Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

Ethanol Will Not Be Our Clean, Green Savior!

By Murray Dobbin, The Tyee. Posted April 10, 2007.


As much as we may hope to the contrary, ethanol will not save us. Instead it will lead to more food and water shortages, and feed our unchecked consumption.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Citizens in industrialized societies will cling to their extravagant lifestyles and massive over-consumption for a while yet, it seems. Global climate change is still seen by most people -- even those who have no doubt of its human origins -- as something that can be fixed by legislation, tougher rules and punitive penalties on big polluters -- and that allegedly clean and green quick fix, ethanol.

Yes, we can all keep our individual chunks of steel, rubber and glass, those symbols of 20th century excess and irrationality, so long as we shift to burning alcohol.

This particular mass delusion was madness enough to inspire the still-ailing Fidel Castro out of his bed to write the first editorial he has written for the country's principal newspaper, Granma, since last falling ill last July. It's not as if there is a lack of issues for the grand old commander-in-chief to comment on. But this one he deemed the most important. Why?

To quote Castro himself: "More than three billion people in the world are being condemned to a premature death from hunger and thirst.... The sinister idea of turning foodstuffs into fuel was definitely established as the economic strategy of the U.S. foreign policy on Monday, March 26th last."

That was the day that President George Bush met with the Big Three auto CEOs and declared ethanol to be the next strategic fuel for the empire -- and a partial answer to its failed Middle East policies.

20 percent solution?

Castro was talking about corn but this is not the only grain that the ethanol pushers are talking about -- wheat, sunflower seeds, canola and other foodstuffs are already being used and targeted by, amongst others, the big oil companies. The demand for ethanol will be so enormous that only the largest and best capitalized corporations in the U.S. will be able to take advantage -- driving smaller producers out by driving up the price of corn.

Bush proclaimed coming out the meeting with the Big Three that he is aiming at reducing gasoline consumption by 20 percent in 10 years -- a staggering number if it is to be taken seriously, requiring 35 billion gallons of ethanol. Of course Bush and his corporate allies talked about using wood chips and switchgrass, too, but corn is the key. To produce that much ethanol would take 320 million tons of corn. The UN's Food and Agriculture Organizations (FAO) says that U.S. corn production in 2005 reached 280 million tons and the U.S. produces 40 percent of the world's corn, controlling the market price. It doesn't take complicated math to see that just to meet U.S. ethanol demands within 10 years will take up 46 percent of the world's corn supply.

This is an obscenity. Because most of these billions of tons of corn are now eaten by the world's people -- most of them poor -- or fed to their livestock. Ultimately, it means that the world will have to produce more and more grain just to stand still and at the same time that the demand for ethanol increases the price of corn. The FAO says the competition between grain for fuel and grain for food is already happening and was the principal explanation for the decline in world grain stocks during the first half of 2006.

As Castro pointed out in his Granma article, not only will corn be priced out of reach for millions, "What is worse, let the poor countries receive some financing to produce ethanol from corn or any other foodstuff and very soon not a single tree will be left standing to protect humanity from climate change." He also pointed out, demonstrating that his grasp of world events is as acute as ever, that the increased demand for grain for energy will also greatly exacerbate the already critical water shortage facing two thirds of humanity.

Discouraging numbers

Despite this catastrophic scenario there are still those who will argue that the trade-off has to be considered, that global climate change due to carbon emissions must be tackled. But recently two Canadian studies raised serious doubts about what we actually get in this morally questionable trade. The U.S. may well get a strategic replacement for oil but there are serious doubts the world's climate will benefit. One study was done by the Library of Parliament's Frédéric Forge working in its science and technology division. Forge says the benefit of the massive effort required to use 10 percent ethanol in all vehicles will be minor: "In fact, if 10 percent of the fuel used were corn-based ethanol [in other words, if it were used in all vehicles], Canada's greenhouse gas emissions would drop by approximately one percent."

But an unpublished study by Environment Canada says even this estimate is questionable. A recent CBC report -- it came and went with no one else touching it and was not repeated -- revealed that scientists at Environment Canada studied four vehicles of recent makes, comparing normal emissions with a 10 percent ethanol blend and using a range of driving conditions. The study revealed that there was virtually no statistically significant difference in greenhouse gas tail pipe emissions. Some of the hydrocarbon gas emissions actually increased under some conditions.

The delusional thinking that tells us we can maintain our current lifestyles and save the planet will, sooner or later, be relegated to history's dustbin. The sooner we dispose of that part of the delusion embodied by "salvation by ethanol" the better.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: ethanol

Murray Dobbin writes his State of the Nation column twice monthly for The Tyee.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
We are about to get what we deserve.
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 10, 2007 12:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For a nation unwilling to make shared sacrifices during wartime, except for the U.S. military and their families, the fate that will soon befall us after peak oil occurs will be our just desserts.

Even the thought of driving at slower speeds to conserve gasoline is too painful to bear.

Poor babies.

Hugh E. Scott, Vietnam vet and the editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh, I would agree with that... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Don't forget Posted by: sasquuatch55
More gloom and doom from the Left
Posted by: ISlamIslam on Apr 10, 2007 2:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The delusional thinking that tells us we can maintain our current lifestyles and save the planet will, sooner or later, be relegated to history's dustbin. The sooner we dispose of that part of the delusion embodied by "salvation by ethanol" the better."

And you and other Leftists can't wait to see it happen, can you!?! We currently pay farmers to NOT grow things, including corn. So why not let them grow more corn and use the ethanol to reduce our dependence on petroleum? But of course the author wouldn't promote this, because the real Leftist agenda isn't to find a green energy source that would allow us to maintain our high standard of living. It's to see our way of life come to an end so that it is more in line with Third World countries across the globe, so we can all be equally miserable. Leftists just can't stand the idea of America having it so much better than any other country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "BETTER"... than any other country"? Posted by: makeadifference
So what is your BETTER idea then?
Posted by: halg on Apr 10, 2007 3:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Brazil claims to be nearly 100% free of oil dependency as of this year. That means if their oil imports were somehow cut off, life in Brazil would just kind of go along as it always has, albeit people might have to cut back on energy consumption a little bit for some time.

Of course, Brazil is using sugar cane to make its ethanol. Sugar cane, as I understand it, is far more efficient for making ethanol. I heard someone mention that while sugar cane would not grow well in most parts of the US, sugar beets might.

I probably would agree with the poster who pointed out that we should end farm subsidies designed to stop farmers from growing. It just might make sense in this context, although I am not sure if it might hurt small farmers, if any still exist.

I think it is OK for the blogger to point out potential pitfalls in our current approach to ethanol production, namely, using corn. But it would be nice if he would have accompanied his complaint with a proper alternative solution to our energy needs. In particular, I would have been very interested in how Brazil is able to accomplish this feat, yet we can't. Merely pointing out problems without a better approach is irresponsible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: So what is your BETTER idea then? Posted by: tommy_slothrop
» How Brazil does it: Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: How Brazil does it: Posted by: Benjaminsjw
salshep
Posted by: salshep123 on Apr 10, 2007 4:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A somewhat positive-direction-scenario is that the better, but still not good enough, energy return of cellulosic ethanol over corn ethanol may result in the turning back of hundreds of thousands of acres of corn to what was originally there, the perennial switchgrass ie. prairie grass.
A positive in the fight between grain for fuel and grain for food is that it may result in the demise of the feedlot industry as the rise of feedgrain prices squeezes out the profitability.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As long as Archer Daniels Midland is happy, we should be thrilled!
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Apr 10, 2007 4:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where else would Nixon have gotten his secret cash stash? Who else would have supplied all of those corporate jet rides for Republican candidates over the years? Who else can be counted on to contribute millions to every Republican cause and candidate year after year using every strategem permitted by law and bending it beyond the breaking point at every safe opportunity?

Who cares that ethanol is completely impractical as an environmental solution or that food prices will skyrocket? ADM will be happy and the cash will keep flowing while we claim to be adressing it. We can confuse the issue enough that most people will just get tired of it and we won't have to really do anything much in that direction. That way we can keep two of our major contributers (ADM and big oil) happy and deflect criticism with claims of positive environmental impact. Next we get big coal into the equation with gasification schemes (which we can subsidize the hell out of) and claim the mantle of environmentalism. Worked ok with the drug program - there's one born every minute.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» BTW this is a great tactic! Posted by: UnEasyOne
Pipe Dreams
Posted by: guybjones on Apr 10, 2007 4:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know, truth really has no relevance anymore. People see what they want to see, not what things are. But, 'twas always thus. Ethanol is a perfect example. A lot of folks believe it's going to save us from our dependence on gasoline. They can't be convinced otherwise, regardless of the evidence proffered them. However, the most telling stat that no ethanol supporter wants to address, or perhaps isn't even aware of, is that even if all U.S. cropland were devoted to growing biomass for ethanol purposes, it would only displace ~6-7% of our petroleum usage!!! That reveals how much of the stuff we are using, 20 million barrels a day. Never mind that growing crops for fuel for our cars is inherently inefficient and an absurd waste of resources. I won't even address the accepted fact that ethanol consumes more petroleum in its production than it saves, nor the negative environmental consequences of growing ethanol crops, nor the effects on rising food costs. Look, it comes down to the fact that nobody in America - not drivers, not industry, and certainly not politicians - wants to wean America off the car-centric culture that is going to become a relic of the past whether we want it to or not. The politicians are useless on this issue - nobody wants to rock the boat and tell Americans that the status quo is unsustainable. The politicians will always have another "miracle" energy solution to tout, whether it's tar sands, or oil shale, or hydrogen, or ethanol, because it's easier to talk about things that purport to allow us to maintain the status quo, than to actually ask Americans to start changing their lifestyle and to get the government involved in serious efforts that would make a real difference - like mass transit investment and higher CAFE fuel economy standards. No politician wants to be perceived as alarmist, as upsetting the rosy, idyllic suburban American way of life. That's the U.S.'s Achilles heel - complacency and an unbelievable sense of entitlement. The country is in for a very rude awakening.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pipe Dreams Posted by: cottontail
» RE: Pipe Dreams Posted by: peaknik35
There IS no one better idea ... that's why we have to change
Posted by: ebishirl on Apr 10, 2007 6:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read George Monbiot's "Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning," and then decide what's the best route. Monbiot dissects each aspect of our economy and how much carbon it produces, then fastidiously crunches the numbers to determine whether we can maintain a "modern" lifestyle while still reducing greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to stave off climate catastrophe (he determines it must be 90 percent by 2030). It can be done, he concludes, in all but one sector (air travel), but it will take a major overhaul in infrastructure and the public will, top to bottom, to achieve it.

And that's where the problem lies: in the will to make meaningful changes. As Monbiot puts it: If governments "that have expressed a commitment to stopping climate change have found their efforts frustrated, it is partly because they wanted them to be frustrated. They know that inside their electors there is a small but insistent voice asking them both to try and to fail. They know that if they had the misfortune to succeed, our lives would have to change. They know that we can contemplate a transformation of anyone's existence but our own."

It's not a liberal plot, it's not the left wing taking glee at predicting doom and calling for radical transformations in how we live: it's reality calling.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Did you check out Radio Uprising? Posted by: cool it down
a farmer's perspective--all you have to do is see who is behind it
Posted by: zooeyhall on Apr 10, 2007 6:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a grain farmer in Nebraska, where I grow corn and soybeans on a small (160 acre) farm.

Don't be fooled by all the propaganda about how ethanol and other fuels made from food crops are going to free us from dependence on imported oil, reduce emissions, etc. etc.

For my proof just look at who is beating the drum in support of it. Monsanto, ADM, Cargill, etc.---we all know their real motivation. And of course there are the prostitute politicians out here in farm country who know they can never go wrong giving a speech about promoting bio fuels.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Guillermo
Posted by: Willy on Apr 10, 2007 6:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The (wrong) emphasis on corn as a source of ethanol is already casing the price of food, both of humans and animals, to rise. We must modify our life style.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

why americans use 3 times the energy of western Europe?
Posted by: richholland on Apr 10, 2007 6:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I fear the people who read alternet already care about the world.
To destroy the rainforest to produce palmpits into gas into your SUV and produce soya into McHamburger will creat terrorists.
S0 what to do?????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A matter of mathematics
Posted by: Trazom on Apr 10, 2007 6:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I appreciate the author's inclusion of numbers in this article so we can all truly see just how absurd is this 20% reduction in 10 years proposal. That being said, I think it is laughable to think we are going to wean ourselves off from gasoline dependence without paying for it dearly in other ways, such as with food prices and the environment. As another poster said there are no free rides anymore - everything we do from here on has serious negative consequences.

I wonder if the 35 billion gallons of ethanol required to reduce gasoline consumption by 20% in 10 years takes into account the fact that per unit of volume, ethanol has 30% less energy than gasoline? That means we need to consume 30% more ethanol than the equivalent volume of gasoline, just to get the same mileage out of the tank. I certainly hope this is factored into the above numbers. Additionally, the article does not mention the effects of population growth, which serve only to hamper efforts to curb gasoline usage by supplanting it with ethanol. If US gasoline consumption (forgetting about the rest of the world for a moment) grows at a nominal 2% per year, then total consumption in ten years time will be 21% higher than what it is today. Which means that the 35 billion gallons of ethanol required will instead be 42 billion gallons, or 387 tons of corn (or 55% of 2005 world production). If the increased consumption due to population growth exceeds the rate at which new supplies of corn come online, then the effect on food prices will only get worse.

Ironically, I heard the other day that global warming could actually help corn production in the US, at least in the short term, due to a longer growing season. Other countries may also for the first time be able to start growing it. Still, it seems highly improbable that world corn production will be enough to meet the demands of this proposal without seriously affecting food prices. Can you imagine what it would be like if food prices doubled in 10 years or less? That's what we're talking about with this ridiculous notion that ethanol will save us. Not only will it not reduce the price of gasoline, or cut down much (if at all) on carbon emissions, but will result in the mass extinction of much of the 3rd world populations and result in a new wave of poverty for everyone else.

We need a solution that does not rob Peter to pay Paul. We need 100% sustainable systems like wind, hydro, and geothermal to create electricity for our homes and cars.
Let the oil keep flowing for industry and home heating oil as needed, until we can come up with a real way to rid ourselves entirely of oil dependence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A matter of mathematics Posted by: richholland
» RE: A matter of mathematics Posted by: browta
Butanol
Posted by: chomsky on Apr 10, 2007 6:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whats up with the American mentality that there is only 1 solution to the gasoline problem? Ethanol. And ethanol can ONLY be fermented from corn. Why corn? Corn produces an estimated 400 gallons per acre. Switchgrass can produce around 1000 gallons of ethanol per acre. Switchgrass is also much cheaper to grow and can grow in many more places. Plus it's not a common foodstuff.

And why ethanol? There is another alcohol that can be fermented from starch (and cellulose) thats under development called butanol. Butanol is much more chemically similar to gasoline and can run in an engine unmodified. It lacks many of the problems of producing ethanol. And as a bonus, the fermentation produces hydrogen.
http://www.butanol.com/

Even so, our gluttonous consumption of energy has to end. But if we must use internal combustion, why not butanol? Or abandon the dirty and high maintence internal combustion engine. Like the steam-powered Cyclone Engine.
http://www.cyclonepower.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not a panacea but not the next axis of evil either
Posted by: farmerjames on Apr 10, 2007 6:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems the writer and many of the commentors have a lot of misconceptions about ethonal, ag policy and the farm bill. First of all as a farmer, higher corn prices are good. We've been producing this commodity under the cost of production for years. Higher corn prices means that large confinement livestock facilities must pay full price for their feed rather than have it be subsidized by our agricultural policy. This begins to even the playing field for diversified animal producers like myself.
Secondly the corn I grow is yellow corn, not the white corn used for food production. These markets are not directly connected, meaning increased costs of yellow corn do not automatically drive up the cost of white (food) corn. Check out the Institute for Ag and Trade Policy for a more indepth discussion about the increase of white corn costs in Mexico and how NAFTA and the concentration of their tortilla market is largely to blame.
The writer also expresses concerns that ethonal will be produced from many different feed stock including oil seed. While a fuel is being produced from oil seed, it's not ethonal, but instead biodiesel which has a much better energy conversion ratio than corn ethonal.
I also want to point out that I don't believe there's one answer for our energy needs. I think the first thing we need to do is increase efficiency. This is the cheapest and fastest way to lower our dependence of foriegn oil and lower green house emissions. Secondly I believe the next generation of vehicles will have a much more diverse fuel source than today's fleet. Ranging from plug in hybrids and fully electric cars (hopefully powered by renewable energy like wind) to efficient biodiesel engines and ethonal burning cars.
Remember there are still a few of us living in the hinterlands who need personal transportation as well as powered equipment to farm the land.
Hopefully there will still be some family farmers and ranchers left to have an opinion on issues like this.
Lastly one of the commentors said "we're paying farmers not to grow" and that's not exactly true. US farm policy is schizophrenic on this issue. Programs like the Concervation Reserve Program, do pay farmers to idle land. However, the commodity programs pay farmers for their production, so the more they produce, if prices are at the right level, the more we recieve from the government. Let me say this again, many payments are made on the buschles we produce
Thanks for the debate, it's good to see a large group of people struggling with our energy and food policy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is the effect of an Carless Sunday???
Posted by: richholland on Apr 10, 2007 7:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On 24 th of September this year the Dutch government plans a sunday without the use of automobiles for private usage.

What would be if America would to the same???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Solar power
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Apr 10, 2007 7:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alternet never seems to get around to addressing the rising prospects of solar power directly.

One question I've had in mind, though: why must each home and each business have its own installation?

Why doesn't the local utility set aside an area of land for a solar farm:

1) Somewhere out in the light (as opposed to buildings which may be shaded by other buildings, or homes that may be shaded by trees).

2) No need for a whole series of individual, custom roof-top installations. One place, one means. (Cost advantage).

3) No need for individual inverters, meters or batteries. (Cost advantage).

4) No need for individuals to pay the whole cost at once. Just kick what you can afford into the solar farm pot each year and it will use all of the investments to add capacity. (Front end costs have always been the major deterrent for solar).

5) No need for everyone to individually maintain their custom systems. One guy could be employed make sure the panels are clear and clean, keep them properly oriented and so on.

6) The amount that you invest in the solar farm determines the reduction applied to your monthly electrical bill. Basically, for every hundred dollars, you get a constant amount of solar power area working for you.

Any comments on this approach?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ok.. here are a few comments. Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Ok.. here are a few comments. Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: Ok.. here are a few comments. Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Solar power Posted by: Trazom
» RE: Solar power Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: Solar power Posted by: fanny666
» RE: Solar power Posted by: MartianBachelor
If ethanol was our savior, it wouldn't need billions in government subsidies...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Apr 10, 2007 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...to prop it up. It could catch on by itself, just like embryonic stem cell research, and many other meldings of engineering and scientific endeavors.

The fact that ethanoler's are looking for their place at the trough of "do-it-all...poorly" government isn't surprising. The fact that we as a people allow our tax dollars to fund the bottomless trough is, somewhat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Long Emergency
Posted by: NoPCZone on Apr 10, 2007 8:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"No combination of alternative fuels will allow us to run American life the way we have been used to running it, or even a substantial fraction of it... These days, even people who ought to know better are wishing ardently for a seamless transition from fossil fuels to their putative replacements.

The widely touted "hydrogen economy" is a particularly cruel hoax. We are not going to replace the U.S. automobile and truck fleet with vehicles run on fuel cells. For one thing, the current generation of fuel cells is largely designed to run on hydrogen obtained from natural gas. The other way to get hydrogen in the quantities wished for would be electrolysis of water using power from hundreds of nuclear plants. Apart from the dim prospect of our building that many nuclear plants soon enough, there are also numerous severe problems with hydrogen's nature as an element that present forbidding obstacles to its use as a replacement for oil and gas, especially in storage and transport.

Wishful notions about rescuing our way of life with "renewables" are also unrealistic. Solar-electric systems and wind turbines face not only the enormous problem of scale but the fact that the components require substantial amounts of energy to manufacture and the probability that they can't be manufactured at all without the underlying support platform of a fossil-fuel economy. We will surely use solar and wind technology to generate some electricity for a period ahead but probably at a very local and small scale.

Virtually all "biomass" schemes for using plants to create liquid fuels cannot be scaled up to even a fraction of the level at which things are currently run. What's more, these schemes are predicated on using oil and gas "inputs" (fertilizers, weed-killers) to grow the biomass crops that would be converted into ethanol or bio-diesel fuels. This is a net energy loser -- you might as well just burn the inputs and not bother with the biomass products. Proposals to distill trash and waste into oil by means of thermal depolymerization depend on the huge waste stream produced by a cheap oil and gas economy in the first place."
JHK

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Long Emergency Posted by: Klaus
Based on what?
Posted by: mikelz on Apr 10, 2007 8:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your said: "..driving smaller producers out by driving up the price of corn."

What is your basis for this conclusion?
Higher prices can only help small and family run farms.

Of course the bigger companies are going to make more money that anyone else. Cash is another word for capital. Capital investment makes industrial production possible.

What were you expecting? A redistribution of wealth resulting from a change in automobile fuel.

Thanks,
Mike Elzey

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Based on what? Posted by: fanny666
We need to stop burning things for energy.
Posted by: fanny666 on Apr 10, 2007 8:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need to stop oxidizing both hydrocarbons (oil) and carbodydrates (corn) for fuel. Both lead to carbon dioxide. Combustion is inefficient. Resources should be spent on developing solar-based fuel cells.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

frank67
Posted by: frank67 on Apr 10, 2007 8:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those of us who are old enough to remember when passenger trains operated everywhere...on time and inexpensive..."Those were the days, my friends." And trolleys...Japan has replaced their main trolley lines with monorails! What happened here? NOTHING! The trains and trolleys just "went away," courtesy of GE, Westinghouse, and OIL corporations. To loosely paraphrase Claude Rains in "Casablanca," "Im shocked, highway robbery going on here." Ethanol from corn is a net fossil fuel loser!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

dick
Posted by: rtmyth on Apr 10, 2007 8:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ethanol will make a few wealthy folks even richer, at the expense of the rest of us. Here's how: Ethanol producers will be directly subsidized by taxpayers. In turn, the producers buy the famers' corn , causing its price to rise, thus increasing the cost to taxpayers for numerous food products. The public gets hit both ways. A reasonable, available solution to the problem is to manufacture lighter weight, lower powered autos, and to add extra taxes, based on horsepower and mileage ,to the high power, luxury vehicles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: dick Posted by: Trazom
» RE: dick Posted by: mikelz
The Ethanol Hoax
Posted by: fanny666 on Apr 10, 2007 8:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Ethanol Hoax

Another article on the subject.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another non sequitur
Posted by: mikelz on Apr 10, 2007 8:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You wrote: "...ethanol will not save us. Instead it will lead to more food and water shortages..."

OK, you live in Vancouver. That's not exactly the Great Plains of North America. I live in Ohio. We grow loads of corn, soy, alfalfa, apples and so on.

Water shortage? In all the miles I have driven through Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Iowa, I never once saw a corn field or bean field being watered. It's called farming. You take what the weather gives you. The fields give off more humidity for rainfall than the Great Lakes.

Food Shortage: I don't think the math has changed much. If we threw out the ledgers, the agricultural production of Canada and the U.S. would feed the world with plenty to spare. At least that's what Buckminster Fuller said (so did Bob Geldolf).

Other than some easily recalled famines, Food Shortages come from overpopulation and poverty.

Please go scare people somewhere else. Do you work for the Bush administration?

Mike Elzey

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Another non sequitur Posted by: mikelz
» "Possession" - not ownership Posted by: henderson
» Why does everyone say that??? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
This is the most uniformed article ever
Posted by: mikelz on Apr 10, 2007 8:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As Larry the Cable Guy says, "It's like wipin' your butt before you poop. It just doesn't make any sense."

Mike Elzey

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The USA: Ethanol Supermarket to the World?
Posted by: Karen Orr on Apr 10, 2007 9:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cows are ruminants, which means God designed them to eat grass. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration thinks it knows better. It lets corporations feed chicken manure to cows because, among other reasons, corn is becoming expensive.

Why would anyone – let alone beef-eating, milk-drinking, bird-flu-fearing Americans – risk forcing any animal in our food chain to swallow chicken manure? Standing in their own foul waste and forced to eat fowl waste, feedlot cows have reason to be mad. So do we.

How much profit justifies the government’s perpetuation of such dangerous, sickening cruelty in our names? Furthermore, our government that abhors terrorists, is terrorizing and legislating taxpayers into consuming agriculturally, economically, and environmentally ruinous and impractical fake fuels produced in scores of smoke-stacked, water-wasting, explosion-prone, toxic, U.S.-fouling, community-evacuation-planning chemical factories.

The complete Energy Tribune article by Ray Wallace can be read at this link:
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=439#

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

US agriculture uses way too much fossil fuel to be sustainable
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Apr 10, 2007 10:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As well, global warming is going to reduce the amount and productivity of arable land; already US corn farmers have had to abandon plans to double-crop corn due to unseasonable weather. Add to that the fact that US ethanol production is done in coal-fired distilleries, and you see that the US ethanol program is not at all carbon-neutral - but neither is US agriculture.

You also have to understand that the fossil fuel industry hates competetion from alternative fuels, solar, electric cars, energy efficiency - they'd rather have you use coal-fired electricity and drive a 12mpg SUV - helps keep the oil price high. The fossil fuel PR war against sustainable energy practicves has been gpoing on for over a century... and of course they'll attack biofuels if they think it'll cut into their markets, just as they attack climate science.

There are sustainable biofuel production approaches however, and by far the most promising is algal pond biofuel production. There is a great article on this available at http://www.unh.edu/p2/ biodiesel/article_alge.html. It doesn't require arable land, and algal biomass is free of wood - after all, all oil deposits were the result of algal photosynthesis millions of years ago.

By the way, the title of this piece is ridiculous - no saviors are gonna ride up on white horses to save us, and anyone who thinks so is an idiot. If you can't figure out how to live sustainably, then you deserve what you will get - Soylent Green Biscuits.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Science vs Voodoo
Posted by: cdriscol on Apr 10, 2007 11:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am surprised that Alernet published this article as full of inaccuracies as it is. For example, the author writes:

"The study revealed that there was virtually no statistically significant difference in greenhouse gas tail pipe emissions. Some of the hydrocarbon gas emissions actually increased under some conditions."

The author obviously thinks ethanol is no more "green," than fossil fuels. The fact is, however, that ethanol only releases greenhouse gases that it absorbed earlier in its life cycle, therefore there is no net increase in greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere, unlike fossil-based fuels which are releasing greenhouse gases that were sequestered far underground for tens of millions of years.

The environmental movement's major split has always been between those who are science- and technology-oriented and those who are anti-science and anti-technology.

After studying the human damage to the natural environment and its solutions for decades, I am more convinced than ever that appropriately applied science and technology will fix the problem and allow us to live fruitful, fulfilling lives at the same time.

The anti-scitech people have only one solution to offer: retreat to an 18th century technology with a Pol Potish death march out of the cities into the farmlands. Any reasonable person could see that the back-to-the-farm approach might work, but it would certainly kill two-thirds of the people alive today.

We know the problem: toxic air, ground and water pollution is yielding the largest biological die-off in 65 million years. Human generated greenhouse gases seem to have become so excessive that they are actually acting as a major input to Earth’s climate and oceanic systems, an input the outcome of which we are not very sure of. In both cases, the toxic pollution and the greenhouse gases, the major sources are the same: energy and agriculture. The solutions are equally clear: we need to learn to use renewable, clean alternatives to fossil fuels and we need to learn to grow more, and safer/healthier food on far less land in a more ecologically benign manner. Ethanol from foodstuffs is a short-term solution. Within a few years most of food-based ethanol will be replaced by cellulotic bio-fuel production from non-food sources. That will also be a short-to-near-term solution, replaced eventually by a purely hydrogen economy with advanced molecular engineered nanotech-based hydrogen fuel cells, or perhaps, even some energy source we have yet to discover!

All credible scientists, technologist and scholars who study technological progress (I count myself amongst them) agree that if our society devotes the funding to it, these problems can be solved. It is the political will that lags not the science, and in many cases these days, the political will lags because of the sick, postmodernist malaise that has infected a large part of our culture. Those who say “we should all consume less” often don’t seem to understand that the sacrifice required by their solution will fall on the poor and working class most, the middle and upper classes the least. These are really regressive, anti-working-class ideas for solving the global environmental crisis.

The United States today is spending about $1.5 billion on hydrogen research. We spent the equivalent in today's dollars about $100 billion to send a few dozen men to the moon, once, never to return. Shouldn't we be spending as much on the fuel that is the most abundant element in the known Universe, the fuel that will create for the entire world an abundant future?

Sincerely,
Chris Driscoll, 2006 Populist Nominee for Governor of Maryland http://www.driscoll2006.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Science vs Voodoo Posted by: djnoll
Back to the Caves
Posted by: apophenia_monkey on Apr 10, 2007 11:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
while it's an ad hominem, i'm not overly concerned--anyone writing in a glowing manner of fidel castro deserves to be written off as a joke. same goes for those who run their tongues up the back of bush 43s trousers for that matter.

next, some folks, apparently this bloke murray dobbins won't be happy until we're living in caves and picking lice out of each other's hair and foraging for leaves and twigs to eat.

i LOVE MY FREAKIN CAR YOU FRUITLOOP. i also love hot showers, the internet, a federal republic, and the other good things that come with civilisation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» and... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: and...Part 4 Posted by: mjabele
» RE: and...Part 4 Posted by: Benjaminsjw
» RE: and...Part 4 Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» and Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: and Posted by: apophenia_monkey
» RE: Back to the Caves Posted by: Benjaminsjw
Beyond the "hydrogen economy"
Posted by: Bart Thesc on Apr 10, 2007 12:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we were to build the nuclear plants to crack the hydrogen, why would we be turning the power into hydrogen and then back into electricity inside the engine? Why not just plug the car into the socket in the garage, thus bypassing the hydrogen issue completely and using the existing infrastrusture? Could it be that somebody might have an interest in building an unnecessary hydrogen infrastructure to replace the petroleum one that will be going away and that they will need hydrogen fueling stations at the front end of that infrastructure?

Maybe that's too logical.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why not use HYDROGEN????
Posted by: anonimus1 on Apr 10, 2007 12:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hydrogen boosters are already being used by many truckers up in Canada, to save gas. Why won't America allow this, too?

Why wait? Just create your own...

http://waterpoweredcar.com/hydrobooster2.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You too are an idiot!!! Posted by: EagleMB
» EAGLE MB? Posted by: anonimus1
» RE: AGLE MB? Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Certainly... Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Did you watch the video? Posted by: EagleMB
Call Me A Cynic....but "Jeb Bush Encouraged Brother to..
Posted by: picket on Apr 10, 2007 4:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pursue Ethanol" an article by David Adams.
"Jeb Bush wrote to his brother in April urging the president to implement 'a comprehensive ethanol strategy' for our country and our hemisphere."
Jeb Bush was already in deep talks with the Brazilian ethanol industry about a joint partnership. In December, two weeks before leaving office he[Jeb] co-founded The Interamerican Ethanol Commission to promote regional production."
Dairy farmers are already complaining that the price of corn to feed their livestock has doubled in our country. Who needs cheap food anyway? Buy stock in the Bush Ethanol Corporations!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

wrong approach
Posted by: greekTowner on Apr 10, 2007 11:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we need a real way to rid ourselves entirely of CAR dependence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Force a change from corn to cellulose ethanol
Posted by: MountainMike on Apr 11, 2007 9:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ethanol is a good alternative to MTBE and could be a good intermediate step to reduce our dependence on mideast oil. However, the whole effort to develop ethanol has been ripped off by huge Agricorps who are now putting millions of acres in monocropping corn. What no one wants to tell the public is that producing ethanol in this manner requires huge government subsidies and requires burning fossil fuels for its production to the point that we would better off just burning the fossil fuels in our cars.

In the meantime, the price of corn has increased dramatically. That means the cost of animal feed using corn has increased, and the price of meat, pork and chicken has increased. Getting government to invest huge subsidies in corn ethanol at the same time we mandated a change from MTBE (a gas additive to decrease emissions) to ethanol, has been a major driving force behind the prices at the pumps increasing now to a record breaking level.

Cellulose ethanol can be derived from sources such as crop wastes, switchgrass, lumber wastes, fast growing poplar trees or "Monster Cane." The Japanese are developing "Monster Cane as a source as it grows like a weed in places such as Okinawa yet offers high sugar and cellulose content. Switchgrass is a native wild plant to North America, is perennial, insect and drought resistent, requires no tilling or rows and yields a very large tonnage of cellulose per acre.

We are missing an opportunity here to go with Switchgrass and provide a boost to family farmers. Bales of Switchgrass can be taken to local ethanol plants that power themselves by cogeneration. The entire ethanol industry could be decentralized away from the current Agricorp corn ethanol monopoly.

If we were all driving flex fuel vehicles with mixes of up to 85 and 95 percent ethanol, it would drastically reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This would serve to give us more time to develop other sources of fuel that are a true 100 percent alternative to oil. We are making breakthroughs daily in solar power technology and battery technology. It is with our reach currently to develop a home-vehicle system that would allow us to unplug from the grid and the power plants burning coal and plug in our electric vehicles with batteries producing more power and going much longer distances between recharging. Decentralizing our sources of energy would make us independent of such corporate oil and corn ethanol monopolies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Does the article miss the point?
Posted by: EagleMB on Apr 11, 2007 11:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is the purpose of using ethanol to switch to a cleaner energy source, or is the purpose to relieve reliance on foreign oil? Ultimately the goal should be to find an alternative to do both (which is why Hydrogen is being researched so heavily), but it seems to me that the sole reason for pushing ethanol is that it can be created domestically.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Peak Soil: Why Biofuels are Not Sustainable and a Threat to America
Posted by: Karen Orr on Apr 14, 2007 9:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The nation that destroys its soil destroys itself." - President Franklin D. Roosevelt


Peak Soil: Why Cellulosic ethanol and other Biofuels are Not Sustainable and are a Threat to America’s National Security

 Part 1. The Dirt on Dirt.
 Part 2. The Poop on Ethanol: Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROEI)
 Part 3. Biofuel is a Grim Reaper.
 Part 4. Biodiesel: Can we eat enough French Fries?
 Part 5. If we can’t drink and drive, then burn baby burn. - Energy Crop Combustion
 Part 6. The problems with Cellulosic Ethanol could drive you to drink.
 Part 7. Where do we go from here?
 Appendix
 Department of Energy's Biofuel Roadmap Barriers
 References

There are many serious problems with biofuels, especially on a massive scale, and it appears from this report that they cannot be surmounted. So let the truth of Alice Friedemann’s meticulous and incisive diligence wash over you and rid you of any confusion or false hopes. The absurdity and destructiveness of large scale biofuels are a chance for people to eventually even reject the internal combustion engine and energy waste in general.

The author looks ahead to post-petroleum living with considered conclusions: "Biofuels have yet to be proven viable, and mechanization may not be a great strategy in a world of declining energy." And, "…only a small amount of biomass (is) unspoken for" by today’s essential economic and ecological activities.

Alice Friedemann points out, "Crop production is reduced when residues are removed from the soil. Why would farmers want to sell their residues?"

She also notes, "As prices of fertilizer inexorably rise due to natural gas depletion, it will be cheaper to return residues to the soil than to buy fertilizer."

Alice Friedemann's article can be read at Culture Change:
http://www.culturechange.org/cms/index.php

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement