Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiCan't Eat Ethanol
Corn should be used for food, not motor fuel, and yet the United States is committed to a policy that encourages farmers to turn an increasing amount of their crop into ethanol. This may save the nation a bit of the cost of imported oil, but it increases global-warming gases and contributes to higher food prices.
Candidates for president need to tell Americans the truth about ethanol, but they are falling over themselves in pursuit of the farm belt vote. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton want more ethanol factories built than even President Bush envisaged when he called for 15 percent of US gasoline consumption to be replaced by alternative fuels by 2017. John McCain, who correctly called the ethanol push a boondoggle in 2000, now says that it is "a very important way to achieve energy independence."
Ethanol consumes almost a quarter of US corn production. The energy self-sufficiency that all the candidates seek should not come at the expense of the environment or the food supply.
Increased ethanol production isn't the only reason for the spike in food costs, but it's more controllable than drought in Australia, higher fertilizer prices, or increased meat consumption by the Chinese. Unlike those other cost-drivers, ethanol production is encouraged by federal subsidies.
And it's not as though ethanol improves the environment. When emissions inherent in the production process are included, ethanol consumption generates more carbon dioxide per gallon than gasoline, according to a recent report in Science magazine. Conversion of other cultivated biomass, such as sugarcane or soy, presents the same problem. The only biofuel that produces a net benefit is agricultural waste, an uncertain source. The best way for American motorists to use less gasoline is to drive fewer miles in lighter vehicles, rather than rely on the false promise of biofuels.
Ethanol is now usually sold as 10 percent of a fuel mixture that includes 90 percent gasoline. The government is thinking of ordering refiners to raise the blend to 15 or 20 percent. Ethanol generates fewer miles per gallon than regular gasoline. And it's not yet clear, according to the Consumer Reports website, how the higher blends would affect engine reliability or longevity. Before the government insists on a new fuel blend, it ought to examine all the hidden costs.
Greater use of ethanol means more greenhouse gases and more expensive food for people and livestock, hardly a fair exchange. There's a limited role for biofuels, excluding corn, in reducing oil imports from volatile regions, but they are not the answer to the world's need for energy on the go.
© 2008 The Boston Globe
76 Comments so far
Show All"GM is allowing breeding to move faster and that is why farmers are buying the stuff like crazy and why Monsanto stock has doubled!"
A very old, tired, not to mention debunked linguistic fallacy. Oh my!
"We need to legalize the stealing of patented products so that long term investment in technology stops. No more new inventions or medicines."
Hey,thanks for proving you have no idea how the pharmaceutical industry works. You sound like a lib... Oh right, you are a libertarian.
100 MPG car?
http://www.apolloalliance.org/resources_100mpg.php
jstevens, apology accepted. Now how do we get the farm subsidy gurus off our backs & out of our pockets so we can move forward with hemp & switchgrass as the source for biofuels instead of food crops?
Please accept my apology for referencing your mother.
The qualities that you (and I) admire about hemp and switchgrass are the qualities that make them abhorrent to industry.
Both would provide a nice alternative to energy from oil, and a nice alternative to ethanol from corn. However, since the most powerful industries would be unable to profit from these biofuels in the fashion to which they are accustomed, a very noticeable smear campaign is in effect.
The message blared from this rash of CD articles is "Biofuels are causing Starvation"
Hemp could be a biofuel; switchgrass could be a biofuel---without causing starvation. Yet they are getting lumped into one big category.
In terms of subsidies, of course, they are a world apart, but that is not what I was referring to.
Patents should be rarely given and only for enough time to recover the development costs. There should be no monopoly nor license to print money. If you do not market your product, you lose the patent. No more legal actions just to make money.
jstevens, what does my mom have to do with this thread. She died 25 years ago. I'm a 60 year old educated, literate, articulate man who speaks for himself, and writes what he means, so leave her out of it, ok?
These biofuel articles DON'T lump everything together; they mainly propose corn, and exclude hemp. In fact many of the idiots in congress prefer criminalizing hemp even if it isn't smokeable. How many subsidies do you see for switchgrass? Any for hemp, in spite of the fact it is a much more viable & valuable resource than corn or switchgrass? So you see, they aren't all lumped in the same category, are they?
I will agree with you on the point about, "...because the Exxon Mobile propaganda machine presents it as such.", and this is likely why Bush has mentioned switchgrass so many times, but not one word about hemp. Corporate parrot/puppet he is, he's always the problem, but never a solution.
paulmagillsmith: Apparently you and your mom have decided that you are smarter than me so you feel free to throw out a very condescending "Do your homework."
Perhaps you should take note that all of these biofuel articles lump everything into the same category.
Switchgrass is probably the best fuel source available since it grows like a weed requiring little water and no help from Monsanto. Production of fuel from switchgrass is a very efficient process, far superior to fuel from corn. Notice however, that all biofuels are lumped into the same category in most of these articles. That's because the Exxon Mobile propaganda machine presents it as such.
I'm pretty sure I never said I was unaware of hemp or against hemp.
jclientelle - I don't work 24/7/365. My wife actually works much harder than I do. Looks like Thursday may be my first chance to work some ground. I guess that I would be working on the farm all winter too, if I had livestock, but my evil machines are ready to go; just need a dry spell. This global warming hasn't come to my neck of the woods yet.
Mr. Obvious you say: "I make money doing a number of things, farming, scientist, home restorer, and investor."
Wow. I didn't know you were all that. Farmers I know spend 24/7/365 on that job alone. And you still make time to post on Common Dreams!
A Renascence republican. I love it. :)
Yes, jstevens, I am hateful of being used & manipulated, but the bottom line is I love people (most anyway), my country, & this plane of existence. Moreover, the thing I hate the most is arrogance, stupidity, and lies.
Regarding your statement there is a solution, but stupid people are blocking it:
"Anyone who considers looking at a fuel source that is a mere improvement but not perfect is unenlightened."
The answer is hemp. Do your homework. Hint, hint, here's a good place to start:
http://rawganique.com/whyhemp.htm
John-boy - I make money doing a number of things, farming, scientist, home restorer, and investor. This is why I don't worry much about the econonomy. I do lots of things and don't pay others to do much for me. I am not a spelling bee champ like you. We all have our faults.
JohnyCanuk - well said. Mr Oblivious was just arguing about the joys of pesticides in your food. Just for fun, I perused some articles to see where he left comments. Funny, he seems to only leave opinions on AgriBusiness-related articles... Before he said he was a biologist (who spelled fungal as 'fungle'... What are you today, Mr. O - a concerned farmer?
kara.korum - I did a bit of looking at this in the peer-reviewed literature. The review papers say that the results depend on who's models you use. The bottom line is that it is complex. I would like to see more wildlife area, so I don't like biofuels.
I keep hearing about the patenting of minor modifications by the pharma industry. Then why don't you buy the cheap generic version from the government funded labs? What, you can't find them? Thats right, because this is bull. It sounds real good, but it's bull.
Big pharma does not spend that much on research, compared to what it spends on marketing, profits, and bloated management salaries. A lot of that research is done to effectively extend patents by making minor, non-functional changes to existing drugs.
O, you have posed a difficult question, way beyond my information. clearly, bioethanol production leads to 'waste', some of which is usable. There are a number of articles on the web, but my sense is they are trying to find what are commercially profitable uses.
Besides minor by products - glycerol, lignins etc, the obvious question is - can cattle be fed the byproducts. It should be possible in theory, as they can digest cellulose remnants. (with the starch/sugar of the plant having been converted to ethanol)It can also be burnt as fuel, but with a probable low caloric density, this can only be done at the site, as it will not make economic sense to use additional energy in shipping a low calorie waste.
the internal combustion engine has a 15% efficiency in using fuel for kinetic energy with a very 'clean' fuel, but we may achieve a slightly higher efficiency if we just use the biofuel byproducts directly for heat production.
Composting it may be a 3rd alternative.
I may mention that in no underdeveloped country are biofuels used other than for food or light(oillamps). If grass and wood are to be used for heat, they are used directly, without prior conversion to a liquid fuel, and they are certainly not used for transport.Methane from animal dung (otherwise a waste) is used for cooking.
Regardless, the net resultof large scale biofuels adds carbondioxide to the atmosphere,uses considerable fossil fuel energy (and other resources) in its production,and at a 2% compounded rate of increase (that of population)in its use, will barely touch the needs of human transportation.
The land available for biofuel production is much less in china and India than in USA, each with 1.3 and 1.2 billion people resp,and lesser cropland, and with a compounded annual increase in fuel energy usage of 5-9%.
Any one who has been reading here, for any length of time, will come to realize that Mr O(blivious to realities),is a troll for corporate control of everything..as in profit drives everything.
He claims the Big Pharmas need all that profit to do research.
FACT: big Pharma spends the bulk of all that profit on ADVERTIZING, so you buy more of the "stuff"
The majority of these so called "research intensive" new drugs, are merely the same old ones with minor chemical changes, to justify another patent, with very poor resulting improvement from the original.
And as a troll for profit driven everything, Mr O will never be swayed from the "MONEY" worship he so blatantly espouses, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that profit driven everything , has done more to ruin the world.
I now hunker down awaiting the inevitable flood of cherry picked reference sites, that will be posted in defending his views, and will sit down at my desk and with the magic of Google and other such tools, be able to find plenty of counter references to each and every one that may be posted.
That Mr o thinks it acceptable to put man made crap, into the natural food chain, because of the assurances of paid shills , about its safety, speaks volumes more.
PaulMagillSmith: So Hateful!!!
John McCain is far more successful than he should be considering that he is Mr. Surge. A recent MSNBC article stated that McCain had erased Obama's lead. Bush shouldn't have won 1 much less 2 terms, and any pro-war candidate should be left behind in the dust if the world were to make any sense to me.
To answer your question: Yes. I am an idiot because I don't hold your opinions. According to Webster anyone who doesn't hold the opinion of Paul Magill Smith is daft. Case closed. Anyone who considers looking at a fuel source that is a mere improvement but not perfect is unenlightened.
kara.korum - This info is very useful but I have a couple additional questions (really). How much energy is left in the by-products of the corn used for ethanol production? How much energy can a human extract from the corn before processing (not a calorometer). I really do not know the answers, but I think the piece of data of interest, is how many usable calories (those a human can extract) are lost when each liter of ethanol is made. I would think that the number of calories released from burning is considerably more than a monogastric animal can extract.
RE: kara.korum April 14th, 2008 1:08 pm
Thanks for the data. It is crucial for an intelligent discussion of this issue, and should have been included as part of the article.
chessgames56 - I know someone who used to work at publically funded cancer research. He finally quit because he could not stomach the waste (travel, entertainment, pet projects, etc.). Ya - the government is the model of efficiency. If the government research was really working, the corporations would not hold the patents. Patents inventors must be listed on the patent. If they are not, the patent can be deemed invalid. Pick your favorite drug and track back where the research was done.
RE: jstevens April 14th, 2008 9:36 am
"Has anyone ever wondered why the Republican Party prevails despite a hideous and unpopular war, a collapsing economy and global warming inaction. Why Mr. "100 Years War" is ahead in the polls?"
Typical delusional & misleading fare, jstevens. Are you just speaking of polls taken in your own gated household/community/right wing bribed city/or out of touch with main stream America puny state? Mr. McBush (Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran) is NOT ahead in the polls, with Obama & Hillary even or behind, but if Edwards hadn't been selected out by a complicit MSM McCain would be far far behind. Back to the issue at hand, though, you state:
"Try use corn to replace oil and look what happens. Hmmm."
Are you a bit thick, or don't you understand the object of the informed & enlightened is to get rid of using BOTH OF THESE as energy sources (and nuclear power as well)?
The biggest problem I see is who controls the funding that could be dispersed toward more viable clean safe alternatives to passe energy sources such as fossil fuels, nuclear, and yes...corn ethanol. BushCo, and stooges like McCain, are roadblocks in this area instead of the 'green' lights we need.
a few useful facts gleaned from gov soures and wikipedia:
1 liter gasoline = 35 megajoules energy
1 liter 100% ethanol = 24 megajoules energy
3.8 liters = 1 gallon
1 calorie = 4.2 joules
energy need of an adult/day = 2500 Kcals or 10000 Kjoules
hence 1 liter of ethanol has the food energy to supply 24 000 000/ 10 000 000 = 2.4 adults / day
a 30 gallon suv fillup = 115 liters ethanol = food energy for 280 adult
corn ethanol yield = 380 gallons per acre/ year (although estimates of 0.7 -1.3 energy input for 1 unit enrgy output
sugarcane ethanol yield = 660 gallons/ acre with 0.2 units enrgy input/ 1 unit energy ouput
us oil usage = 20 million barrels or 620 gallons/ day = 2 gallons oil/ person / day = 3 gallons ethanol / person/ day since energy in ethanol is 2/3 that of oil
hence it will take 3 acres in corn/ person to supply oil equivalents of ethanol based on current usage or 12acres per 4 person family
current us crop acreage = 250 million
current us pasture acreage = 650- 700 million
current us forest = 235 million
however, ethanol yield from pasture and forest is much, much lower than corn (photosynthesis efficiency of 0.2 - 0.5% vs 2% for corn, although energy inputs are zero, unlike corn)
so, if entire us crop areage is devoted to a crop that yields twice the efficiency of ethanol production as corn, it will only supply 50% of our oil equivalent energy needs,
as there are 300 million us residents (1400 gallons ethanol/ person year / 660 (as in sugarcane) ethanol yield/ acre so 300 million people need 600 million acres sugarcane yield cropland.
600 million pasture will yield ethanol = 60 - 100 million acres of crops - does not alter the math much
then off course, we, and our pets and meat animals still need to eat
and, do other species have no energy needs, that we can consume the entire available bioenergy?
Maybe there won't be the next AZT when we need it.
--It will make no difference to you or me Mr. O, if we cannot afford it, will it? Remember, too, that a lot of taxpayer money goes into funding drug research, so it is not solely a private endeavor. We must decide, as a society, if we wish to fund ANYTHING for the common good, or let profit and the market decide who gets what. If you believe in the later, let's hope you're very rich.
I am very sad for those who have made profit their God, meaning it is the primary motivation for everything they do. Ironically, for many like that, it's just dandy for others to do without, but when it hits home, they scream bloody murder.
Maybe there won't be the next AZT when we need it. Most pharma companies give such drugs away in 3rd world countries, but charge good in the rich USA. Our affluence supports a lot of the medicine that poor countries receive. We are paying the research costs for the next set of miracle drugs. No profits - no reaserch. Big profits - lots of research. Corporations conduct research because they can profit from it.
USAn - You might want to look into the reasons for the patent system and why it creates innovation. The protection is for 17 years, so an inventor waiting around is simply burning thier limited time as a monopoly. In addition to encouraging long-term expensive research, patents also discourage trade-secrets, that may never be publically available without this system. So many of our convieniences are due to patents, I cannot imagine where you are coming from. With regard to the unwitting farmer getting prosecuted by seed companies due to pollen drift, this is a great urban legend. If you want to know the real story, investigate this at education sites, not activist sites. Or talk to the honest farmers using the technology (which are most of them).
All this talk about patents and profits reminded me of the anger of some major pharmaceutical companies had against Indian versions of the same drugs. AZT comes to mind. Burroughs Welcome complained vigorously against Indian pharmaceutical companies for making AZT and distributing it at a fraction of the cost, claiming that it violated their patent. India essentially responded that making the drug available to those who needed it at an affordable price was more important than BW's profits. I'd like to point out that the amount BW charged ($6,300 annually) for this drug was despicable by any standards. I suppose they thought is that if people are desperate enough, they'll pay anything. Would that apply as well for hungry people purchasing terminator seeds?
I'm sorry, but some things are just inherently wrong. Those who put profit above all else have no conscience, but only pretenses of one when it serves their interests. Some psychologists regard this as psychopathic behavior.
Thomas, you write if that if ethanol is a good idea it wouldn't need subsidies, but trying to convert a technology to meet the needs of an energy addicted, growing society will not just spring up on its own. More importantly, what you fail to realize is the subsidies we pay for oil in the form of tax dollars for defense, environmental cleanup, and of course loss of life. Denying clean, bio-mass energy due to cost is as short sighted as it gets.
...
It takes almost the full amount of energy in one gallon of ethanol to produce that gallon. It is cost prohibitive (large subsidies) adds more carbon footprint and raises the cost of food while lowering the supply of food.
Which part of that did you miss? If it was a good idea, you wouldn't have to use huge subsidies to produce it. Plus it fails reduces our dependence on oil.
Mr Obvious,
The has never been any clear evidence that patent law encourages, or rewards in any fair way, innovation. In fact it could be just as or more true that an _absence_ of patenting may better encourage innovation. A manufacturer would have to continually improve the product to stay ahead of the copycat competetion, rather than just sit on thir patent and enrich a bunch of lawyers rahter than pay engineers and scientists?
I believe abolition of patents was even tried in a few countries - and it had only a beneficial effect on manufacturing innovation.
And the idea that "intellectual property" (a scary term) represent some kind of fundamental human right is also nonsense.
Let me give you one example:
As an EV experimenter, I have folowed advanced battery development with dismay as one company - cobalsys, which is owned by Chevron-Texaco, has obtained, through legal shenannigans and armys of lawyers, all rights to any all large capacity NiMH batteries. Mind you he creators of this technology mostly developing these technologies in public universities largely with public funds - and they saw very few rewards for their creativity.
Cobalsys is refusing to license the manufacture of any NiMH cells larger than flashlight sized. They will sit on this technology - vitally needed for the public benefit, until oil gets scarce enough to benefit Cobalsys/Chevron-Texaco, rather than the public.
The same crap is now going on with the more promising LiFePO4 battery chemistry. An outfit called Phostech - a division of the big electric utility Hydro-Quebec is attempting to lock up this technology - developed, once again, in publicly funded universities. Gangs of corporate lawyers, not scientists or engineers, are now at work getting rich on this.
Thankfully, the Chinese scientists and engineers are ignoring this legal crap, to the benefit of their economy, to my benefit; because I can get large-capacity cells from them for my EV's; and ultimately to all humanity.
Now, what about food? Well a callous greed-glorifying "libertarian" like you may have trouble understanding this, but access to food is a human right, and any commodification of food is subordinate to this. Since terminator seeds have no benefits beyond an attempt to obtain monopoly control of human needs, such seeds should be banned without question. And since Monsanto's corporte lawyers have established legal precedent that their "intelectual property rights" can be conveyed to others farmers seeds by the wind via cross-pollination, the farmers often don't even have a choice to _not_ use their seeds. What's thiss about capitalism being not "coercive"?
An account of the trouble is here:
http://www.evworld.com/blogs/index.cfm?page=blogentry&authorid=51&blogid=104
Now, Mr. Obvious please go troll somewhere else.
OLD GOAT: Your post says it all...
EARL SIMMINS: Good one!
ANDREW TAYNTON: Thank you for the excellent data posted!
Has anyone ever wondered why the Republican Party prevails despite a hideous and unpopular war, a collapsing economy and global warming inaction. Why Mr. "100 Years War" is ahead in the polls?
I think the Liberals are a victim of their own ideology. All you have to do is throw out an article that people are starving because of ethanol, and most no longer examine the facts, or think critically at all. They had you at starve. This is the same mentality that causes people to say they didn't vote for AL Gore because he's not perfect. 10 million times better than "W" but not perfect. So they vote for Nader. Since he has never been in office, he has no voting record, no big decisions, so he is not flawed. The Nader voters are always so proud of themselves.
Now we have an emerging solution to many of our oil issues. It's not perfect, and it's not complete, but it could be an integral part of averting climate change. But look how everyone is playing into the hands of the oil companies propaganda.
We feed corn to animals. We use corn for alcohol to get drunk on. No problem. Try use corn to replace oil and look what happens. Hmmm.
That terminator technology is as bad as copy-protection on software and should be stopped. We need to legalize the stealing of patented products so that long term investment in technology stops. No more new inventions or medicines.
Mr. Boston writes:
"There has not been a commercialization of the seed…yet, but that hasn't stopped Monsanto from developing the product."
--Right, Mr. Boston, and without any regulations preventing Monsanto from making a profit from such a product, it will try. Those who believe in self-regulating industries, no doubt believe in faeries bringing the morning dew as well.
Deregulation brings out the best in industry, does it not?
Yeah, right.
This article is misleading and manipulative propaganda. I believe that the "biofuels displaces food" frame originates with the fossil fuel industry. And they are apparently getting a lot of mileage out of it (much more than their "global warming makes the world greener" idea). To me, this article reads as if it is directly sponsored by the fossil fuel industry.
The article states that "ethanol consumption generates more carbon dioxide per gallon than gasoline." Perhaps, but the article fails to recognize that ethanol is NOT a fossil fuel. Rain forests emit enormous amounts of CO2. Does that mean we should ban them? No, because the carbon emitted is not fossil carbon.
Also, the article blames higher food prices on ethanol production, and fails to mention rising fossil fuel prices as a major factor.
We need to reduce fossil fuel consumption as much as possible, as soon as possible. That means more energy conservation and more alternative energy production.
Mr Ovious...funny we are both mr's. While my answer may have been a bit brief in the interest of readability, it simply states that Monsanto is genetically engineering corn with terminator seeds, which they are. There has not been a commercialization of the seed...yet, but that hasn't stopped Monsanto from developing the product. Monsanto has pledged not to use terminator seeds "on FOOD crops". Which leaves ethanol crops wide open, and the research here is well documented and wide open on .coms, net's, org's, edu's and the like.
Morgellons Disease May Be Linked to Genetically Modified Food - But recent evidence suggests that the disease is indeed real, and may be related to genetically modified (GM) food. What is Morgellons Disease? On August 1, 2007, the CDC issued the following statement regarding Morgellons Disease: ...
NaturalNews.com - http://www.NaturalNews.com
Can't eat Ethanol - can't swallow FDA data policy
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Newsletter/Nov2007-CompanyResearchisRigged/index.cfm
excerpt:
"Whenever private submissions are made public through lawsuits or Freedom of Information Act Requests, it becomes clear why companies benefit from secrecy. The quality of their research is often miserable, incompetent, and unacceptable for peer-review. In 2000, for example, after the potentially allergenic StarLink corn was discovered in the food supply, Aventis CropScience presented wholly inadequate safety data to the EPA's scientific advisory panel. One frustrated panel member, Dean Metcalfe, MD,—the government's top allergist—said during a hearing, "Most of us review for a lot of journals. And if this were presented for publication in the journals that I review for, it would be sent back to the authors with all of these questions. It would be rejected."[8]
Submissions to the US Food and Drug Administraion (FDA) may be worse than in other countries, since the agency doesn't actually require any data. Their policy—overseen by Monsanto's former attorney who later became the company's vice president—says that biotech companies can determine if their own foods are safe. Anything submitted is voluntary and, according to former Environmental Protection Agency scientist Doug Gurian-Sherman, "often lack[s] sufficient detail, such as necessary statistical analyses needed for an adequate safety evaluation." Using Freedom of Information Requests, Gurian-Sherman analyzed more than a fourth of the data summaries (14 of 53) of GM crops reviewed by the FDA. He says, "Our evaluation found that the biotechnology companies provide inadequate data to ensure their products are safe."[9]"
mr boston - Terminator technology was developed by the USDA to prevent cross-pollination and was never commercialized by anybody. This is an urban myth. I understand the mistake. With folks like Dandy Andy posting here, its hard to discern reality from fantacy. If you want to understand the facts in these situations you need to move away from .org sites with an agenda and .com sites with a profit margin to maintain. Try .edu sites or peer-reviewed publications.
I am surprised to see how easily swayed some of the Common Dreams readers are. Thanks pojer and Jeanette for some nice posts. I think this article really misses the point. Of course it is foolish to trade food for gas, but to apply that reasoning to the technology is equally if not more foolish. The government currently spends hundreds of millions of dollars per year eradicating wild hemp (aka ditchweed) throughout the midwest. This plant has higher ethanol production capabilities than corn, and yet we can afford to have tax dollars spent to spray it with toxic chemicals. Why???...Strangely enough it is sprayed with chemicals made by the same company who is genetically engineering all the corn with terminator seeds. Our friends over at Monsanto/Dupont.
Please wake up people, the answers to the problems so often posted on this site are being presented to you and now you reject them based on a little hiccup in the Boston Globe. We need to get off oil. Look at the war, death, famine, environmental ruin and economic hardship that oil provides, and now we should worry about ethanol???...Come on.!! The fact that people here are condemning clean, locally grown energy is mind-boggling.
Oh Mr O:
Genetic engineering: Gene insertion methods create mutations, fragments and multiple copies, and mutations can have serious consequences, see fully referenced article: Gambling and Scrambling with the Genome:
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=278
rickster469 - You wrote:
"I dare you to go and find a natural bred ear of sweet corn and a new un-natural produced ear of Monsantos corn and test them. Monsatos corn is tasteless and not fit for consumption. You can't buy good tasting ears of corn in the store anymore. Luckily we have local farmers where I live that grow the good stuff."
Most people find sweet corn better than field corn. DUH! Monsanto does not sell GM sweet corn.
Andy - Maybe if you keep repeating yourself someone will believe you. Mutation is the basis for evolution, and selection of novel mutations is a main driver for traditional plant breeding.
The Boston Globe editors smell lucrative kickbacks for distracting their readers with putting out fires instead of going after the arsonists.
Our tax dollars go to subsidies for ethanol production from corn that drives up food prices world-wide, increases fertilizer runoff into the Mississipi and Gulf of Mexico, has wrecked crop rotations, drives up fertilizer and fuel prices, and produces less energy and more CO2 making ethanol than if the energy inputs were burned directly. Gasoline containing substantial ethanol also causes reduced miles per gallon and may be hard on engines.
Then it gets worse. Even with the subsidies, ethanol production for fuel should not survive in the "market", but our oil industry oriented free market government is actually forcing the oil companies to use it at whatever cost!
7.8% ethanol should meet the oxygenated fuel requirement and is safer than MTBE, but there should be a way to make cars burn fuel just a little more cleanly. It is not needed everywhere, just in high smog areas. A mandate forcing E85 (15%)everywhere is beyond stupid.
gee just start to sell the electric car or AIR CAR that uses no oil. Put a 500$ widemill beside your house with a few truck batteries and guess what, oil free. OR just plug it in.
I have driven electric cars when at different tracks through my auto racing and guess what these demostration cars would fill the needs of over 80% of what we use a car for.
NOW I know they will start to say what about electricity, well the last time I looked you can't eat electricity and THEY DON'T USE CORN TO PRODUCE IT.
With more companies building them the price drops and speed and distance would go up.
Hey Mr OOOO
NON-GM PLANT BREEDING SUCCESSES
For example a U.S. scientist has developed a non-GM process for allergen-free peanuts while another a non-GM approach for Striga-weed-resistant cowpeas in Africa.
Australian scientists have developed non-GM salt-resistant wheat while the Gates Foundation supports a non-GM
b-carotine rich sweet potato in Africa.
A non-GM virus-resistant cassava has been developed for East and Central Africa, while non-GM technology has been used to reduce aflatoxins in maize in Nigeria.
In the UK, iron-fortified non-GM maize cuts anaemia rates in children, while Austro-Indian non-GM research shows cuts of 50% in cotton insecticides while adding 75% to profitability.
In Holland a Dutch researcher has bred a non-GM fungi-resistant tomato while in Italy non-GM tomatoes have been made to drink less water.
In India a non-GM rice with bacterial leaf blight-resistance genes has been developed and according to New Scientist a non-GM solution has been found for the cassava root-rot devastation in Africa, and in the U.S. a grape researcher has bred non-GM vines resistant to Pierce's Disease.
For more information on the dangers of GM food and successful non-GM plant breeding visit "Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology" at www.psrast.org
In India on April 8 this year, 5000 farmers protested against GM crops. Hardly an endorsement, see:
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8970
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8975
MUTANT SEEDS??
In addition, Mr O, what do you mean all food is mutant?
For thousands of years farmers have increased yields by cross breeding, selective breeding and hybridisation etc.
Now suddenly in the 1970's splicing genes from bacteria and viruses into naturally bred crops was introduced in laboratories.
This scrambles the DNA of the new organism with unintended and sometimes harmful consequences. the research I have posted elsewhere shows that GM crops don't yield more and sometimes yield less.
In Europe with its most informed consumers in the world, GM FOODS are known as Frankenstein foods and rejected.
Mr Obvioius
US TAXDOLLARS PROP UP MONSANTO
You state "GM is allowing breeding to move faster and that is why farmers are buying the stuff like crazy and why Monsanto stock has doubled!"
Firstly, it is another myth that GM allows breeding to take place faster. Ask any honest plant breeder.
Secondly, farmers have no choice, Monsanto has patents registered over 91% of GM seed sold globally and the US is the biggest planter of GM crops.
Basically US farm subsidies are US tax dollars propping Monsanto up. Take away US taxdollar subsidies to farmers and Monsanto would collapse.
Nothing like a little bit of croney capitaism on the side to help ones corporate mates hey.
For Jstevens: the shift to corn in us-->shift away from soy in us and subsequent price increase in soy-->soy production on Amazon pasture land-->further cutting of Amazon forest for more pasture land
HEMP HEMP HEMP FOR ETHANOL. Don't through the technology out for the wrong crop! Demand fuel crops for fuel..swithgrass, algee, fungi, HEMP!!!!! I wish Common Dreams would stop publishing every aqnti-ethanol and get off the UN Agenda 21 bandwagon!
We will soon use cellulose ethanol that is made from corn stalks. Corn for food and stalks for fuel.
I just watched the World According to Monsanto a great documentry exposing this rotten company! However, I wish it goes into the biofuel dilemma--someone needs to make another documentry on that.
http://tinyurl.com/55jp46
Mr. Obvious April 13th, 2008 6:33 pm
"GM is allowing breeding to move faster and that is why farmers are buying the stuff like crazy and why Monsanto stock has doubled!"
I dare you to go and find a natural bred ear of sweet corn and a new un-natural produced ear of Monsantos corn and test them. Monsatos corn is tasteless and not fit for consumption. You can't buy good tasting ears of corn in the store anymore. Luckily we have local farmers where I live that grow the good stuff.
frank1569 - Hate to break it to you but all our food it mutant. Oh my! This is called breeding and is why our food crops are so different from their wild pregenitors, and also why we have so much food. Oh my! GM is allowing breeding to move faster and that is why farmers are buying the stuff like crazy and why Monsanto stock has doubled! Oh my! The sky is falling!
Henny Penny
Is it me or is the future happening right now? I mean the stories of the hungry rioting on the streets of the developing world because the rich west are putting corn in their cars instead of feeding people sounds like a near-future sci-fi plot. In a novel it seems like the world would never be that stupid but, hey, we are that stupid it appears!
l hear in Cuba they converted a 1955 Cadillac to run on an alcohol based fuel and the good news is that it gets 56 miles per gallon, the bad news is that it uses Bacardi Dark.
Here's another angle missing from the "ethanol" scam:
Nearly 70% of all "corn" grown in the US is of the transgenic mutant variety, more commonly (and erroneously) referred to as genetically modified corn.
When consumers learn their corn is a mutant organism (made by the same patriots who made Agent Orange,) sales plummet - not good for Monsanto and friends, you see. The only way for the mutant-makers to continue polluting the food chain with their untested patents is to sell it for non-consumption - which means no testing, but which explains the doubling of their stock price in just the last year.
Of course, according to Monsanto: "We want to make the world a better place for future generations." And what a fine job they're doing so far, eh?
Ethanol consumes almost a quarter of US corn production. The energy self-sufficiency that all the candidates seek should not come at the expense of the environment or the food supply.
--quite alarming, if true. Trading food for gas does not seem to be a very good bargain. Does it essentially mean that the government is subsidizing the spread of hunger? Not surprising, since it already subsidizes the outsourcing of jobs. Our tax dollars hard at work.
Another CD biofuels article. This one is really scraping the bottom of the barrel complete with grammatical errors and oversimplification.
Comparisons of ethanol versus gasoline assume incorrectly that the ethanol is produced by cutting down and burning the rain-forest, which of course is deplorable and carbon intensive. That is responsible for the high figures. I wonder if the comparisons take into account the fact that the oil we burn is shipped thousands of miles across the ocean. I doubt it.
Lies, damn lies and statistics, at work here.
kloro, nuclear is dangerous and poisonous for millennia. for what it takes to build a nuclear generator, we could have a lot of wind and solar and more plug-in hybrids. given the information here, i'm agnostic about ethanol but definitely against ethanol from corn. given current farming practices, imagine all the roundup herbicide and bt toxin producing corn going into that corn ethanol.
Another thing about alcohol. It is bio-based. Alcohol comes from the fermentation or distillation of plant materials. Corn mash anyone?
Pojer- As enthusiastic as you are about alcohol fuels, you have NOT addressed the single greatest flaw in that particular techno-fetishist dream.
Alcohol simply DOES NOT have the requisite energy density our modern technological society DEMANDS! Alcohol's energy density if FAR less than even the basest petrochemical derivative.
Even those who work in the forefront of the bio-fuel and alcohol based alternative energy fields acknowledge this. To do otherwise is, literally, alcoholic fantasy pink elephant stuff.
Alcohol fuels are a stop gap PR measure to placate the masses on their way to an oil depletion future.
do some research on nuclear breeder reactors. we simply don't have to do oil or its substitutes anymore.
These articles are tiresome and people need to know the truth.
What are the credentials of the Boston Globe Editorial board on the science of permaculture? People, it's time to give David Blume the microphone - he has already written America's new game plan for getting ourselves off of oil, fueling our vehicles, helping stop global warming, and feeding a hungry planet.
I CHALLENGE the Boston Globe to do an interview with him and review his book. Unless they are too afraid David Blume might be right and we could have a real plan to get out of this awful war?
The Forbidden Fuel
Alcohol Can Be a Gas by Dave Blume, published by the
International Institute for Ecological Agriculture, 2007, 630 pages, $59 hardcover.
In the forward written for this book in 1983, when the project was first started, R. Buckminster Fuller writes that it is possible to harvest enough energy to sustainably meet humanity's needs through solar sources while completely phasing out all fossil fuels and atomic energy. Many know Bucky Fuller for his work on geodesic domes. Few are aware that he was also in charge of alternative energy research for the U.S. military during WWII, and held ethanol fuel in great esteem. The author was inspired and mentored by Fuller in the 1980's, and it could be said that this book is the culmination of Fuller's work in this field.
The intent of the 600+ pages of Alcohol Can Be a Gas is to act as a complete tool kit to revolutionize our transportation fuel system, from the grassroots up. It combines sweeping vision with intricate ecological and mechanical detail, starting with a thorough history of the use of alcohol as a fuel for internal combustion engines.
The Model T car was designed as a flex-fuel vehicle, and got 34 MPG on alcohol until prohibition put an end to small-scale ethanol production. "There's a lot that goes on in the world of energy that you never see on the 11 o'clock news" writes the author. "The control of a country's energy is the ultimate control of its people."
Blume has seen his share of the dark underbelly of the big energy conglomerates in his 25+ years working in this field, and carries the scars to prove it. There are six big sections to this tome, each of which could be a book in its own right, comprising 29 chapters. Section I gives the sweeping vision of ethanol set within the context of an ecologically renewed agriculture. The great promise of alternative energy development under President Carter during the first energy crisis is summarized, and what the author dubs 'MegaOilron's' success at squashing it.
Blume dives quickly into the controversies swirling around ethanol as a fuel with a chapter entitled 'Busting The Myths.' These myths include: 'Ethanol's net energy is negative' (studies from Brazil show ethanol has a positive net energy ratio of 9.0 when using sugarcane); 'There isn't enough land to grow the crops for ethanol' (highway medians could grow enough ethanol crops to supply 40% of America's gasoline); Ethanol is an ecological nightmare' (a permaculture ethanol system vastly improves soil fertility); 'It's food vs. fuel' (cattails grown in wastewater show tremendous promise); and 'Ethanol fuel does not address global warming' (the growing of plants, especially if organic, ties up much more CO2 than goes into the ethanol).
Part of the beauty of this book is its ecological sensibility. Blume is an organic farmer and brings 20+ years of bioregional wisdom to his writing. Two chapters contrast the nightmare of America continuing on its present energy course vs. retooling the way we do agriculture and energy along the regenerative principles of Permaculture design. There are sidebars on the restoration of degraded prairie farmland using highly complex fuel crop polycultures, and the practice of swale contour farming to replenish groundwater and topsoil.
His vision for a grassroots ethanol revolution is ambitious but conceivable: "A nationwide switch to organic farming is in order, but it can't work if we maintain a monoculture-based system, with its present emphasis on corn farming."
The second big section of Alcohol Can Be a Gas has five chapters laying out the How To's of alcohol production for fuel, including chapters on feedstocks (everything from algae to buffalo gourd), fermentation technology, distillation, and plant design.
Section III deals with saleable or otherwise useful 'co-products' from alcohol production -- from livestock and aquaculture feeds to yeast, methane, protein and propagation material for mushroom production. Sections IV, V & VI address the mechanics, regulations and subsidies for using alcohol in engines: "We can put 85% alcohol in our cars now! Really!"
Included are chapters on the business of alcohol, its economic, regulatory and legal considerations and a practical vision of small-scale production that Blume dubs "Community Supported Energy." Six case studies depict the type of grassroots on-farm ethanol production the author envisions in his revolution.
One of the few criticisms I have of Alcohol Can Be a Gas is that Blume is unabashedly caustic towards the large energy corporations. The book will likely alienate middle Americans who are uninformed about the politics of energy. Instead, it is tailor written for activists who want to put their shoulders to the millstone and do something. Despite its narrow-minded focus on ethanol as The solution to our looming energy crises, this book has the feel of a resource one does not want to be without -- the depth of a Whole Earth Catalog hybridized with the humor of a Humanure Handbook.
Those people working on biofuel development would be well advised to study the history of ethanol cooperatives described in this book -- honesty, integrity and setting a high ethical standard seem to be crucial to success.
Everything has an upside and a downside; there's no getting away from it. Solutions often create more problems than they solve. And there are no "magic bullets".
That's life.
:-(
We are now competing with our cars for food!
Sick. Perverse...
We're using Bio-diesel in the public transit fleet here in Vancouver. The drivers and mechanics HATE it for the very reasons mentioned in the article. And the busses involved were BUILT SPECIFICALLY TO USE BIO-DIESEL!!
Sure ya can, just add a little OJ to it … HICK … (sound of crash in distance)
Ethanol? Forget about driving, use Old Mister Boston.
I saw some beer called "Curve Ball" and thought of our CIA.
Its about time people are waking up to the ethanol scam!
Ethanol is not an energy solution. It is a gov't subsidized bankroll to ADM, the farm lobby (sort of).
The reason the gov't funded ethanol (and hoped for its success) was because every other energy saving, fuel saving and clean technology for transportation reduces or even potentially eliminates gov't taxes on energy and the oil-lobby's monies.
Corn should be used for food, not livestock feed.
Its also possible that meat consumption in Asia is partly encouraged by the US government-as their are western advisers there running slaughterhouses etc.
And it's not yet clear, according to the Consumer Reports website, how the higher blends would affect engine reliability or longevity.
It's already well known with the current blend down here on the street. The use of ethanol in your vehicles will lower your overall miles per gallon even after switching back to total gasoline and destroys your engine especially the engines of older vehicles. The word on the street I'm hearing is don't use ethanol-blended gas unless you have the money to replace or repair your engine. I know several people who have already had problems.
Ethanol is nothing but corporate welfare driven by greed.