable in their helplessness to do anything more effectual than to add more used motor oil to the bonfire of their own vanity.

I would ask these irritating bugs what ARE you prepared to do to alter the course of the 'changes' in the 'terminal climate' described above? Recycle and drive a hybrid? Sacrifice anything but another trip to a polling-station? Oh I know, sit at your computer keyboard and grow more incensed while going-on with your business of spouting and shouting from a mountain of trash that you add-to daily by converting oxygen to more life-giving C02 and buying shit you don't need with paper you are forced to trade for 'bads and disservices??'

Thought so.

Fuck global warming in it's ass and let the planet shake and quiver with change as humans and/or their own slave-like actions continue to feed the earth-furnace. The bigger fish to fry and serve head-on have you by the short and curlies and we're all bio-fuel for future generations

You have it backwards...ignoring and denying climate change is all about money... climate saving is about surviving. It's the rare climate scientist who's fortune is tied directly to their theories...just about 3% I would guess.

'bio-fuel' is only an ecological 'neutral' if it's made from waste material, certainly not if other, more ecologically necessary things (like trees) are destroyed to create it. Everyone is NOT hacking down forests to make bio-fuel, most places have outlawed that, and many climate scientists decried it at the outset as neutral at best and terrible at it's worst.

Facts are facts, not manipulateable at all. Interpretation of the facts is easily manipulated, if one is not able to understand the facts enough to interpret them for one's self, but not if one is able to interpret them. For instance, the political right would have you believe that solar is an expensive wasteful fools errand, the political left would have you believe it's an expensive but ecologically sound and needed energy alternative...the facts are it's both relatively ecologically sound AND financially sound as a long term investment...mine has paid for itself in under 8 years with at least another 12 years of free electricity to come and I haven't been subjected to repeated blackouts like my neighbors...double win. The point being that if you allow politicos with agendas (on either side of the fence) to interpret the facts for you, as you seem to do, you'll only hear what THEY want you to hear. I interpret data for myself, and often come to different conclusions than those I hear publicly supported.

Religion is based on faith, not facts. Faith is believing something without proof or factual evidence and ignoring any factual evidence to the contrary. Science is thinking a certain thing until/unless the facts prove otherwise. Religious people often don't understand the difference, I'm a scientist. Show me full data sets and facts that disprove my current theory, I'll happily modify my theory. Show me an interpretation that attempts to disprove my theory without facts and/or data (or with cherry picked data and facts), I'll poke it full of holes and sink it in the briny deep. Put your life vest on now.

I hate to tell you, but I'm far more intelligent according to repeated testing than the average person, contrary to your insulting implication. 138 aint bad buddy, and my science degree helps too.

Those that attempt to say +-97% of climate scientists (along with near 100% of other scientists that peer review their work) are in cahoots to defraud the public in order to secure some phantom money (the implication being that they wouldn't possibly be able to make money if they didn't lie about science for some reason), and only the <3% that are paid by oil and gas companies to come up with theories that consistently benefit their benefactors are honest are simply insane or dishonest. Period.
Your analogy is false, because in it you speak of 'scientists' from a time before the scientific method was even a thing, people who based their 'theories' often on scripture, while the real scientists 'swam against the current' to support modifiable theories based on facts and data...just like climate scientists have done so successfully over the last 40+ years that they have now convinced nearly 100% of the planet that they are correct. Deniers are still floating down stream while the rest of us are swimming against their slowing current, spawning and trying to continue the species.

No hypocrisy by NGT, only your complete misunderstanding and/or misstating of the facts. Sorry.

Its really sad to see that so many people have been indoctrinated so well. But thats nothing new in human history. It just hurts that it still happens in such a time (the age of information) and in the name of science. Climate saving is first and foremost about money, which makes it a political and economical agenda. Else everyone would simply be planting trees, instead of actually hacking them down to make space for "climate saving technology" AKA bio-fuel.

Your "facts" are nothing but easily manipulated simulations based on theories, but your "facts" generate a LOT of money and security for many different people who didnt have that much money and security before and who see themselves in a very dangerous situation, because more and more indoctrinated people want their jobs too, to be a world-saving hero. So they need even more money and more panic.

Also very interesting to see how people like you see climate saving as a religion, without even noticing the similarities with religion. "Ohhh nooooo the world will end if... well... you dont give us your money!"
Sound familiar? No, I know it doesnt for you, but it does for intelligent people, who dont just follow "science" blindly.

I am glad that there are still scientists who stay objective and dont swim with the stream just because everyone else does. People like them were very often in history the people who were right at the end, because they could stay objective since they didnt feel the need to be part of a corrupt group that told them what is right and what is wrong and what they should do and shouldnt do. The funny thing is, exactly that deGrasse preached many times in his Cosmos show, and here it suddenly needs to be completely different.
Another hypocrite exposed.

Very funny. Its always "scientists" who bring that up and who first brought that up. Do you even read those reports? Scientists and their studies (more like very flawed simulations) are always quoted. First they said (Mojib Latif and others) that there wont be any hard winters anymore due to AGW. After it became evident that those utterings were utter bullshit, they said that hard winters will be very often due to AGW (PIK and others) and after we got a normal winter again, they said that this is typical for AGW too (PIK and others again).
If it wasnt for them, this hype wouldnt be nearly where it is.

They just say what is convenient and what fits into their agenda. Its all about money and personal security. Nothing more nothing less, they just think its something different due to their indoctrination. AGW has become a huge self-sustaining (thanks to those corrupt "scientists") economic booster where insurances, scientists, politicians and many many companies (even oil companies - yes, check the global warming lobby) and their lobbies are benefiting from. Its simply not possible to talk about it objectively anymore. And if you try, people like you will come up and defend it like a religion, and prove this fact very quickly. Just look at "bio" fuels. Its a HUGE part of economy already, but it simply isnt eco-friendly at all. Instead people are starving because mono cultures are used instead of different plants for food, so much water is used for producing bio fuels that people have to suffer. The rain forest and others are cleared to be able to put more mono cultures up. Companies like Monsanto are becoming more and more powerful because of it and studies that bio fuels are bad for lots of engines are being censored or simply not funded since even car manufacturers profit from it when engines blow up sooner.

More extreme weather? Bullshit aswell. Thats simply not true, as quite a few (ignored by the "consensus") studies have shown. Its just the reports about even the tiniest things that have bloated up in the globalized and interconnected world of today and untold truths that are fooling you and of course the agendas that need to be kept upright with even the tiniest happenings that fit into it. Next time when you see a report, ask yourself if something like that would have been mentioned globally 20 or 30 years ago.

Take the flood in Pakistan for example. Oh, it was soooo bad and soooo AGW caused, oh the horror, we will all see the same thing and worse in our own countries if we continue to sin in the face of our go-- err scientists!
No, it wasnt. It was as normal as all the very common floods there before. It just wasnt mentioned that since the 70s Pakistans population has tripled and the vast majority of those people have settled down on the fertile lands around the (straightened!!!) rivers.

If that wasnt enough, people like you even completely ignore the fact, even if all their claims were true, that warm periods were ALWAYS much much better for this planet and its inhabitants than cold ones and colder ones than we have right now (we live in an ice age after all) were always bad, if not catastrophic.

And because of that fact I wont be that stupid and waste my time here with more replies, since you guys have made it very obvious already where you are coming from.

Just one little thing to think about for you guys (yeah I still have hope, though its prolly not very realistic), since the rest of my posts will get marginalized by your ignorance anyway:
Just because most scientists are pro-AGW doesnt prove crap. It was always only very few if not only a single scientist who tried to prove many other scientists wrong in their assumptions and most scientists were wrong and very arrogant, especially if they formed something like a society. But like before, there are thankfully still a few of them left who treat science as science and not as their religion or extension of their ego.

On topic, there needs to be a better ability to measure and monitor OTC derivative contracts, but I think generally people who sorely blame speculators don't understand how markets work.

Everything ultimately has a fundamental value, if speculators are taking excessive amounts of positions expecting the price to go up, ultimately it will rise far beyond levels determined by supply and demand for the physical good and these speculators will stand to lose in their derivative position.

What is their incentive to inflate prices if they know that this will happen? Why not simply attempt to predict the market price accurately, whether it is trending up or down? Now obviously bubbles happen and what the video says about property investors heading into food commodities may well be true, but that is precisely why shorters have a role in the market to push the price down if it gets over-inflated.

You know when the video talks about hedge funds betting in price falls? What they conveniently omit to mention is taking these contracts puts downward pressure on prices.

Furthermore, whether high or low food prices hurt people in developing economies depends on who you're talking about. People living in country areas who rely on farming for their livelihood tend to gain from higher prices, urban dwellers tend to lose from it.

Demand and supply is also quite obviously driving increases in prices regardless of what you believe about speculation.

1) As developing countries have become wealthier they've shifted from a grain/rice diet to a more meat reliant diet, which is far more agriculturally intensive.

2) It's pretty self evident that weather instability has increased worldwide which destabilises prices.

3) Increased use in bio-fuels both in the US and Europe has taken up supply and pushed up prices.

4) All of these factors have in several cases resulted in countries establishing temporary trade barriers which in itself push up prices.

Point is, it's easy (and not entirely rational) to blame speculators but analysing all the factors at play (which this video brushes off) paints a far more complex picture.

There have been no long term studies about effects on cars yet. None at all. Some did it a few years, but thats simply not enough. Here in Germany manufacturers actually didnt release proper lists which cars work with it and which wont until right after E10 was introduced, and even now they are changing those lists regularly. Sure, in other countries they have been running that stuff your years and years, but those countries also have no studies about it. As long as there is such a srisk (and we all know ethanol attacks aluminum and some plastics, that are in fuel pumps and fuel lines and injectors, etc, there is no way to tell how safe it is. Because the manufacturer only care about sales. If engines break sooner, thats just ok, especially since it was forced by the government, so "they are not to blame".

Its detrimental because it drives up the price of food. Have you checked the course of it lately? Also gasline becomes even more expensive because of it, to make people buy it. Very well visible when Germany added E10. From one day to another the prices jumped by 8 cent. Rich dont care about such increases in cost. But poor are hurt a lot by it.
Just look at Indonesia and the palm oil desaster. Many people are actually starving because farmers stopped producing food and instead make palm oil now. And even that palm oil isnt meant for the domestic market, its going straight to foreign countries. In South America the rain forrest is burned down every day to make place for bio fuel plantages. You should Google about soy, corn and Monsanto while were at it. Theres a good documentary about that too, that will open your eyes.

We dont even know how much oil we have left or exactly how it was created. I dont know the English word for it, but theres the "Erdölkonstante" that shows that since people found oil they always thought it will be depleted in a few years and those years are nowadays actually at the highest point ever and has been at this for several decades without decreasing. As long as we still have enough, there is no need to raise prices and develop stuff that hurts people and cars. Yes, the raise is artificial. To get the rich even richer.
There has not been "oil peak" yet, instead oil production is still increasing a lot, and many countries could raise it by a lot more if they wanted to. But they dont want to because the prices would fall drastically.

Bio fuels are a desaster for humanity. They hurt so many people, its not funny anymore. Also they are not better than gasoline for the environment. All taken together, they are actually much worse. To call bio fuels good for our planet is a farce, and if you really believe that its good and even an alternative to consider, youre just a sock puppet for the corrupt rich. Sorry.

Other countries' socialist policies, like in say, the whole of Europe, do quite well compared to us.

Actually, this is causation without correlation. If you go to Europe, living situations are deteriorating. Their massive amounts of welfare have created a situation in which immigrants are coming not for opportunity, but to be subsidized by programs they haven't paid into their whole lives like existing citizens. Sound familiar? Our programs are being strained by the same problem. I won't deny that they've made better decisions with their socialist powers over the past twenty years. If you want to make this an argument about whose dictator is doing a better job at emulating the market, then certainly Europe wins. France, for example, gets 80% of their energy from nuclear power and is the largest energy exporter in Europe. I'm jealous. That's what the market would have chosen. Our dictators, however, have been blocking it for thirty years due to the influence of the radical environmentalist lobby. Our government-directed economy has also pumped billions of forcibly appropriated money into agri-business bio-fuels like ethanol. It reduced the supply of food because it became more profitable after all the subsidies to grow corn for ethanol than some other crop for food. And it takes almost as much energy to create as it produces. Negative net result, that money would have been better off staying in the hands of people who really couldn't afford to have it taken away. We realize this now, but it never needed to happen. Any product that wouldn't be able to compete on the market without being funded with stolen money isn't worth a damn. So why did we think a bill could do something the market couldn't? All subsidies are retarded, they have collusive anti-competitive redistribution written all over them, and that's exactly what we got despite election year promises that it would give us miracles.

In fact, imagine if a stranger comes to your house and says "Hi, I'd like to take some of your money from your paycheck every week because I think I can spend it better than you can on products and services for your life. You look pretty busy, irresponsible, and unintelligent." Would you give it to them? Why would you do that? That's essentially socialism in a nutshell. People spending other people's money on the claim they can do so with greater thrift than the person that earned it.

Another thing that we do different than Europe is maintain a gigantic military empire. Of course their socialist programs are better, they don't have a military industrial complex sucking trillions of dollars away from them. It's really not necessary in the nuclear age. No nuclear power has ever been invaded domestically. Because it's a losing proposition. If you win the ground war, they have nothing to lose so they launch them. But we're idiots over here, we have this manchausen syndrome where our CIA creates problems that eventually blow back in our face, at which point we can launch all out invasions under the pretense of self-defense. This might include installing the Shah in Iran. Or giving bioweapons to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq conflict. Or arming afghani warriors to fight the Soviets. Or paying off Musharraf in Pakistan to be a puppet. Terrorist propaganda becomes effective because of this shit.

Nowhere else in the world has a more libertarian system than us, as near as I can tell, and it handicaps us.

Price fixing interest rates = socialist
Bailout out bankruptcy with forcibly appropriated money = socialist
Allowing one industry to loan out money they don't have, at interest = socialist
Subsidizing one company and not another = socialist
Taxing one company and not another = socialist
Nationalizing private industry to be financed with forcibly appropriated money = socialist
Directing industry and research with forcibly appropriated money = socialist
Declaring lending standards discriminatory to low income people and forcing banks to remove them via the Community Reinvestment Act = socialist
Issuing a non-market determined or constitutional money, banning competing currencies, and taxing dollar debasement gains on gold as if it were income = socialist
Blocking nuclear power for 30 years = socialist
Blocking domestic oil drilling for 20 years = socialist


Actually no, they would just need to get enough market power, and apply it ruthlessly to stomp out competition wherever it rises.

Bullshit, no one but the government has endless streams of capital to buy up anything and everything. Only government monopolies are self-sustaining, because they're the only monopolies financed with forcibly appropriated money.

In your version of the world, AMD shouldn't exist. Aptera Motors shouldn't exist. Right? I mean, giant corporations a thousand times their size existed before they even entered the market. They should have been bought out. Oh, wait, what's that? Not all companies are publicly traded.

The reality is, in order for a MARKET monopoly (note: in an environment where they don't have access to government specific powers like inflation and subsidization) to stay that way is to continue to offering the best product at the best price. Because then there's no window, no opportunity for someone else to come in and eat into that marketshare. If a company is delivering crap or overcharging, however, that immediately opens a window for someone else to come in. That's how AMD got so large, Intel was doing exactly that with netburst architecture. Even with a monopoly position, competition was waiting in the wings.

Suppose Microsoft took XP off the market and put Windows 3.1 on the shelf? Do you think they wouldn't go bankrupt? Do you think a competitor wouldn't arise to take their place? Because they're an all-powerful monopoly, right? They don't have to deliver shit, they can just buy Macintosh and anyone else while they pay thousands of programmers to create a product that doesn't sell.

Doh. Someone doesn't understand basic market principles.

One of my favorites from the roaring 20's was the rate war. Slash your prices to nearly nothing, and let your company lose a lot of money, on the premise that the smaller company will go bankrupt before you do.

Actually, large businesses with lots of workers have far more overhead and are much more inefficiently run. That's why most businesses today are small businesses. My mother owns an advertising business for wedding directories with no one but herself employed. A local newspaper owned by the Gannett company recently created a staff of twenty people to try and compete with her. They lasted two years before the magazine ended the operation. It was costing way more money than it was bringing in, and the so-called greedy megagiant slashed it.

Nuttery, Ron Paul is the only politician who believes in the law? Seriously, that's what you're saying? He's probably the only Republican who believes in the law being supreme, but there's more than a few Democrats who believe in the supremacy of law (including some joker with a law degree from Harvard running for President...).

Supreme law is the constitution doofus. It's the law that came before all other laws, it's the laws against government to prevent them from becoming a tyrannical, collusive nuthouse like all other governments before it by assessing which powers, which enablements, it shouldn't have under any circumstances. And inflation was one of them. But after a couple hundred years, people became complacent, arrogant, and ignorant, like yourself, and politicians found that they could ignore it with impunity. There was no longer a bunch of gun-toting, tea-hating radicals ready to hang them on the nearest tree when they broke it. There was nothing but the opposing party. But that party loves to spend, too. So they compromise by allowing the other to break it so long as they get to break it in another way. Remember how the bailout failed and then got passed? They put some extra pork in there to get the votes they needed. Rum and arrowheads...

http://www.greenfaucet.com/economy/porky-the-bailout-bill/19680

Welcome to our country, and the socialist enablements that make this spending possible.

No, but he can still bribe the politicians to look the other way on violation of rights. They do it now, and I'm not sure why it would change, just because the companies have more money to spend (according to your theory).

The bottom line here is that attacking Democrats as being socialist is a huge fucking straw man. We like the free market, and we want it to work.

No, you don't, You don't even know what it is.

Most investment banks are now crying out to be regulated in the wake of this credit crisis, and given that they bribed the government into deregulating them in the first place, that should tell you something.

They're not crying to be regulated, they're crying to be bailed out after being regulated. What do you think regulation is exactly? Do you realize that the fundamental way in which banks operate is fraudulent? How do you regulate that? How do you oversee to make sure fraud is being conducted in the best way possible?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking#Money_creation

This is the type of nonsense I hear from the republicrat camp. Regulation, the buzzword of the day. It's meaningless. To "regulate" the bank runs this system was causing, the Federal Reserve was created to backstop bankruptcy. Yes, failure, that free market pinnacle that makes private business suffer and fear consequences for risk and imprudent policy. Or how about the FDIC, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INSURANCE on deposits. Don't worry, now you don't have to fear about losing your deposit on this scam industry. We've regulated it with the FDIC. OOPS, THE FEAR OF LOSING ONE'S DEPOSIT WAS WHAT DETERRED PEOPLE FROM GIVING IT TO HIGHLY LEVERAGED INVESTMENT BANKS OFFERING ABNORMAL YIELDS, CAUSING THAT BUSINESS MODEL TO GROW, CAUSING OTHER BANKS TO FOLLOW SUIT IN ORDER TO COMPETE.

The problem is regulation on fraudulent activity that should have never been allowed. It slowly but surely eliminated basic deterrents and self-regulating principles by backstopping risk and rewarding bad behavior.

Interesting, had never considered that before. Bio-fuels have been increasing mentioned in Australia over recent years, and there was even a story about a couple in a camper or something going around the country on used deep fryer oil.

The random percentages that he tosses around are laughable. The wildly outrageous numbers on hydrogen, bio fuel, ethanol and wind energy wouldn't even make good sci-fi. Windmills in the Dakotas could today produce all the energy needed for all the cars in the country??? If blacks and whites drove the same kinds of cars employment opportunities and wage discrepency would decrease by about 50%??? $26/barrel oil in 2035???

And yes indeed, let's trust unregulated free market corporate capitalism and the military to save our future. jeezus.

Shame on TED for lending credibility to such a fraud.

http://www.hiptechblog.com/2006/09/16/power-sprint-with-russian-power-boots/


Created by Russian scientist Viktor Gordeyev, the Power Boots is capable of propelling the wearer up to speeds of 25mph, with each step up to a distance of 13 feet! The boots use bio-fuels such as bio-diesel, vegetable oil, SVO and waste vegetable oil (WVO) to produce the propelling power whenever the user steps down on the metal platform.

Can

This is the patent for the reactor

http://www.rexresearch.com/pantone/pantone.htm

and the guy who came up with the idea is a sleaze bag apparently

http://pesn.com/2005/08/21/9600153_Paul_Pantone_in_Custody/

wiki page here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Pantone

not sure what is up with that particular video though, he adds some gas to the engine to start the effect, so i suppose he is "theoretically" creating bio fuel at the same time.

More detailed page about a similar mower in english:

http://jlnlabs.imars.com/bingofuel/pmcjlnen.htm