Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • 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

Pumping Up Ethanol

By Amanda Griscom Little, Grist.org. Posted February 28, 2006.


Ethanol is suddenly all the rage in D.C. and Detroit. But does the biofuel distract from the more crucial need to raise the gas mileage of American cars?
Advertisement

It was as befuddling to see the "Live Green, Go Yellow" slogan splashed across the General Motors ads running throughout the Olympics as it was to hear the term "switchgrass" uttered by President Bush in his State of the Union speech last month. Here we have GM and Dubyah, two of the world's most entrenched and heavy-hitting advocates of fossil-fuel consumption, suddenly trumpeting homegrown biofuels as the up-and-coming alternative to oil.

Greenwashing, you wonder?

On some level, of course. But there's more to it. GM's new high-budget campaign, which promotes the use of ethanol (hence the "yellow"), is tethered to a decision to manufacture 400,000 flexible-fuel vehicles (FFVs) in 2006 that are capable of burning either gasoline or an ethanol/gasoline blend. That's nearly 50 percent more than the company produced last year.

GM wants to do for FFVs what Toyota has done for hybrids. It's working with politicians and other companies including Chevron to expand the distribution of E85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, to gas stations across the nation. "Our goal is to eventually remove the automobile from the energy and environment debate, to neutralize its impact on the planet," GM spokesperson Dave Barthmuss told Muckraker. "That's why we're so bullish about alternative fuels."

Nicholas Eisenberger of the environmental consulting firm GreenOrder, which has been working with GM on its FFV campaign, says, "It's hardly just a PR gambit -- it's a big bet. You can't put that many vehicles on the road -- before a nationwide infrastructure exists, mind you -- and put all this energy into helping fuel providers and retailers make the switch to ethanol if you don't believe in it."

Bush, for his part, pledged last month to promote the development of "cellulosic" ethanol, which can be efficiently produced from agricultural waste products like wood chips or from, yes, switchgrass, and which is far more environmentally beneficial than the corn-derived variety. "Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years," he said in the State of the Union -- a far more definitive show of support for oil alternatives than we've heard from him in the past.

There's plenty of reason to doubt the president's sincerity -- for one thing, he has not yet committed nearly the level of funding necessary to pull off such a feat. But some enviros are hopeful nevertheless. "We were amazed to hear him voice this commitment," said Nathanael Greene, a renewable-energy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "He framed it exactly as we would have."

And rather than temper his ethanol boosterism in the weeks since the State of the Union, Bush has been pumping it up. "All of a sudden, you may be in the energy business," Bush joked to a crowd of supporters in Nashville, Tenn., earlier this month. "You know, by being able to grow grass on the ranch and have it harvested and converted into energy. And that's what's close to happening."

Last week, Bush sent six cabinet secretaries to over a dozen states to tout renewable energy; he alone hit three states in two days to promote the cause. On Feb. 21, the president planted his biofuels bully pulpit in Golden, Colo., at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (which, in preparation for the visit, scrambled to rehire nearly three dozen researchers who'd been given the boot because of budget cuts approved by Bush's own pen).

"There is a fantastic technology brewing -- I say brewing, it's kind of a catch on words here -- called ethanol," he said to an audience well aware of this development. "I mean, it's -- there's a lot of folks in the Midwest driving -- using what's called E85 gasoline ... This is exciting news for those of us worried about addiction to oil."

The unexpected commitments coming from both the White House and Detroit are occurring against a backdrop of other public- and private-sector efforts to promote biofuels. Ford has increased its FFV production by about 15 percent this year. Bipartisan coalitions in Congress, state-level officials, venture capital firms, and environmental groups have also been ramping up their efforts to promote both FFVs and E85.

Against the Grain

Though we're witnessing a sudden onslaught of interest in ethanol, there's nothing new about the technology. Ethanol is essentially grain alcohol, and was used in early versions of Ford's Model T. FFV technology has been around for decades and spread through parts of Europe and the developing world. About half of the vehicles sold in Brazil last year were FFVs. In fact, there are already some 5 million FFVs on the road in the U.S. -- the vast majority just rarely if ever run on E85 because it has such limited availability. Only about 600 of the approximately 168,000 fueling stations in the U.S. sell the ethanol blend.


Digg!

Amanda Griscom Little writes the Muckraker column for Grist Magazine.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! 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:
Regarding the energy balance...
Posted by: ahmlco on Feb 28, 2006 3:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One way to address the energy balance involved would be to utilize existing resources. We already grow acres upon acres upon acres of grass, harvest it, and deliver it to a centralized location. I'm talking, of course, about our front and back yards.

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

Forget Corn & Soy
Posted by: theskywolf on Feb 28, 2006 4:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cannabis Hemp is by far more efficient than any other plant for biofuels. In some parts of the U.S. two crops per year could be managed, and it can be grown on marginal land, not needed for food crops. Hemp does, however, interplant very well with corn and soybeans and is fully symbiotic. Hemp requires none of the hazardous pesticides and herbicides needed for corn or soybeans.

Yes, biofuels are the most efficient, effective fossil fuel replacement. But corn and soybeans aren't the answer. Hemp is the best choice. So relegalize it, and start saving humanity.

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

» RE: Forget Corn & Soy Posted by: J-
» RE: Forget Corn & Soy Posted by: gar
» RE: Forget Corn & Soy Posted by: Lincoln fan
GMOs and Sprawl, too
Posted by: anothername on Feb 28, 2006 4:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Monsanto already has developed a genetically-modified corn for use in ethanol.

Residents near St. Paul, Minnesota, objected to the stench of an ethanol processing plant that operates near them.

Better fuel mileage does nothing to erase all the other harm done by automobiles, including parking lots instead of the historic buildings, wetlands, and parks those often empty lots have replaced. In addition, by driving, we are able to buy more products at Wal-Mart on a Saturday morning or running home after work on Tuesday evening, instead of taking walks to our local merchants for smaller quantities but more sustainable commerce and neighborhoods.

This society is wasteful, whether we use oil or some other fuel. It is why nitrogen oxide pollution decreased after catalytic converters were required on automobiles, but increased as more people drove more miles, including more short trips of a mile or less.

Yes, we need to stop taking oil from the ground, but every article about fuel must also talk about all the other costs so people start realizing and slowly absorbing the reality that they must change more than their fuel choice.

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

A bunch of nonsense
Posted by: thecynic on Feb 28, 2006 4:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It takes more energy to grow, harvest, and convert bio into ethanol than can be extracted from it. It is a smoke screen by politicians and automotive manufactures to make us believe they are doing something when in fact they are doing nothing. True. Brazil is using ethonol. They make it out of sugar cane, not corn or biomass. Sugar cane produces a LOT more alchohol than any other input, per pound.

The internet is loaded with studies on this subject. But I guess politicians don't know how to surf the internet or read for that matter. Neither due CEO's of GM. No wonder the Japanese are eating their lunch.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050705231841.htm

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

» RE: A bunch of nonsense Posted by: worksg
» RE: A bunch of nonsense Posted by: worksg
Critical mass?
Posted by: bettsoff on Feb 28, 2006 6:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It would seem that the more ethanol (or other biofuels) produced, the more able biofuel processing will be able to be accomplished by machines running on said biofuels instead of on oil. Yes?

Of course, I am cynical that the ethanol push is meant to speed along a boom in corn growing, and the attendant industrial farming and crop-engineering industries. Everyone says that America doesn't make anything anymore. If suddenly we were utilizing farmland to produce fuel, wouldn't that be awesome? And by awesome I mean "awesome for the tycoons who own the land and the machines", not "awesome for the people who are out of work thanks to farm mergers and mechanization".

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

» RE: Critical mass? Posted by: gar
A very long history of market manipulation
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 28, 2006 6:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The oil industry has always attempted to cut out the farmers - they view ethanol and biodiesel as direct assualts on their carefully constructed market. Ford ran his early cars on 'farm ethanol', but Prohibition put an end to that. When the oil industry had to choose between ethanol and tetraethyl lead as an anti-knock oxygenate, they of course chose ethyl lead, since it was a petrochemical product. The 'balance of energy' studies 'heavily referred to on the internet and in the press' is largely ONE study by a Pimental and Peyzek - UC Berkeley and Cornell - a puff propaganda piece that has been refuted by numerous people. Basically, the fossil fuel industry is terrified that they are going to lose their market, and is rolling out the PR machine to prevent this. How about building a flex-fuel hybrid vehicle? Uh - sorry, that would mean less gasoline sales - and we can't have that.

Consider that the fossil fuel and automotive industries were responsible for destroying much of the US public train transport system in the fifties. Daniel Yergin wrote a book "The Prize" describing the history of the struggle to control sources of oil. An equally thick book could be written about the struggles to control markets (a topic Yergin studiously avoids). Of course the ethanol industry can be polluting - which is why modern technology and good planning should be applied! Ethanol is 'made' from plant matter that took CO2 out of the atmosphere - thus it has no net effect on global warming (another touchy subject for the fossil fuel crowd).

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

hybrids and ethanol and GMOs, oh my!
Posted by: antiapathy on Feb 28, 2006 7:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What does Alternet have against alternative technologies. Everything is a "smoke-screen" to distract the gullible public from realizing that the Bushies are letting auto and oil companies get away with reduced emission standards. I've got some shocking news for you folks: the Bush administration is never going to increase CAFE standards. It is not even a possibility. Frankly, I'm surprised as hell that he is giving all this lip service to alternative technologies.

Personally, I'm for anything that opens up the transportation debate. Sure, hybrids and ethanol don't solve the problem, but it might get the consumer-zombies of America begin to accept the idea that gas-guzzling SUVs are not the only way to get from point a to point b. Maybe then, just maybe, we can extend the debate to changing land use patterns to eradicate sprawl and putting the masses back in mass transit.

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

It's the Milage Guys
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Feb 28, 2006 7:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ETH fuels do offer a reduction in greenhouse emmissions BUT, 'mileage' is the second most important component in the deal.
There are emmission problems with the ETH fuel plants and making the plants themselves environmentally inert should be as big a concern as the fuel itself. It does us no good to make a better fuel while making the plant that makes the fuel a bigger 'source polluter' than the cars the fuel is ment for.
This can be overcome with 'intelligent designing' of the cracking plants. Locally there should be an effort on the part of the areas where the cracking plants are being built to make sure their air quality isn't made worse. DEMAND THE
PLANTS BE NON_POLLUTING!!! It's your right. It's your neighborhood.
Then we must attack the mileage problem with the cars and trucks. The Govt relaxed their standards so the auto/truck makers had a field day with more horsepower,bigger styles, and greater emmissions. Shame on you.
Mileage is the single most important factor in us having cheaper gas before this century. Mileage will bring it back.
The People have to demand it from the Makers!!! If we refuse to buy an F-150 that does'nt get 50mpg,they will have to start making them. There is no excuse,save incompitant engineering, that we can't have very high MPG cars and trucks. Forget the fact that auto makers and the oil industry are bed-buddies and have co-conspiried to make flimsy vehicles that waste fuel. It is the American comsumer that sets the tone of the auto makers. If that was'nt true,we'd not have SUV's running all over that are unsafe,gas guzzling,POS's. We got them because the poeple wanted them. Also they were fed a raft as to their quality so folks gave the auto makers the greenlight to sell inferior products
to a 'glitz' nedding society.
Making high gas mileage autos and trucks should be the demand from everyone's lips. We've been held hostage to the auto and fuel makers for far too long. Lower highway speeds saved gas and lives, it needs to be again.
If the auto and fuel makers don't get their collective acts together,them we all should buy 'Air Powered' cars and screw them kile they've screwed us. They only do 40mph,but, it takes .50 to fill it up. That puts the 200-400 dollars a month you'd spend on gas back into your pockets. Maybe it's time to leave the gas powered cars behind. If not for the price of gas alone,then how about so your great grandchildren might have air they can breathe without being condemed to fossil fuel pollution and greed.

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

Fuel Efficiency
Posted by: Artkansas on Feb 28, 2006 7:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a great tool available to reduce fuel consumption. It is widely used across the world, but not in the U.S. It creates very little pollution and is inexpensive. It's called a bicycle. I use it every day.

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

» RE: Fuel Efficiency Posted by: aedwards
» RE: Fuel Efficiency Posted by: Artkansas
» RE: Fuel Efficiency Posted by: Artkansas
» RE: Fuel Efficiency Posted by: aedwards
Well, shucks
Posted by: sausage on Feb 28, 2006 8:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I reckin you city folks fergit tha' them ol' Ioway Caucuses air a cumin' up an' the Demycrats an' Repub'lickins ain't got mutch. In th' way o' cannydates, tha' is. Shoot, yer also fergittin' Ioway ranks first in corn, soybean and pork production. An' Ioway State Uneeverseetee Perfesser Robert C. Brown dun got the jump on turnin' switchgrass into ethynol. An' both establishmunt Demycrat and Repub'lickin arunnin' fer guv'ner here are pushin' ethynol perduction (careful openin' them Internet Links, they's both PDFs). So I suphose th' Demycrats and Rebul'lickins air gonna be kiss our corn fed asses fer the next year or so.

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

» RE: Well, shucks Posted by: jwg
point of interest
Posted by: aedwards on Feb 28, 2006 11:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America does have a relience on oil that is unquestionably unhealthy. This step towards the acceptence of alternatives of energy is in the right direction no matter what administration institutes it. The less relient we are on oil the better. Another thing, Why increase gas mileage if your vehicle doesn't rely on gas? I know that some car companies are taking some steps toward running cars on water. Would you say that is a distraction from the problem to?

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

The adoption of biofuels would be a humanitarian and environmental disaster
Posted by: Karen Orr on Feb 28, 2006 12:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By promoting biodiesel a market for the most destructive crop on earth is created.

We must reduce demand, not alter supply to allow greenwashed motorists to feel better about themselves.

Trying to meet a rising demand for fuel is madness, wherever the fuel might come from.

The hard decisions have been avoided, and another portion of the biosphere is going up in smoke.

The adoption of biofuels would be a humanitarian and
environmental disaster

By George Monbiot
http://www.monbiot.com/

We need a solution to the global warming caused by cars, but this isn’t it. If the production of biofuels is big enough to affect climate change, it will be big enough to cause global starvation.

Complete article and references here:
Feeding Cars, Not People

Biodiesel enthusiasts have accidentally invented the most
carbon-intensive fuel on earth

By George Monbiot

The idea that we can simply replace this fossil legacy – and the extraordinary power densities it gives us – with ambient energy is the stuff of science fiction. There is simply no substitute for cutting back.

In reality you are creating a market for the most destructive crop on earth.

Complete article and references here:
Worse Than Fossil Fuel

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

a few family farmers left
Posted by: farmerjames on Feb 28, 2006 1:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the most interesting things about ethonal development in Minnesota and South Dakota is the investment by farmers in the plants. This has been done through Cooperatives and makes part of the ethonal production stream economically sustainable.
Corn can and largely is being produced in an environmentally distructive way. However, it doesn't have to be grown in such a fashion. Some farmers are making the choice not to grow crops in such a fashion.
Ethonal, particularly corn based ethonal, is not the entire answer to our energy crisis. Even cellulosic ethanol will not solve our problems. In the long term we must have leadership that increases CAFE standards, encourages mass transit and human powered vehicles. I do hope the biofuels grown here without the loss of life and foriegn wars will be a part of our energy answers.
Further, I specifically don't believe that the production of biofuels will cause world wide famine. For years my family has been asked to produce crops at or below the cost of production. Ethonal has helped increase the demand for corn, for many of us this is a good thing. 1998 Nobel Prize winner for Economics Amartya Sen, has studied the economic decisions and interpersonal relationship decisions surrounding famine. In most cases he's found that political and economic decisions have caused famine, not the lack of food. Often the food is there, sitting on the docks and rotting because it has a value in our world, while the starving people do not.
The farmer can solve many things, but unfortunately decisions made by our leaders about who gets fed and who doesn't aren't something we control.
I've appreciated the diversity of view point around this discussion and was pleased to see alternet spend some time on an agricultural issue.
Thank you.

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

Ethanol/E85/etc.
Posted by: beffie on Feb 28, 2006 3:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Y'all realize what kind of mileage ethanol blends get, right?

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

» RE: thanol/E85/etc. Posted by: ConnecttheDots
» RE: laser ignition Posted by: RemyC
This is so pathetic
Posted by: mousemanjp on Feb 28, 2006 9:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FEED PEOPLE NOT CARS!

Stop obsessing over 150 year old technology and find something more than 35% efficient to convert the energy to movement! O WAIT YOU ALREADY KILLED EVERYONE WHO HAS...... (Competition = bad)

This is really pathetic, when the entire economy collapses and we are forced to "start over" maybe we might get it right this time around..... if we don't sit on our asses waiting for greedy corporations and their stock holders to fullfill the "American Dream"

http://mrgreen.goldhosted.net

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

Biotechnology will be key to alternative energy.
Posted by: kungfoofighterx on Feb 28, 2006 9:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here are a few links to efforts trying to created synthetic organisms or mine metagenomic data (sequencing the genomes of bacteria in the soil or where ever en masse to find new genes) to help solve future energy problems. It is almost hard to believe what we will have to do to keep our TVs and computers on.

Here are some interesing things to think about in the alt energy world.
Synthetic genomics a company synthetic genomics
Other stuff
DOE news
NPR interview

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

Ethanol is a dangerous pollutant
Posted by: mousemanjp on Feb 28, 2006 9:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Ethanol is a dangerous pollutant and new measures would have to be developed to prevent it getting into our air and water supplies. " - World Population Awareness - Energy Requirements

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

The real problem is automobile dependency
Posted by: dankorn on Feb 28, 2006 10:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Air pollution and global warming are not the only reasons to want to reduce automobile usage and dependency. For one, car crashes continue to be the number one cause of death for children and young adults in the U.S. Not only will hybrids or other "green" cars not solve this problem, they will make it worse because they will only feed the beast and lead to more car-centric development and more long-term automobile dependency, which, by the way, will also lead to even more energy consumption.

I'd love it if we could just skip to the part where we actually try to use less energy. Instead of putting the best minds in our country and our planet to work on coming up with amazing new technologies to allow us all to bring two tons of metal with us to work every day, let's think about how we can make it possible for kids to walk to school again.

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

» Wise words Posted by: Artkansas
Safer Cars YES!
Posted by: mousemanjp on Feb 28, 2006 10:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once again, we strap ourselves into a metal/plastic box with a combustable and large heavy objects that hit something with more force when its going fast.... so the answer is not no more cars (because not everyone lives in a city) but for safer cars that are not made cheap at the lowest bid, using 150 year old techiques.

Good post though!

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

Biofuels are bad for Florida
Posted by: Karen Orr on Mar 1, 2006 2:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Could biofuels be a bonanza for Florida? NO

Conservation of the state's natural resources is
more essential.

Cellulosic biomass production would use excessive fertilizer
fuel and water consumption as well as pesticides.

Where does phosphate fertilizer come from to grow biofuel crops?
Florida.

There is no benefit to Florida after it has been stripmined
to death. PSC of Saskatchewan, Canada, plans on strip mining 100,463 acres in a large bend of the Suwannee River.
Mosaic Co. plans on mining 21,000 acres on the Peace River.

The Manson-Jenkins tract also represents the first of
several proposed mines totaling 60,000 acres that
could be permitted adjacent to Horse Creek on the
Peace River.

There is no benefit to destroying wetlands, poisoning the
water or disturbing river systems.

Switchgrass is a lowland wetland grass. Repeated
harvesting will require massive amounts of fuel, fertilizer
industry has depleted 16 feet of soil in the Everglades.

The remaining soil will eventually disappear until there
is nothing left but limerock. End of farming.

Our states soils should be preserved for food production
not wasted on fueling the American car culture.

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

The adoption of biofuels would be a disaster
Posted by: Karen Orr on Mar 26, 2006 8:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The movement toward biofuels as an environmentally friendly alternative
to fossil fuels is a greenscam with potentially disastrous consequences.

The Bush brothers, a cabal of giant agro businesses, their paid
consultants and political cronies are behind a series of initiatives that
involve massive taxpayer funded subsidies to large environmentally
destructive corporations. Sadly, they're aided by a number of well
meaning but misguided groups and individuals.

Biofuels derived from corn, palm, soybeans, and other crops are not only
environmentally destructive, they can't be produced profitably without
massive subsidies - subsidies that should be used for environmentally
viable solutions such as conservation/efficiency initiatives and wind
and solar energy.

Biofuels are an economic, environmental and humanitarian disaster:

* The production of biofuel from crops consumes more energy than it
produces.

* The production of biofuels from crops will lead to more air
pollution, irreversible soil depletion, water depletion and pollution,
erosion, forest destruction, higher use of fossil fuels, pesticides,
fertilizers and harm to animals.

* Crops to produce oils to meet the demand for biofuel are directly
destroying tens of thousands of square miles of rain forest now.

* Fertilizer for biofuel production will lead to a massive increase in
phosphate strip mining, destroyed wetlands, poisoned water and disturbed
river systems.

* Conversion of U.S. farmland from food production to fuel crop
production will lead to dependence on foreign nations for our food supply.

The subsidies required to make biofuel production "viable" are more
corporate welfare to the same giant agro companies damaging the
environment now. They divert funds from real solutions such as
conservation/efficiency initiatives, public transportation systems,
increased use of solar and wind energy, and sustainable small scale food
farming vs. massive monoculture fuel crop production.

Government mandates of biofuels for transport will further hasten
environmental destruction.

We can't grow our way out of the impending energy crisis with more
destructive practices that fuel more cars for more people to drive on
more roads to more parking lots to buy more junk.

The hard decisions can no longer be avoided. There must be a massive
shift in our thinking, behavior and consumption.

The biofuels scam must be stopped in its' tracks. If it proceeds, we'll
plunge further into debt, destroy irreplaceable natural resources and
send another portion of the biosphere up in smoke.

If you'd like more information on biofuels, see the Energy Justice Network FACT SHEET
(http://www.energyjustice.net/ethanol/factsheet.html)

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