Hey, coming in late to this great conversation, which, regardless of what you think about biofuels, really ratifies my own interest in trying to learn more and extend the coverage in this space with more and more detail.

I am embarassed to note, however, that I goofed up a bit in my post, and misrepresented the findings a little bit. Alex Farrell contacted me over the weekend -- I've added a clarification to the text of the post, and I'll repeat that here:

[UPDATE: Alex Farrell informed me over the weekend that I goofed a bit here. It wasn't solely the co-products that altered the energy-efficiency stats. Farrell and his co-authors also identified problems with "data that is obsolete or of dubious and unverifiable quality. In terms of net energy, the most important of these data are the energy required to manufacture the farm machinery." Thus, it was the combination of the co-products and the data adjustments that led to the new, positive values for ethanol.]

I don't know the details on how debt/savings are calculated, I have to admit. I'll look into it.

I think anyway you calculate it though, when consumption is rising faster than income there's a long term problem. As least that's how it's always worked out for me!

Hey jesup -- (if you are who I think you are, an elementary school shout out to you) -- I think it was pretty clear from the interview with the study's author that corn-based ethanol is by no means the ideal solution.

as for algae-derived biodiesel --- well, looky here:

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2005/12/16/algae/

Much appreciated. I'll keep following up on that...

Nope, I'm not an endorsers of Singaporean style government, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the forthright way Yew answers questions, or his obvious intelligence.

I'll quote from the paper by University of Minnesota law professor Jim Chen.

"The Patent act's definiton of prior art embraces patenting or publication in nay country, but includes publi use or sale soley "in this country" To be exact:

'A person shall be entitled to patent unless ... the invention was known or used by others in this coutnry, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicatn for patent, or ... the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States.'

In other words, "whil almost all domestic prior knowledge, use or invention is considered against a later United States patent, almost all similar foreign activity is not."

Anonymous' definition of prior art in other countries would appear to be limited to prior patents or explicit publication.

The global struggle over water resources is definitely something to follow here -- thanks for the suggestion.

Also, as far as Sweden and oil independence -- I'd just like to note that I posted about that a month ago!

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2006/01/04/sweden/

Thanks for the input and the critique. I will be the first to admit that my understanding of all the complexities of the GM story is shallow, at best, and I appreciate being schooled on the intricacies.

Rainbows End, indeed -- though oddly, the amazon page includes no apostrophe.

"Willful lack of ignorance" should, of course, have been "willful ignorance."

Thanks for pointing that out, and I've made the change.

Pyrian,

If Monsanto figures that you knowingly harvested gm corn pollinated from someone else's crops, they will come after you on patent infringement grounds. This is no joke. A Canadian farmer, Schmeiser, discovered that corn on his organic farm near a neighbors GM farm was resistant to roundup he had been spraying to control weeds. He saved the seed and replanted it, Monsanto found out, sued him, and won every round right up to and including the Canadian Supreme Court. Schmeiser's downfall was that he had knowingly saved the seed and replanted it.

So, if you want the seed, you have to take the liability. If you don't want the contamination, your only option is try to sue the farmer who contaminated you. It really is a mess.

Mike,

Of course I am not advocating the exploitation of workers in the U.S. As I've noted repeatedly here, my view is that the most promising way forward for the U.S. is massive investments in education, job training, and health care -- all of which would require a significant reversal of Bush's tax cuts and a substantial reorientation of government priorities.

As I've also noted before, what is going on in China with respect to the exploitation of workers is a horror story, particularly for a regime that supposedly represents the workers and peasants. But there is also no doubt that hundreds of millions of people have emerged from extreme poverty in China over the last 20 years. Whether the government can keep the economy growing fast enough to continue raising standards of living there enough to prevent another round of worker uprisings (and at the same time avoid subjecting the entire world to environmental catastrophe) is quite the open question, I agree.

Dan,

That's a great question. But I'm not so sure that humanities education at the college level is in any kind of crisis. The more pressing problem to me is that there is an educational/training support structure for people who lose their jobs or can't find jobs -- and that's where massive funding should go...