Science – Some top international food scientists Tuesday recommended halting the use of food-based biofuels, such as ethanol, saying it would cut corn prices by 20 percent during a world food crisis.
Global warming, environmentalism and our energy policies have coalesced into a lurching caldron of knee-jerk, feel good reactions to crises that may or may not exist. Unfortunately, more often than not, the cure that is foisted upon us (forcibly) is generally worse than what it is supposed to be fixing. MTBE, ultralow sulfur diesel, and ethanol are all examples of this -- and I am sure there are more.
MTBE was supposed to "improve" the quality of fuel emissions and manufacturers were REQUIRED to blend it into their gasoline. Not only was it extremely noxious -- to anyone pumping it, it reduced fuel efficiency AND worst of all, leached into ground water -- a very small amount contaminates an inordinate amount of water. Even after all this was KNOWN as fact, the EPA still refused to allow the refineries to stop adding it for another two or three years.
Ultra low sulfur diesel is another great idea that doesn't work. Much of the smoke and nasty smell from diesels purportedly comes from the sulfur. So, the gov't mandated that the vast majority of sulfur be removed from diesel fuel. Okay, this is good -- no question sulfur isn't the most eco-friendly chemical around. I believe the sulfur emissions were projected to be cut by about 10%. Okay, again, good goal...BUT (there's always that pesky but...) the ULSD is more expensive to refine -- that increase the costs of EVERYTHING because everything gets moved by truck at some point, it cuts fuel efficiency by 35% -- increasing each truck's carbon footprint. Unless your truck is a 2007 model or newer, it is not designed to run on USLD. Sulfur is a lubricant. Nothing was added to the fuel to replace its lubricating properties, causing more wear and tear on, and reducing engine life -- (@$20K for a truck engine) -- again causing an increase in the cost of everything.
Now, we got the ethanol mandate. We are starving people in third world countries as well as putting great strain on our own wallets by continuing down this path. Everything I have read on this claims that it take nearly .9 gallons of fossil fuel to produce 1 gallon of ethanol. 1 gallon of ethanol only has about 80% of the BTU's of gasoline, so we're already at a loss. Add to that the increase food prices -- 30%? I'd love to shop there! Most of the prices in the stores I shop (Costco, Stop & Shop) have actually doubled since last year. Also, don't forget that ethanol is very unfriendly to synthetic materials. This means that it will eat away your hoses, valves and other synthetic parts -- resulting in increased engine wear and repair costs.
I believe that we all want a cleaner planet. We all want to do what we can to reduce our carbon and other emissions, but let's make sure that the actions we are taking to achieve these ends will have a positive, not negative impact.
...But, Amazed, all these things are making big bucks for Bushco - and that's all that matters! Georgie says that all the stuff you wrote about is bad science. So relax, go shopping! Mission accomplished!
After three days of intense debate and complex maneuvering, Democratic leaders won passage of the bill shortly before midnight by a 65 to 27 vote.
The package, which still must pass the House, would also require that the use of biofuels climb to 36 billion gallons by 2022.
"This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil by increasing the nation's use of renewable fuels and for the first time in decades significantly improving the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks," said Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), the majority leader.
Is Harry Reid now a Bushco?
That was really great info Amazed, I am very impressed. Personally, I think that the whole article is almost laughable because of the population problem in the world. It seems that every problem can be linked to overpopulation and birth control, but that is just not a concept that most people can even think about talking about.
Amazed
Good comments and synopsis.
However your suggestion to "make sure that the actions we are taking to achieve these ends will have a positive, not negative impact." would require that intelligent people think ahead rather than the much more typical pavlovian politicians reaction when confronted by a slick lobbyist proffering superficial solutions gift wrapped in huge wads of cash.
WRONG
What has prompted the rapid rush to food-to-fuel is nothing less than CORPORATE GREED, NOT environmentalism.
The major proponents are the ethanol lobby (big business ethanol producers) and BIG agribusiness. These folks have provided HUGE amounts of money to flood Washington with lobbying.
The major movers of the legislation are representatives and congerss-people from the corn belt.
Then grow marijuana for fuel. It was once used for that too. We also use to have happy wild birds and Bees. The Great Maker wants to provide but none of you will let him.
Any crop land taken out of food production has the same result. Look at all the square miles going for subsidized sugar, tobacco and even wine. Corn is a political feedstock for alcohol- a feed to fatten cattle and hogs before we insist the butcher cut off the fat and throw it away. maybe we should just refine the fat.
Anything you grow will move agricultural production away from food. The marijuana legalization crowd wants to suggest using it for everything just so the plants can grow legally, making their recreational patches harder to find.
Hemp is not marijuana.Hemp produces 20 times more cellulose used for biofuels as corn,uses no fertilizers or pesticides ,is good for the soil and produces food products very high in Omega fatty acids.
There is no need to use corn for ethanol and with a new legal crop no existing food source would be affected.Every other industrialized nation in the world has legal hemp farming.
Former CIA chief James Woolsely is calling for legal hemp as a way to combat illegal marijuana crops because any fool knows that if you are growing marijuana for high THC content,the last thing you want is any hemp around with almost no THC to cross pollinate with the marijuana.
I knew that you would say that. Marijuan cultivators are already using legal crops as a way to screen their "patches" from infrared detection. I'm sure that a hemp field would be dandy for this purpose. FYI, it doesn't matter if you grow hemp or anything else for the purpose of making ethanol. It will still pull land away from food production in the way that corn has. You missed my point entirely.
The only point I see from you is on the top of your head.
You are posting an outright lie and I challenge you to show proof of any fool deliberately trying to ruin their marijuana crop by planting it near hemp,which grows wild everywhere.As far as camoflaging in legal crops,yes,no better way to hide a plant than with other plants...just not hemp.
BTW-a few years ago they caught the most decorated veteran of WWII camped in a cornfield with his marijuana crop.
What I'm really saying is that this "food shortage" because of ethanol is a big scam the same as the "energy crisis" in the 70's...it's just another way for big agricompanies to rape the public.
You're the liar here if anyone is. Hiding marijuana next to a crop with an identical infrared signature would be ideal. Data support that ethanol has taken land out of cultivation for other food crops in favor of increased corn production. There is no reason to believe that growing another crop, such as hemp, would have any different result. The unfortunate thing that has created a food shortage is that this decline in various food crops due to ethanol has coincided with massive buying of crops on the world market by China and India. The only scam is the one you are trying to pull with this attempt to make marijuana cultivation semi-legitimate through a "back door" method.
Well...as the former CIA director says..."If you wanted to plant a marijuana crop next to an industrial hemp crop,you'd have to be very high"
Hemp produces 20 times more cellulose,meaning that a corn crop would use 20 times more land to produce the same quantity...simple math.
James Woolsey on your moronic claim-
http://www.greentreeclothing.com/Joomla/?option...
BTW-it is not only me,the state of N Dakota is suing the DEA over hemp farming and the people leading the fight are Republican state legislators who are trying to grow hemp themselves.
Those farmers need Bees. Whats a scare crow without a crow? It is believed to be the plant that will bring peace to this world. That is in the old testament. No doubt, in the muslin book also.
The prez will always oppose science and scientific consensus among experts. He's always right even when he's wrong. Go the wrong-way George!
Actually this one seems to be more of a push by key corn-state representatives and senators than a push by Mr. Bush. The ENTIRE multi-billion dollar farm bill is little more that a free-for-all at tax payer dollars.
As virtually anybody at Propeller will attest, I am no fan of Mr. Bush's, but this one is on the congress.
First, the world food shortage has started with rice not corn. Second majority of USA corn that is grown is used for cattle not human consumption. The USA is a small player in the world world food shortage problem so to blame it on ethanol is silly.
Think about the real problem of food being OVER priced, not a shortage. First the countries that produce rice are holding on to it so they don't run out. Second, weather not much you can do about that. Third over population. Fourth, cost of transportation.
And if you really want to get in to it look at the countries that now produce crops to feed the Chickens and Cattle for China and India because they have the money to pay for it.
yes, but cattle are grown to feed people. So, if costs more to feed your cattle, it's got to cost more to buy the meat and/or the milk. And, if I'm Joe farmer, and I can get $10/bushel for corn to be used for ethanol, or I can get $5/bushel for rice or wheat, whaddya think I'm gonna plant?
Yes, the corn used for ethanol does not come directly out of the human food chain, but it still affects it. Just like $4.60/gal diesel fuel also raises the price of everything we eat (and buy) even though we don't eat diesel fuel either (at least I don't)
Are we talking about the WORLD food shortage or the high price of food in the USA.
My point was that the USA using ethanol has little effect compared to the effect of, drought, Farm stock being consumed by India and China, large producers of rice hoarding that product, the cost of transportation, on world supply of food.
In the USA yes, bio-fuels combined with the price of energy and a falling dollar has impacted the price of food here. But not in Egypt, Nigeria and Poland.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
Teech
clownloach1
whodey08
mickoleon
MaryLynn_
loverman
shoppingcamboriuonline
alamala
ecotourusa
vidman04
jw.olinger
4mogger
weeeileen
Eagle Eye
vvv63vvv
questionseverything
lenseview
pagey
eugenegerard
dandt1612
MrsAnn2008
HotaMaMa
capn_caveman
bugluver
CRYMTYPHON
TheRealizer
SouthernLadyX
Dixie2008
PrettyWoman911
OhLaLa
OhDear
DearHunter
CelticFan08
LadyPanther
Shannonyork
Wolfie2007
thinkingserious
quackpot
sleepingbeauty2
Helixbuilder
nickjones321
Charlson
cosmogenium
greentea
satansatan
oldgringo
majchanu2008
jomarjarmo
BJTJ
texangelwings
48)
Vote
The farm lobby is very powerful as is Archer Daniels Midland.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html
Did the environmentalists have any part in this?
the large environmental groups such as Sierra Club, and Audubon Society have spoken out AGAINST the corn and soybean-derived fuel fiasco engineered by the Ethanol lobby (Archer Daniels Midland as kboy point sout) and BIG agribusiness.
The Sierra Club and the Audubon Society aren't the whacko neo-environmentalists to which I believe he was referring.
There are powerful forces at work here. Amounts of money so large as to be unimaginable to the average working person are being made on a daily basis.
The politics of oil, food, and war are strong politics indeed.
So what if a few million people die of starvation, disease, or other preventable causes! Focus on the profits! Oh, the profits! Always the profits !!!
Help these poor bastards? Hell no. That's socialism. That's communism. Except when the money is borrowed from taxpayers (national debt) to subsidize the lifestyles of the ultra rich, or to bail out huge brokerage houses, banks, or huge corporations. That's Republicanism.
No, Communism is when some people bust their butts working and have it all taken away from them to give to those who don't work.
Borrowed money from the taxpayers to subsidize the rich, thats called "politicians" and they all do it, Clinton had his hands in several pies himself. A crashed infrastructure will dry up all of the free handout lines and then you will get to watch the mass starvation in real time.
No, socialism and communism give ownership of the means of production to the state. It doesn't insure that anyone receives any help.
Then be specific about just what environmental group you think has the resouces to lobby congress to one tenth the amount of the ethanol lobby or big agribusiness.
I'm calling you on your throwing around vague terms such as "neo-environmentalists" without any verifiable meaning.
dkl,
Who are those "wacko neo-environmentalist" you believe jumpmaster's referring to then?
I don't want to speak for him but I assumed that he was talking about more of the newer more radical groups. The kind of people who become eco-terrorists.
dkl,
Look, making general comments instead of specific ones will always get you in hot water.
Those eco-terrorists, such as the ones that have been responsible for burning auto dealers and Mac-mansions, are part of extreme fringe groups; Luddites, for all intents and purposes. Their goals have little to do with specific fuel production and usage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
But the many protesters FOR bio-fuels will be found in the lobbies of Congress, Big Agra boardrooms, and in states that depend on high prices for the crops that are used for those fuels. Those are the ones that are the real culprits AND have nothing to do with environmentalism. The only green they're after is dollars and more dollars.