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.

Water

The Folly of Turning Water into Fuel

By Stan Cox, AlterNet. Posted March 22, 2008.


Agribusiness and politicians are sucking our country dry with mandates for biofuels.
Advertisement

With corn selling at record-high prices, Steve Albracht expects to have no trouble paying his electric bills this year. Albracht irrigates 1,000 acres of corn near the town of Hart in the Texas Panhandle and expects to shell out $180 to $240 per acre to run his pumps through the spring and summer. "In this area," says Albracht, "the water table has dropped, but nobody's cutting back on watering yet. There's still plenty down there."

Albracht won the 2005 National Corn Yield Contest in the "irrigated" category, producing a whopping 352 bushels per acre. In a region that gets an average of less than 18 inches of rain annually, Albracht and his neighbors apply anywhere from 28 inches to more than 3 feet of water to their corn each year. With the prospect of a highly profitable harvest, Albracht says he can afford to water generously this year. And he'll need to, he says, "because it's been a dry winter."

For once, times are good in the High Plains. Corn and other grains are selling like precious metals, and there is every reason to believe that prices will stay high. At the heart of the boom is the U.S. government's decision to rely on corn-based ethanol to meet a big part of the nation's demand for "renewable" fuels.

Most recent controversy over ethanol has focused on the its poor energy return; in growing corn and turning it into ethanol, you have to burn three calories to get four. With prices of fuel and other inputs rising fast, corn farmers won't be getting rich (except for those who happen to have oil wells on their property.) But selling their corn for such high prices, they can afford to sow more acres and burn more propane, diesel or electricity to pump more water than ever. A torrent of cash will be flowing through the nation's corn-growing regions, but the biggest price will be paid in water.

Thirst for corn

To hear agribusiness boosters and politicians tell it, corn-based ethanol is a miraculous solution to the nation's hunger for liquid fuels. But as miracles go, it's not all that impressive. When Jesus, according to Biblical reports, converted approximately 150 gallons of water into an equivalent quantity of wine, his conversion rate was about a cup of ethanol per gallon of water invested (given the typical alcohol content of wine). Compare that to current processes that use irrigated corn as their carbon source and get less than a teaspoon of ethanol for each gallon of water consumed.

In dry areas of the High Plains where irrigation is the most crucial to corn production and the ethanol-to-water ratio even lower, agriculture is dependent on a one-time drawing of groundwater that hasn't seen daylight for 11,000 years or more. The vast Ogallala aquifer, stretching from not far south of Steve Albracht's Texas farm all the way up into South Dakota, is being mined at a rate that, in some areas, will drain it sometime in the relatively near future -- at least before the oil wells of the Persian Gulf run dry.

The Ogallala was trapped underneath the High Plains around the time of the last ice age. The formation holds enough ancient water to fill Lake Huron, the second-greatest of the Great Lakes -- or at least it did before being exploited for agriculture. In the High Plains, raising a single bushel of irrigated corn slurps up 2,000 to 3,000 gallons of water, and more corn than ever is being raised there.

With national corn acreage having shot up 15 percent just from 2006 to 2007, pressure on water resources is increasing. The U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that the land area sown to corn will remain at historically high levels of 90 million acres or more through at least 2017. The incentive: the price, which has rocketed up from around $2.00 to more than $5.00 per bushel. And USDA forecasters now see high corn prices as near-permanent.

Most of the region's corn currently goes to cattle feedlots, but from this point onward, prices will be kept high by the ethanol industry. In western Kansas, for example, ethanol production plants have a total capacity of 143 million gallons per day, but new plants already planned or under construction will add more than 700 million gallons per day, most of that from irrigated corn or sorghum. In the eastern half of the state, where the Kansas River is already considered a toxic hazard because of fertilizer contamination, corn ethanol capacity is slated to grow from 101 to 667 gallons per day in the near future.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: high plains, water shortage, ogallala, great plains, corn, ethanol, biofuel, drought, water scarcity, water

Stan Cox is a plant breeder and writer in Salina, Kansas. His book Sick Planet: Corporate Food and Medicine will be published by Pluto Press this week.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Water! 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:
The Internal Combustion Engine will be saved at any cost ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Mar 22, 2008 1:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The jobs and taxes the internal combustion engine creates would have to be replaced with higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy. As long as they keep this mode of trasportation going it will be buffer for their money machine.

The answer of course are plug in battery vehicles that would have a range of 60 to 300 miles depending on price. By upgrading the electric grid, which needs to be done anyway, renewable energy could be plugged right in.

The problem is the battery electric car is cheaper to buy (-50%), cheaper to maintain (-90%) and cheaper to fuel (-60%). And there is the problem, fewer parts and less asssembly means lots fewer workers to tax, far less profit from parts suppliers and carmakers to tax. Then there are the gas taxes, Federal , State and local that would evaporate.

Where do you go to raise the tax money to suport the War Machine, the Homeland Security Honeypot and the Healthcare Hegemoney? The American people are not Einsteins but talk of screwing Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid will get just about anyone thrown out of office.

Who does that leave to tax? Them that has the Money!

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

???
Posted by: Tom Degan on Mar 22, 2008 2:53 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
TOM DEGAN

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

And let's not forget
Posted by: talkville on Mar 22, 2008 3:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those little ways of converting LOTS of water into 'short-term' Fuels: sodas, coffees and teas, all those drinkable sources of energy provided to each of us, at a price, to 'help us work more productively' and for just a little bit longer than the body and the mind may have liked.

Where there are soda-pop plants, there will be water shortages for the local populations. Where there are coffee, sugar-cane and coffee plantations, the local populations will become available for "wanting" Free Trade for food, whether they 'wanted' or not. Capitalism and Corporate States will always use any form of energy with a view to CONVERTING whether animals humans or machines into instruments of profit. It's a kind of Secular Evangel they preach. It's bi-polar -- every want is a need and every need is a want; then the 'Free Market' will allocate the resources neatly and efficiently: Top to Bottom. Land, Air and Water are next-up in thorough privatization.

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

» RE: And let's not forget Posted by: liberalibrarian
"The folly of fossil fuel-powered industrial agriculture"
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Mar 22, 2008 5:43 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That would have been a better title for yet another hit piece on biofuels - which, by the way, are the only fuels that human beings used up until the dawn of the industrial revolution, which first relied primarily on coal, then on petroleum and natural gas.

The real future is going to rely heavily on the cleanest power of all - not hydrogen, but electricity.

Electricity will be generated using a variety of sources: wind, solar, and biofuels as well as some local sources like tidal and geothermal. If you have a good, modern electricity grid, you can distribute and store the electricity (it's far easier to distribute electricty to people's houses than hydrogen, or coal, or oil).

At the same time, however, we are going to have to reform industrial agriculture in order to get it off fossil fuels. This means new, more labor-intensive farming methods that minimize the use of pesticides and fertilizer, as well as a new generation of electric farm equipment that runs off of solar and wind energy.

Entrenched interests in the petroleum and petrochemical industries would much prefer the "business as usual" scenario in which U.S. citizens continue to provide the biggest global demand for fossil fuel products. If we don't switch to renewables, fossil fuel corporations and their shareholders will continue to make obscene profits as they can charge ever-higher prices for petroleum.

Also, let's note that the analysis of corn prices presented here is mostly nonsense. Claiming it is all due to ethanol is pretty disingenuous.

First, we can note that the rise in food prices is more closely linked to the rise in petroleum prices, which has a knock-on effect through all areas of industrial agriculture - everything costs more, from fertilizer to transportation.

Second, the U.S. is facing permament drought in the Midwest and across the Southwest. This is the reality of climate change, and it's happening right now, and is not going to change, even if we halted fossil fuel combustion overnight. We need a whole new approach to agriculture.

Third, most of the corn production and the associated fertilizer pollution is for animal factory farm operations - hogs, chickens and cows, raised in appalling and torturous conditions. (Video documenting cattle treatment in California slaughterhouse leads to massive meat recall... - except the meat was all eaten before the recall...)

Fourth, the author makes no mention of the fact that U.S. trade policy supports monopolistic food cartels operated by the likes of Cargill and ADM that control much of the global food trade. High corn prices in Mexico were due mainly to small farmers being forced out of business by U.S. subsidized corn imports; once they were gone, the corn importers jacked up the prices.

Similar issues surround the palm oil plantations. However, most of that imported palm oil goes into junk food sold in the U.S., not into biofuel production.

Fifth, the author makes no mention of the massive PR effort against biofuels that has been mounted by the petroleum industry - which is very similar to that mounted against clean air standards, or to the effort to prevent fuel efficiency standards for cars, and so on. Fossil fuel corporations collude to attack any proposal that reduces fossil fuel use.

Finally, the author makes no mention of the real future of biofuels, which sure isn't corn. Algae and cellulose are far better sources of biofuels than corn.

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

» here you go Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» Iraq war does not cause higher gas prices Posted by: democracynowiniraq
Cellulose Ethanol
Posted by: msalganik on Mar 22, 2008 6:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ethanol isn't a bad idea, as long as we lower our demand for liquid fuels by driving less (biking, public transportation, and an expanded railway system can all facilitate this) and driving more efficent cars (plug in hybrids come to mind). Feeding king corn to try to maintain our current levels of consumption however is just madness. Besides, you dont need more corn. Ethanol can be made from cellulose... the very basic building block of nearly all green plants...by breaking it down (with bacterial or fungal cellulases) to free up sugar (cellulose is just a big polymer of glucose molecules-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulose). After this step, you make ethanol the same way you would from corn, sugar cane or any other glucose-rich substrate. And guess what...we dont need to plant anything new to do this... all we need to do is convert the waste portion of our agricultural crops (which for wheat and corn is the majority of the plant) into ethanol!!! So why are we still feeding king corn?

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

» RE: Cellulose Ethanol Posted by: Liberty G
» RE: Cellulose Ethanol Posted by: Jungle Boy
» one word: hemp Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» Exactly, thanks. Posted by: maxpayne
If moonshine was such a great way to fuel auto's...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Mar 22, 2008 6:54 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...then moonshiners would be doing it without massive taxpayer subsidies to keep their so-called "business model" afloat and profitable.

Hell, same thing goes with farmers in general, and their "business models" that keep them plowing only contingent on government--taxpayer's--largess.

Kick the the crutch out from under these leeches and let them make do the same way "normal" people who don't get government welfare/handouts have to do--by producing things of value, and charging appropriately.

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

Ethanol is a Sick Joke - It's converted Petroleum & Environmental Destruction
Posted by: opmoc on Mar 22, 2008 7:37 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ethanol is not an energy source. It takes more petroleum energy to create a gallon of ethanol than the ethanol contains. You are simply converting oil into another form of energy and throwing energy away in the process.

If ethanol was an energy source - then you would be able to use ethanol in the process to produce it. You wouldn't need any petroleum.

So go on if you think its so wonderful. Start with a big tank of ethanol - to get you going - and a big area of land that both contains the minerals required to produce the equipment to process and distil the ethanol as well as everything to grow the corn - and see how you get on without using any petroleum.

All that "stuff" which you take for granted is produced using conventional energy - and you have not included it in your energy cost.

Even if it was already pre-built - you still would not be able to produce any net ethanol without using petroleum.

Its worse than a waste of time - because it is resulting in much higher food costs which hits the poorest of the world first.

Its a sick scam.

The idea originated in Brazil - where it "seems" to work using sugar - but the "hidden" cost is the destruction of the rainforest. Where do you think they get the energy from for the distillation - its not from the ethanol.

It would be more efficient just to burn the trees and drive a steam engine. The world has gone crazy cos its run by bent politicians who don't understand science and subsidise this insanity with your money.

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

The problem is...
Posted by: PJAW on Mar 22, 2008 9:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that people believe human life on planet earth is sustainable. I'm not at all convinced. Especially if we continue to grow lazier and lazier as we develop more and more ways to exploit the natural environment to, not just sustain ourselves, but, indulge our most ridiculous fantasies.

One concept we need to get past before we can progress, is the idea that we are "consuming" anything. In fact, what we are doing is "converting" things. The basic materials that this planet is made of are all still here, in almost the identical quantities that they were millions of years ago. We're just driving chemical reactions and converting the atoms from one molecular structure to another. By proliferating the way that we have, we have achieved a conversion rate that is outpacing the ecosystems ability to reconvert those atoms into the forms that we have traditionally exploited. So we're in danger of "running out" of certain thngs, like water, and petroleum. If we don't find a way of exploiting the byproducts of our conversions fairly soon, or slowing the processes down so the ecosystem can catch up and even outpace us, we will have screwed ourselves completely as a species and might very well have to step aside while some other life form becomes dominant.

Or maybe god will come out of the sky and bail our sorry asses out. It seems that a lot of our fellow humans are counting on the god option, which is a convenient way to duck responsibility. Good luck with that.

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

This whole "water panic" is just plain stupid
Posted by: rickiey on Mar 22, 2008 11:40 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look, over 2/3's of the world's surface is water. We aren't likely to "run out".

Yeah, I know "but thats salt water, you can't use it for anything".

Salt water is EASY to convert into drinking water, on a massive scale.

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

"Don't worry, be happy?" Read "Collapse" and "Planet of Slums"
Posted by: Sojourner on Mar 22, 2008 12:50 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Half-truths ain't enough. I can identify the half-truths as those that accuse this article of lies.

Yes, both water and petroleum have been so readily available that we have not needed to worry about overpopulation. But now we are repeating the mistakes of every other civilization that has collapsed.

Proceeding by trial and error only makes sense when the "error" can be confined to the laboratory. Overuse of limited resources is theft not error. So long as "plan" remains a four-letter word, we continue to load irrational problems on our descendants. Such policies make cowards of us all.

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

The Folly of Refusing to Deal With Reality
Posted by: Dickinseattl on Mar 22, 2008 5:53 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Furturistic ideas, concepts, and even reasearch and developement are limportant for progress but we have an immediate problem called foreign crude oil and gasoline which run most all of our vehicals today. The costs for this in all ways is enormous! Ethanol is an immediate partial solution as a clean, renewable high octane fuel. That is the reality we must address today. I've heard no other immediate and viable solution offered. Unless your with the oil Cartels, these ethanol attacks make little sense. 8 - to 10 million cars are ethanol ready but limited by Oil Cartel supply obstructions, and such writers.

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

Jean Siracusa
Posted by: Jean Siracusa on Mar 22, 2008 6:24 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People who believe it is possible to grow corn for ethanol as described in this article do not have a clue of how the natural systems of our planet work. They cannot see the forest for the trees. A human population that exceeds six billion people puts great pressure on the Earth's natural resources especially when some of us annually consume 30% of those resources without realizing where they come from, and where they are discarded. This ignorance is a time bomb of an ecological disaster in the making.

Technology brought us wealth and prosperity, improved human health, and increased life expectancy. Why then does it seem that no one understands the solution to our dilemma of oil shortages, increased carbon dioxide emissions and the threat of global warming?

Our government will not solve this problem, but our people will if they choose. Unfortunately people get most of their information from a flawed media such as television. Few people are aware of natural systems, ecology and science. There is a limited understanding of the concept that we are interconnected to all other living and non-living things with whom we share this planet. The most fundamental element we must learn is that one organism's waste is another's food and that when we understand that concept we will begin to know that we cannot grow crops for oil production on every square inch of our planet; that we cannot cut down every source of cellulose to make biofuel; that we cannot transport food, fuel, and consumer goods thousands of miles. We are wasting our food!

Most of our food production requires extensive use of fossil fuels, and we are still driving inefficient vehicles that release copious amounts of carbon dioxide. We burn coal for electricity while we complain about looking at windmills and asthma. We continue to shop for things, not necessities. We have embraced the idea that bigger is better, and that large size is most efficient. We do not understand that the answer is not in large but in small, local, natural systems.

If we are smart enough to make the choice to change, we will value local communities where sustainable local food and fuel production will generate commerce as the concepts of conservation and sustainable living are practiced. When we realize that modern technology has given many people the privilege of working at home in their communities instead of commuting to their place of work, that they will have more time and begin to understand how to live better with fewer material goods. Communities will create better environments and renew education systems for our children, our families, our communities and our future.

Fuel is a necessity. Thoughtful biofuel development will create clean renewable energy that does not use food producing land, enormous amounts of water, or chemicals to produce oil and electricity. It is possible, it is being done now! As awareness grows, changes will too. Consumer spending will decrease as we understand the value of our natural resources. Local sustainable food and fuel production will keep money circulating in the communities and people will have secure food and energy systems, closer families, and become a sustainable society.

Our only reliable sustainable source of energy is the sun. One organism's waste is always another's food in natural systems. We can learn from these systems; we must learn. We do not have another planet.

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

Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Mar 22, 2008 9:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The common denominator to all of the world's problems is over population.


Direct Democracy

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

» RE: Terrorist Posted by: mmckinl
Before petroleum came in, Henry Ford and Rudolf Diesel supported hemp, a petroleum-free biofuel.
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 23, 2008 8:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's so sad that some people just don't realize that not all biofuels are the same. The only reason corn-based ethanol even gets any subsidies is the same corn lobbyists of Big Agri are the same scumbags who lobbied hard to get the eventually corrupt FDA to "legalize" aspartame and later make stevia illegal in 1991 although in 1995 the ban was partially overturned to make stevia a dietary supplement.

If you really want to get solar, wind, geothermal, etc ... going along with actually getting people to conserve, the first thing to do is overturn the ban on growing and putting to industrial use for its 25000+ products, hemp. That's the only way to cut down the rising demand of oil. It's like the results of eating a petroleum manufactured sweet made of aspartame or high fructose corn syrup versus the results of eating a natural sweet stevia. The former is addictive and dangerous to your health while the latter isn't. Now who wants to be a winner and defeat RIGGED "capitalism" and who wants to stay the Stan Cox course. Nice author though.

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

Question for the author:
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Mar 23, 2008 8:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How much water does it take to convert one barrel of crude oil to one barrel of gasoline?

Estimates are rare (it's not a topic petroleum refiners like to see discussed), but do exist:

"This study analyzed the present operations, water use and wastewater treatment and disposal of the operating refineries in New Mexico.^Alternatives for water conservation and wastewater reduction/treatment were evaluated for applicability and cost effectiveness.^New Mexico refineries presently use from 10.6 to 39.1 gallons of water per barrel of crude oil and generate 6.5 to 25.4 gallons of wastewater per barrel of crude.

That's seriously polluted water, loaded down with arsenic and sulfur and selenium, as well as nasty crude oil residues that are both toxic and carcinogenic. In comparison, wastewater from an ethanol refinery is nothing but beer with the alcohol removed.

So, if the theme here is "The folly of turning water into fuel", why didn't you take a look at what petroleum refineries do?

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

» ..but... Posted by: Drclaw
» RE: Pollutants in Biofuel Posted by: Liberty G
Ethanol a Scam: Mass Transit, Conservation & Renewables Are the Only Real Solutions
Posted by: sofla100 on Mar 23, 2008 4:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Technological fixes won't work for fuel because world demand for oil is escalating. China will double her demand in just a few years. Her goal, to become more like the USA and have millions and millions of automobiles. The USA pushes ethanol partly as a hoped for partial substitute for gasoline, the idea for the USA is to be less dependent on imported oil. But, this isn't going to work. Oil is going to continue upward in price and we are looking at $500 a barrel in 5 years. The only real solution, strict conservation first of all. Next mass transit systems in all major cities and renewables, such as wind/geo-thermal and solar. But, the most important is conservation. Then, regardless of world demand, our demand will be less and hence less injurious to the USA economy and to the individual pocketbook. Ethanol is a pipe-dream, a scam to keep alive the hoped for dream of endless energy guzzling. Time for things to really change.

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

Quite simply...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Mar 24, 2008 6:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem is industrialized society itself. There is a reason every solution we look at for our fuel needs is wholly unsustainable... because our consumption is unsustainable.

www.greenanarchy.org

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

Pass this on--it's critically important
Posted by: larryfhilton on Mar 24, 2008 4:33 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pass this article on to all your friends and relatives! What is said here is not said by the mainstream press, and it is critically important to our survival.
Several years ago, the CIA (which does much more than waterboard terrorists at Cheney's urging) predicted, with the help of an array of esteemed scientists from all disciplines, that in 50 years the primary cause of wars would be water shortages.
Ethanol is only pushed because our politicians will gladly trade a few midwest votes now for a national disaster in the future. It is up to us to spread the truth.

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

sustainability = Zero Human Population Growth
Posted by: stilldreaming on Mar 24, 2008 5:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
anyone mentioned that yet? I was sure from the start that ethanol costs too much (all kinds of costs) to be a mass alternative fuel.

Love Stanley Cox articles. But we need to get to the roots of our problems, and address those (overpopulation, overconsumption) along with all the other issues that need solved.

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