Read other letters about this article

• Friday, July 4, 2008 02:58 PM

  @dcmeserve

  And the number of thoughtful environmentalists who support corporate corn production for ethanol fuel is around zero (although there are probably a few outliers).

  I don't think there are any environmentalists in the Midwest who believe in ethanol. It's definitely seen as big agribiz hokum. On the West Coast though, it's sometimes seen, rather simplistically, as the grain counterpart to bio-diesel. I can name names. ;)

  There is no doubt, though, that bio-diesel has been a hobby horse of the lefty-enviro crowd (of which I am a member). What made me a skeptic was 1. anticipating that bio-diesel demand could not be met by food grease waste and would require diversion from food crops and 2. knowing that cooking oil is one of the most expensive and scarce food resources for the worlds poor, and one of the most necessary calorie-dense resources for them. I also think cooking with oil reduces their need for scarce cooking fuel because it is generally faster.

  Folks there is no ONE answer, and certainly no one technological answer to these problems. It's weird to watch people chase one idea after another. Similarly, there is no answer that is completely wrong. Bio-diesel makes sense up to the limit of grease waste, for example. There might be some small role for ethanol, though certainly not if its production is subsidized.

  What bothers me most, though, is that the two best, and related, answers are the most overlooked--total reduction of resource consumption, and economically rewarding actors who reduce their consumption.

  —JackSparx Read JackSparx's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel