Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
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.

Fill 'er Up -- With Food

By Stephen Pizzo, News for Real. Posted June 24, 2006.


Is turning food into fuel as millions starve to death really the ethical answer to our oil addiction?
Advertisement

I'm not a scientist. I don't even play on television. I got a gentleman's "D" in high school physics and chemistry. So nothing I am about to say is based on good science. OK?

Now, here's what's been bugging me: I can't believe that the best way out of our dependence on oil is by burning food in our cars instead.

I am speaking, of course, of the push for corn-based ethanol. I've been watching as the media parrots the ballyhoo being pumped out by the strange-bedfellows alliance made up of agribusiness, the White House, energy companies and farm-state politicians. To believe the thrust of this PR blitz one would think that corn-based ethanol is the most beneficial thing to hit mankind since penicillin.

But every time I see one of those feel-good stories on the news showing a huge truck dumping tons of golden corn into the hungry maul of a new ethanol plant, I wonder how that jives -- morally and practically -- with the images that too often precede them on the evening news … the pictures of all those bony sub-Saharan babies covered with flies as they slowly starve.

That's what got me wondering the other night, as I watch an Archer Daniels Midland ad, "Growing Energy for Today & Tomorrow." It made me wonder if there had ever been a civilization so decadent that it burned food for fuel while millions starved? Was that wrong of me? Well, if so, it's not my fault, it just popped into my head.

If the ethanol folks have their way and Detroit starts cranking out E85 cars by the millions, how are you going to feel when you have to buy one. How will you feel filling up your car with food-juice during the day and then watching starving children on the evening news as some horse's ass in Washington pontificates about how the world needs to do something about that? How will you feel?

Besides snatching surplus corn from the world's starving, the more corn turned into fuel the less of the stuff that will be available for domestic food use, animal feeds, breakfast cereals, nachos, etc. Prices will go up for anything with corn in it. It's basic economics -- supply and demand. Who will suffer most? American families and the working poor, of course. The price of breakfast cereal, for example, is already high. Just wait until we start pumping it into SUVs instead of our kids. Are you a meat-eater? That meat grew on corn, so get ready for steak-sticker shock.

Yes, we do need to get away from petroleum-based fuels as soon as possible, for both national security and pressing environmental reasons. But again I am forced to ask the question: Is burning food the right or moral way to do that?

Corn-holed again?

Besides that, my reporter's gut tells me we about to be collectively screwed again by the usual suspects. You know who they are. Energy companies have invested trillions of dollars into fuel processing and distribution infrastructure. It's only good for one thing -- making and moving flammable liquids to market. Suddenly their traditional raw material -- oil -- has become a wasting asset. They needed another flammable liquid suited to their existing storage and distribution infrastructure, and they needed it fast.

Ethanol is it.

A friend in desperate need can be a friend indeed to another friend in desperate need. And Big Energy found a very needy friend in Middle America -- agribusiness. Farmers had watched with growing alarm as one federal farm subsidy (welfare) after another disappeared. Farming, once a political sacred cow, had lost most of its political clout over the past few decades.

Ah, agribusiness has gotten its groove back by becoming America's very own Saudi Arabia. And who could better show them how to do that than Big Energy companies who were ready, willing and able to help farmers turn their food into fuel.

Man, do those energy companies and farm groups know how to build a buzz. "Go Yellow" campaigns, complete with T-shirts, pro-environment seminars and ads featuring family farmers. Almost overnight, voting against farmers bordered on voting for terrorists, for dependence on foreign oil and for global warming. Growing corn is now a patriotic endeavor.


Digg!

Stephen Pizzo is the author of numerous books, including "Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans," which was nominated for a Pulitzer.

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


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:
Fuck Corn, Grow Hemp
Posted by: YinRising on Jun 24, 2006 12:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
check out the hemp car to learn the truth.

And by the way, the hemp seed is one of the most nutritious foods known, being a complete protien, and high in omega-3 fatty acids.

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

» RE: Fuck Corn, Grow Hemp Posted by: amacd
» RE: Fuck Corn, Grow Hemp Posted by: Androgyne
» RE: Fuck Corn, Grow Hemp Posted by: Jaja56
Corn Ethanol is a Waste
Posted by: bttl on Jun 24, 2006 3:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are many probelms with the use of corn to make ethanol. Despite the hype. corn based ethanol is at best energy-neutral and more likely is a net energy loss. This means that it takes more energy to grow, transport and process the corn into ethanol than is produced by the ethanol itself. Corn ethanol is a feel-good program that will likely just funnel more money to ADM and others of their ilk while bamboozling Americans into believing they are actually doing something to wean themselves off their oil addiction as they gas up their SUV's for the trip to the mall.

Other than the issues associated with energy-loss there are many others as stated in this article. Corn is in general a very demanding crop to grow- of water, fertilizer and either herbicides or tillage. As a row crop it exposes the soil to erosion. It needs to be grown on relatively flat land not prone to erosion with good fertility- our best crop land in fact. Growing corn for ethanol will cause ever more soil losses due to erosion, herbicide and fertilizer runoff into surface waters and leaching into ground water. Growing corn conventionally, not organically btw requires large amounts of oil and natural gas based fertilizers and herbicides.

Then, as the author brought up, there is the matter of turning corn, an edible food product, into fuel for our cars while others starve. Yes of course. Corn will go to those who will pay the most for it. Those with the means to pay for it will be first in line. You will be gassing up the car while poor children starve. Not a whole lot different than now actually, just that the fuel you will be using could have been their dinner instead.

Are there alternatives? Brazil has been utilizing sugar cane for ethanol which has a much higher energy conversion ratio. Therre is also promising research into cellulosic ethanol but it is still in the experimental stage. I don't see any way, even if these are utilized that we will continue to run the US transportation system of cars on ethanol. If we do, the results may be sobering. We need to demand real answers and honesty from our government and not just "feel-good" sound-bites.

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

feed a child
Posted by: kick on Jun 24, 2006 4:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder if the author has ever adopted a child that might be starving. For the past 30 years I have adopted 3 children from the African continient. It cost about $20.00 a month to feed, cloth, house and educate a child. I write and correspond regularly with my child and even though it is a small gesture considering the many that starve daily, I believe collectively we could make the difference. It is good to express to the corporate giants your feelings regarding food being used for fuel and maybe they will choose more wisely. While you are waiting why not make a difference now. Adopt a child who would otherwise go hungry. Of course the first excuse, like so many, will be-"how do I know where my money is going?" There are many good organizations available to connect you with a child. Make a difference now..put your money where your mouth is or something like that....Suger cane is the right crop to grow anyway. ADOPT A CHILD AND HELP TO FEED THE HUNGRY.

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

» RE: feed a child Posted by: timeless
» RE: feed a child Posted by: blitzmesser
» feed a child - directly Posted by: ssegallmd
4000000 dollars for every year of life devided equally
Posted by: timeless on Jun 24, 2006 5:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
amazing huh, took a course at unity, learned that if devided equally every body would have 4million dollars for every year of life. so what is rich? theres enough food to feed the world and has been for a long time. the problem is i think that where theres 2 or more war and talk of war, go to zero where is the sides? i think all are here on purpose probably, so lets get on with it ok. jahoba beans produce a most wonderful oil. grows in the desert too. hemp is outstanding seeds full of omegas where is the intelligence scotty? aloha

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

hey car icons
Posted by: timeless on Jun 24, 2006 6:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
time is now to release to the people the addition that allows l00mpg. 2 different times i have heard from the horses mouth that the car was accidently marketed to 2 different customers and they got l00mpg. thought the gas reading was wrong took the car to the dealer and was given another car even though he said he wanted that one. the other car had 2 men break into it and take out a device and run off. let go of the control of greed and help the earth ok.

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

Alcohol Can Be a Gas!
Posted by: hapibeli on Jun 24, 2006 6:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.permaculture.com/alcohol/index.shtml
Before you continue listening to the OILIGARCHY propaganda started in the early 20th century by Rockefeller to destroy the use of alcohol as a fuel, you would do well to check out the above website. David Blume, [permaculture farmer and eco-activist], has a book forthcoming in September explaining the history of alcohol's use as a fuel, how the burgeoning petroleum industry set out to halt that use through disinformation campaigns,[Rockefeller financed the Women's Temperance Movement with $4 MILLION to start the great era of PROHIBITION. The Grange movement was started with the #1 rule that farmers were NOT to be taught about alcohol production]. . Learn how the turning of food crops [as well as many other carbon materials] into alcohol produces highly nutitrious feed stock for animals, potent fertilizers to satisfy vegetarians as well as a CLEAN burning fuel to power the manufacturing processes! And this ain't rocket science! We've been sol a bill of goods by the petroleum industry in sooooo many ways since they first began pumping the crude.

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

» RE: Alcohol Can Be a Gas! Posted by: jason_md2020
otto
Posted by: otto on Jun 24, 2006 6:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I basically agree, except that I doubt whether much of our surplus corn ever gets to those starving in other parts of the world. In India, people still starve while they grow tons of rice to export to other countries for profit.

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

» RE: otto Posted by: Ncalverley2
» RE: otto Posted by: davewuxi
ECLECTICIST, S. JIM RODRIGUEZ
Posted by: SJR505 on Jun 24, 2006 6:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even though most of us acknoWledge the fact that we have a huge "oil demand", and somewhat dubious shortage of oil as reported by the news media, it does not take a "rocket scientist(Where have you been Mrs Robinson) to figure that we have a problem...!!! If anything, the news media are like a pack of hungry dogs, they go after any bones thrown at them by the very lying people that feed them lies and half-truths...Remember the adage : "BOHICA", and the addicted news media continues...Where is truth in news reporting...???

Suffice it to say : "Fellows, the rules have changed..."; The standards for fuel consumption on cars has not changed...The answer to building high efficient cars is "not to lay off 27,000 to 30,000 experienced employees from Ford, GM to make better cars...

The clue is to be aware of these fraudulent claims by our "Rape the American Public " - the Conservatives, Bush 43 and company, the magnificent 535 , etc when the government cronies state their eight word lead : "...The Bush administration today announce revised standard(s) for ..."

And, of course the news media falls for it again, again, and then again... Sometimes I think that they are in a conspirancy to defraud the American Public and still claim their patriotism??? Remember, the oil companies are holding off the ethanol, nuclear, wind alternatives , etc until they posture themselves to purchase all the foods, land, and those resources to put them in the lead to make more money, their prime mantra for existing... I guess Hugo Chavez said it correctly, "Everything in America is For Sale..." And, only in America, can one buy "Freedom" off the shelf..."

S+JIM+RODRIGUEZ+++ECLECTICIST SEEKER+++

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

Renewable Fuels--Good; Ethanol--Bad!
Posted by: gregsfc on Jun 24, 2006 7:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't understand all the negative hype against taking business away from OPEC and giving it to American farmers. We feed less than two percent of the world's hungry with our crops. Most is used for animal feed, and using part of the plant for fuel will not significantly reduce the yield for these animal feeds. There is much more land that could be cultivated for crops in the U.S. that would not only create more jobs, but would also counter the global warming effect, since plants take up CO2 and release oxygen. Many of these lands are currently wastelands that are currently used for absolutely nothing. Plus the fact that these sources of fuel are renewable, and through crop rotation and other farming techniques, can be harvested year after year without depletion. I do feel, however, that corn is the wrong plant, ethanol--the wrong fuel, and the spark-ignition engine--the wrong technology.

Alternatately, there is an engine technology that averages 30% better fuel economy for similar cars; is selling 50% of all new cars sold in Europe, so this technology could come to America in mass to save millions of barrels of oil per week in a short amount of time; this technology already reduces greenhouse gasses up to 25% over typical, spark-ignition cars; and this technology has become super-clean-burning in the last five years with respect to regulated emissions. Also, this technology uses a much superior alternative fuel that can come from many more sources and plant feedstocks; contains twice the energy content of ethanol; and can be processed from plants that can be grown in virtually all areas of our country.

The technology is modern diesel engine automobiles; and the alternative fuel is biodiesel. Some diesel automobiles exists in Europe that get almost 90 mpg even without electric hybrid motors, which could be applied to diesels as easily as gas-powered automobiles. Nearly all diesels sold in Europe are 100% biodiesel compatable, and unlike spark-ignition engines, which must be specially designed to accept ethanol; all diesel vehicles of all types, new and old, can accept biodiesel as an alternative fuel.

Diesel technology faces two problems that are preventing automakers from bringing them in mass to the U.S., and both of these problems have been brought on by our regulatory agencies. Number one, diesels have a negative perception in the U.S. Americans think of diesels as loud, poor performing, and emitting lots of black smoke. But the diesel engine has gone through a transformation over the last fifteen years that most Americans are not aware of. The modern diesel engine has superior driving characteristics that Europeans have discovered, and most Americans would be astounded by what modern diesels can provide in economy and performance.

Number two, our EPA has maintained tough emissions standards with respect to emissions most associated with diesels and have remained lax on emissions most associated with spark-ignition engines. Combined with this situation, our EPA and the California ARB have allowed our diesel fuel to maintain relatively high amounts of sulfur compared to the rest of the industrialized world. Trying to meet these tough emissions on nitrogen oxides and particulates of matter with high levels of sulfur would be like gas engines trying to meet tough emissions with lead still in the fuel.

Beginning this fall, however, diesels have immense opportunity in the U.S. ULSD fuel is finally being mandated. This lower level of sulfur combined with particulate filters will reduce particulates of matter up to 90% under 2006 levels. Also, new engine technologies will permit engines to be designed that will reduce all other emissions by 15 to 30 percent. These reductions will be in addition to the 90% reductions that have already been accomplished since 1990.

This great promise for bringing clean diesels to the

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

the whole article and responses miss the point..
Posted by: Farmertim on Jun 24, 2006 8:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
only 3 percent of land used in US agriculture actually is used to grow food to feed people, the rest is used to grow food to feed animals,or turn to corn syrup to fatten people to feed the health care industry. 30 percent of the total of tillable land in the US is paying farmers to be put in set aside to not grow anything.
Not only that Sweden figured out 25 years ago a country cannot grow its fuel.
All tillable land in the US if put in hi oil soybean production( of which we don't have the seed for) or hemp or some other form of energy producing plant would only fuel the airline industry of this country at current levels.
The argument is really when will we learn we can only grow food within walking or bike distance from which we live and begin to build rails for those who cannot in big cities.

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

Coal is used to make ethanol
Posted by: harpy on Jun 24, 2006 8:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the dark secrets of the corn to ethanol story is that massive amounts of polluting coal is used to produce ethanol. Why not go to sugar-based ethanol, which is 80% times more efficient than corn. Brazil is doing that with GM and Ford cars and is almost totally fuel independent. This corn based thing is about making huge agri-businesses more profitable, while devastating the Appalachian range and western coal reserves. We in Appalachia have been exploited enough and now you see the "Coal is good" propoganda campaigns running on TV constantly.

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

What's our corn going to do for the starving multitudes anyway?
Posted by: cny39316 on Jun 24, 2006 9:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are several problems with your logic. First of all, our corn is not going to be shipped over there to feed the starving multitudes if we don't use it for fuel. And if it did, it would only exacerbate the problem in the long run.

They are starving largely because they are involved in a civil war. The other side is using hunger as a weapon. Hunger is a powerful weapon. When we come in and feed the starving people, we are nullifying the weapon the other side is using against them. That makes us the enemy. That's the same problem we ran into in Somolia.

When we send over tons of food to feed the masses, it may save some lives now, but it makes them increasingly dependent on foreign aid. The farmers in the region are not able to sell their crops when the people can get food for free. So they quit growing food, which makes the problem even worse.

Besides all that, the people who can affect the distribution of the food supplies become ever more powerful. They usually ruthlessly exploit their power.

Using corn to replace gasoline makes a lot more sense. The carbon dioxide a vehicle emits into the atmosphere as a result of burning ethanol is exactly the same carbon dioxide the corn took out of the atmosphere as it grew, so it does not contribute to the greenhouse effect.

And growing corn for ethanol helps support our farmers, which is the unstated real motive behind our foreign aid programs anyway.

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

UNETHICAL BOONDOGGLES and Other Reasons...
Posted by: abqbabe on Jun 24, 2006 9:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Corn-based ethanol should never be seriously considered as a major fuel of the future.
I have been trying to point this little ethical dilemna out to people for many, many months. However, such is our greed for an oil-substitute-fix that most of the response I've gotten is of the "If you've got, burn it" variety or "We've got ours, to hell with the rest of the world". So much for compassion when we're talking about keeping our cars on the road.

Luckily for us (though not so much for the poor, government subsidized, agri-biz corn producers like ADM) the turn ethanol production is taking is less toward corn and more toward waste biomass which would otherwise end up in landfills or incinerated. Hemp is looking like a good candidate (the kind you make rope out of). It would truly horrify me if I thought the gas in my tank was taking food out of the mouths of children anywhere, and I certainly would avoid buying such.

Corn based ethanol has no ethical place in our energy future. Besides that, the energy it takes to produce it, and it's lesser value as a unit of fuel compared to gasoline don't exactly make it a bargain at the pump (plus think of all the fossil fuel it takes to produce corn, from tractor to fertilizer to harvester to transporting it!) - in fact render it a net energy LOSER compared to fossil fuels.

Fortunately, we probably won't have to make that choice anytime soon. Besides being mainly a kingsize boondoggle to line corporate agribusiness pockets with taxpayer money, the real future of ethanol lies in it's capacity for small localized production. You could even do it in your garage.

Although corn based ethanol can never become more than a very small fraction of the fuel used to propel our vehicles, it will have been very useful to pour billions into corporate pockets, distract us from real solutions (like demanding better gas mileage, conserving, and taking other steps toward breaking our oil addiction) and starve poorer nations into groveling submission.
And, oh yes, there's that massive trade deficit with China, which will shortly be importing not only all of our grain surplus, but likely forcing us to "sell" them grain we need to eat ourselves...

But, not to worry, gang. By a stroke of good fortune the oil companies will have enough oil to torture us for a long while yet: it will just be much more expensive. For as demand continues, prices will continue to rise also, making it profitable to "drill" for and refine the vast sand and shale oil deposits of the world (some of the largest fields of which are conveiniently located next door in Canada).
That doing so will be an ecological disaster and contribute immeasurably to global warming will do nothing to slow down profits. It will, of course be painfully more expensive, so we will have to learn to use less of it, until only the rich can afford to drive for pleasure if at all.

Corn-fed-beef steak anyone?

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

» A few points of contention... Posted by: ABetterFuture
America has a problem to solve? Cui bono?
Posted by: ssegallmd on Jun 24, 2006 10:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two things can be counted on in this arena:

[1] Nothing will be done proactively. A crisis will have to ensue before anything at all will be done to disturb the status quo, and

[2] The plan that they come up with will not be based on fuel efficiency, human needs or environmental concerns. If it is an American idea, it will be the one that the most powerful people perceive will be the most profitable for them.

This is because America has exactly one value and no other competing values: profit for the few. Nothing else exists. Nothing else matters. NOTHING ELSE will affect the final decisions.

So there is no need for Americans to concern themselves with renewability or greenhouse gas production or any other scientific issues to understand what America's method of dealing with the crisis will be.

All one needs to know to predict what will happen when is which arrangements are most profitable to the most powerful corporate interests at the time that the crisis comes to fruition, and without even minute variation - without even a tiny concession to ANY other facet of reality - THAT will be America's solution. The only variables are when this occurs, who is wealthiest at that time, and what they perceive is in their own best interest, not yours.

America make talk a good game about other values such as freedom and democracy, but coming from corporate America, those are only words - lip service - and not representative values of America's self-serving elitists.

No, I'm afraid that Lady Liberty only does it for money these days. The Republican pimps have tricked her out in cheap clothes and gaudy make-up to work the street (Wall Street) in all of our names.

What's worse, you can tell from her sluttish demeanor, the stench of the green discharge running down her inner thighs and her continually lying mouth that she has lost her self-respect as well as the respect of others.

America's behavior is absolutely shameless now. It never tries to do the right thing anymore, and it cannot be embarrassed or otherwise pressured into behaving honorably, just profitably.

Who doubts this and why?

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

gasahol
Posted by: larry278 on Jun 24, 2006 10:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As others have pointed out: corn is used to fatten animals we eat, other food crops are used to make booze-cloth-chemicals-etc. Brazil uses gasahol made from sugar cane.
But, as you point out, ADM is pimping the idea. ADM is a multi-national agrabusiness. I smell a rat.
What about fuel made from animal feces? Commercal hog & chicken-egg farms have lots of it. Disposing of it is a problem for it pollutes & smells.

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

Funny how the easiest questions to answer still go begging
Posted by: cthelyt on Jun 24, 2006 10:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do Americans really, really need all the cars they own? Do they really have to make all those trips to the mall and wherever in single-occupant cars? Why does a family with three or four kids have five or six cars in the driveway?

Why does Americans' freedom of choice and expression have to include the right to hog scarce resources and add carbon from any fuel source to an atmosphere that clearly cannot contain more without triggering irreversible climate changes that adversely affect billions of people around the world?

Meditate beyond your navels and do without your cars wherever possible if you truly want to make a difference. There's a pilot car-sharing program somewhere that lets people rent centrally parked cars as they need them and drop them off when they are finished--let's expand that model. Car pooling is a natural with craigslist and other online resources--share work commutes and split up car wear and tear among the car poolers by alternating cars.

Ban private cars from city traffic and improve mass transit to accommodate everyone. Those unable to manage stairways and other impediments can take advantage of specialized transportation to accommodate their disabilities--let's improve that service too because right now it's abominable.

Ethanol, biodiesel, whatnot--they're still fuels that, when burned, consume resources that could have gone toward other, more productive ends than propelling your tushies where they may not need to go alone to begin with. The energy and resources used to produce cars could likewise be directed toward higher goals than serving good old Number One. If you truly want to make a difference, lead by example and start biking, walking, sharing, and sacrificing. A return to fundamentals isn't a bad thing when one considers the consequences of denying the crisis at hand and using Play-Doh to plug dam breaks.

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

A brief history of fuel, photosynthesis and realpolitik
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jun 24, 2006 10:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did you know that the oil industry made some abortive efforts to turn crude oil into food in the 50's (by growing yeast on it)? This turns your argument upside down - why are we burning oil as fuel when we could be feeding it to starving people? (It turned out that the yeast was edible, but had a rank petroleum aftertaste).

Ethics in fuel: Where did your fuel come from? Did you invade a foreign country and slaughter their people to get your hands on their oil wells? Did you cut down a rainforest and make a ton of money by selling firewood? Did you round up some natives onto a slave plantation and force them to grow huge amounts of hemp to outfit your sailing ships so you could go kill whales, collect their oil, and sell it? Did you contract with coal companies to fuel your corn ethanol distillery because it was cheaper then natural gas, solar or wind power?

What if we human beings developed the technology to make hydrocarbon fuels from carbon dioxide and water using nothing but solar energy? The coal companies would go out of business, followed by the oil extraction industry. The funny thing is, that technology has already been developed - no, it hasn't been kept under wraps by the Illuminati, it's called green plant photosynthesis and has been around for several billion years. It's the process that originally created all the precursors to natural gas, oil and coal in the first place.

Back to realpolitik. If you consider that the oil industry has engaged the US military to seek out and control oilfields on a global basis in order to protect their supply... welll, to what lengths would the oil sector go to protect their markets? The most lucrative market is the transportation sector - fuel for engines. If ethanol and biodiesel take off in the US as they have in Brazil and Germany, then ExxonMobil can kiss its record-breaking profits goodbye. Taking action on global climate warming will also undercut the oil sector profits.

The result? A massive, gigantic, propaganda and public relations program aimed at two things: preventing the rise of alternative energy systems of all kinds, and preventing governments from regulating carbon emissions from fossil fuel sources. Hundreds of millions of dollars are poured into these PR efforts. As a result, I find myself extremely suspicious of articles on biofuels which fail to address fossil fuels on a side-by-side basis.

Furthermore, corn in China is actually used to feed people, rather then cows. The corn we eat in the United States has all been converted to high-fructose corn syrup - it's in everything! The notion that the US government would take corn slated for animal feed and ship it around the world to feed starving humans - that's ridiculous! Sorry, but that's not how this government operates, and anyone who's looked into famine knows it has more to do with war and repression then anything else.

Sustainable agriculture should be the basis of any sane biofuel production strategy. That means growing crops with minimal inputs of fossil-fuel resources (nitrogen fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, tractor fuel, refrigeration and transport fuel, etc.). Oh yes, sustainable agriculture undercuts the fossil fuel sector profits; they rather be selling you tons and tons of fossil fuel products - you think?

If we want liquid fuels for engines then we have no choice in the long run but to grow those fuels. In today's world, individual farmers can add value to their agricultural products by converting them to liquid fuels, and it seems that the rational approach would be to simply have a ban on coal-fired ethanol distilleries (you couldn't build a nuclear-powered corn distillery if you wanted to, now could you?). Distilleries can be run with wind or solar power and they can also be locally owned, thereby benefiting the local economy (unlike Iraqi and Nigerian oilfields).

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

denial is always easier than research
Posted by: oystercatcher on Jun 24, 2006 10:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ethanol is the replacement for mtbe, probably the second most dangerous and harmful gasoline additive, the first being lead. From what I have read, current production amounts of ethanol are not sufficient to replace mtbe - something that needs to happen as fast as possible.

I agree with the basic premise and that ethanol will not and should not replace current liquid fuels for transportation.
I tend to plan for the worst case scenario which would be in my opinion the end of the availability of liquid fossil fuels.
That means animal powered transportation is the future

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

I'm glad someone is pointing out the obvious.
Posted by: Artkansas on Jun 24, 2006 12:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With GM hustling ethanol, it's rare to hear the obvious, that even growing fuel has its price. We have to choose food or fuel. Guns or butter anyone?

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

Fill 'er up...with food
Posted by: sidewinder on Jun 24, 2006 1:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the psychotic, left-wing, tree-hugging liberals in this country would stop resisting the idea of drilling for oil and natural gas in Alaska and off the coast of Florida (just to name a couple), our energy shortage might be alleviated. Of course, it would also help if they were to allow us to go ahead with the construction of nuclear power plants. Also, let's not forget that we've had the technology to build carburetors that will give a standard automobile 75 mpg ever since the '50's and the dimmos, when they were in power, refused to allow it to happen. Why? Simply because they were in bed with the oil producers, the same thing they are accusing smirk and company of today. I could go on and on and on but, well, you get the picture.

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

» RE: Alaskan oil Posted by: bcgirl125
» Heck no. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Fill 'er up...with food Posted by: Pat Kittle
Corn doesn't feed people
Posted by: peacemeow on Jun 24, 2006 2:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most corn grown in the US is used as cattle feed. Much of the remainder is turned into corn sweeteners for soft drinks etc. The burger-and-fries culture is starving the world.

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

Keep the corn where it belongs.
Posted by: RoffleTheWaffle on Jun 24, 2006 5:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In food, not fuel.

There are better plants out there for the job, and ethanol alone can't resolve our energy problems. Other alternatives must be taken into consideration.

More on biodeisel and ethanol here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel#Production

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

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

There is enough food for everyone.
Posted by: scenery on Jun 24, 2006 7:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even though arable soil makes up less than 3% of the surface of our planet, amazingly it produces enough food to feed everyone more than enough calories.

It is not a sustainable solution to designate more land to growing corn, or any other crop for that matter, for the purpose of driving our cars. The sacredness of our planet is a more important consideration than that of using food for fuel.

The real culprit behind human hunger is the distribution of wealth.

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

Here is a dilemma:
Posted by: scenery on Jun 24, 2006 7:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.stwr.net/content/view/502/37/

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

Nothing.
Posted by: kittynboi on Jun 24, 2006 9:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the ethanol folks have their way and Detroit starts cranking out E85 cars by the millions, how are you going to feel when you have to buy one. How will you feel filling up your car with food-juice during the day and then watching starving children on the evening news as some horse's ass in Washington pontificates about how the world needs to do something about that? How will you feel?


I don't expect to feel much of anything. I turned my back on all these idealistic beliefs long ago.

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

You're not going to drill your way out of this one...
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jun 24, 2006 10:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Okay now, take a look at this Reuters report on Anadarko Petroleums takeover bids of smaller domestic oil firms - a $21 billion deal. Companies want to grow, right? The easiest path for them to grow is no longer to go out wildcatting, it's to become a corporate acquisitions expert. This should be somewhat worrying news for those who think that you can drill your way out of this crisis:

Energy deals flourish even with lofty price tags by Deepa Babington.

So, if the US is only producing about 30% of the petroleum and natural gas it uses, that's problematic. We get a big chunk from Canada and Mexico, which is good since they are our neighbors.

Imagine a world in which that was all the oil we had available - about 40% of the current usage. In such a world, careful development of fossil fuel resources would be essential - but so would alternative energy developments.

Keep in mind, too, that slowing global warming requires about a 70% reduction in current carbon emissions. Arguing about the climate science is a moot point and has been for a while now. The big uncertainty is now future human behavior. Nice dovetail, isn't it? Cut off all foreign oil imports and the US doing great on carbon emissions.

Now, look at the nervous behavior of the countries who have been getting all those American dollars for oil imports in another Reuters report:

Middle East alone can't solve global imbalances: Kuwait By Natsuko Waki

It looks like they are growing wary of the whole deal, doesn't it? What a mess these people have created. The Greeks were right - hubris leads to catastrophe.

Wouldn't it be a pretty good idea to replace a portion of foreign oil imports with domestically produced biofuels, and learn to live a little leaner? Realistic prices might be around $5 a gallon across the board for any kind of liquid fuel. Who would be the losers? The major internationals and oil traders who rely on the US consumer market for their profit margins (you can guess that Shell would disapprove of such a plan). The poorest Americans are hit the hardest by high prices, but so is the rest of the Wal-Mart economy.

Why not halt all foreign oil imports? Imagine that - what a shocking bath of cold water that would be! Not enough energy to go around - that's a sobering concept, isn't it? Ever see Road Warrior? The Anasazi cliffside dwellings in the American Southwest are often cited as beautiful historical remnants but the truth is that they were the result of brutal wars of extermination brought on by climate change: see this article on the Anasazi:

http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria18_4c.htm

Civilizational collapse due to lack of basic resources is not something new. Nuclear is a mess, economically and practically. Nuclear is too hot to handle, especially with Enron imitators gaming the systems (Oops - guess we shouldn't have done that 'unscheduled maintenance' just then). Even if it looked good on paper, I'd worry about the execution. Solar and wind and new energy storage systems are the long term answers, along with those 75 mpg carbs and associated efficiency tricks.

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

Uncle Scrooge was Right
Posted by: whitepower14 on Jun 24, 2006 10:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the Sub-Saharans didn't have so many babies they wouldn't have so many mouths to feed, now would they?

Starvation is sometimes the only way to reduce our overpopulation problem. We all need to cut down our CO2 emissions anyhow - so perhaps we should just throw out the corn and not feed anyone or make more oil to burn. Sounds good.

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

» RE: Uncle Scrooge was Right Posted by: Pat Kittle
Using Corn Is Throwing A Bone to ADM
Posted by: Stephen Kriz on Jun 25, 2006 6:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some previous commenters touched on this, but using corn is not the best way to produce ethanol. Corn has much more value as livestock feed than as a source of ethanol. Corn also depletes the soil of nitrogen. Not surprisingly, Bush's proposal to use corn to produce ethanol is politically motivated(Do these guys EVER do anything that isn't politically motivated?). Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) already has a large operation in the Midwest to convert corn to ethanol. What corn they can't use to produce corn syrup, which is used as an additive in many, many foodstuffs, they throw in a tank and add yeast to produce ethanol. ADM is also a very large contributor to the Republican Party (Is this starting to sound familiar?). A much better alternative to corn would be sugar beets (as they do in Brazil), sawgrass or simply, grass clippings. I sure produce a lot of them in one summer! Of course, the free market that Republicans profess to support is being quashed, so that corporate giants like ADM can monopolize the ethanol industry. Once again, we are seeing the Republican Party putting their own selfish interests ahead of the common good. No wonder someone has characterized the modern GOP as "organized selfishness".

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

Corn is only the first step
Posted by: DeadPatriot on Jun 25, 2006 7:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First off, We are using corn in the prototype ethanol plants because we have a phenomenal surplus of it. Change is on the way. Utilizing the same bacteria that cause "jungle rot", the conversion of sillage, and other crop wastes into cellulosic ethanol, and even butanol is already undergoing intensive research. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater just yet. The concept of locally grown fuel stocks, and local production are the major pathways for increasing the energy neutrality of alchohol based fuels. For example: Soy beans, which can be used for the production of B20 biodiesel are grown in huge quantities in central Michigan. To produce the oil locally, and process it locally saves a great deal of money in terms of transportation alone. This same concept holds true for ethanol production. Just observe where the E85 distribution is heaviest. Do you see any corelation with corn production? Another concept to keep in mind with the production of these fuels is "carbon neutrality", The concept that the plants that provide the fuel stocks, absorb Co2 as they grow. In comparison to Petro-fuels, there is no comparison.

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

re to all wrong...
Posted by: Farmertim on Jun 25, 2006 7:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I should have been more clear as to the rails I meant....
railroads, commuter trains, based on electric.
Wind can generate, and we are close to the technology to store for calm days.
how else you going to move the masses who live 30 miles from there work, and get food cheaply out to the suburbs.
farmerTim

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

Even with out Ethonal production...
Posted by: staicnoise on Jun 25, 2006 10:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...people are still starving, I doubt that NOT producing ethonal from corn will make differance. While I'm wary of the effect of biofuel productions effect on our food production capability, I understand biofuel has to be part of the solution. Not THE solution, one part of many. Even during the era of 'beast of burden", a portion of food production was given to power and transportation needs.

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

wrong debate to be having...
Posted by: antiapathy on Jun 25, 2006 6:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this debate is pointless. do we want to use corn to fuel our dependency on the automobile, or should we continue to use it to fuel our dependency on meats and sweetened foods and drinks? in either case the money is going to big-ag and the farmers are getting screwed.

If we are truly concerned about the welfare of the rest of the world, we would work to reduce our insane levels of consumption of ALL resources.

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

Corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced
Posted by: redjenny on Jun 26, 2006 3:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And the other forms aren't much better.

We can use 1 barrel of oil to produce .78 of a barrel of corn ethanol. In other words, if we switch to ethanol instead of gasoline and oil, we will right away increase our consumption by 29%. Sounds like a good plan for big business, agribusiness and the oil companies, huh?

Conservation, which is far less expensive than almost all other forms of alternative energy like biofuels needs to happen hand-in-hand. Of course, conservation is a not "marketable" because it saves money rather than costing.