Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
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.
Slavery has been around since the time of Jesus as well. Doesn't mean it worked to benefit humankind, or was morally correct. The idea that futures speculation smooths out markets is fine... until a crash or a depression brought about by that speculation. When nobody has a job or income, things are very smooth indeed. Ever been to a horse race track? Willing to base the world's economy on the model of off track betting?
If we put our existence in the hands of a system, then the system will control our lives. It is no different than placing your fate in the hands of a religious institution, or a authoritarian government. When a humane doesn't have input, the results are inhumane. Darwinian techno meme of "free" markets is devoid of morality and humanity. That was Jesus' point then, his point is valid now.
Never would have pegged you for a supply sider, Andrew. What about demand? Maybe we simply happen to have at least several billion more people than the planet will support. It's just amazing to me that no one wants to talk about the elephant in the room: there are too goddamn many people. No, instead everyone keeps trying to rationalize supporting denser and denser populations with less and less - and they call it "conservation". Or they simply stick their heads in the sand, pretend fundamentals are really just fine, and blame the damn "speculators". Both positions are sadly misguided.
The only thing I've ever heard consistently correlated with diminishing birth rates is education. Human population is the world's number one problem, for humans and every other species. Instead of throwing a trillion dollars into baseless human destruction in far away places, we should be waging war on ignorance; because education is the only way out of this mess. That, or face catastrophic annihilation - bombs, plagues, starvation - take your pick.
You criticise the Bush administration in your short blurb but you fail to highlight Barack Obama's strong and unrepentant support for corn-based ethanol.
Corn-based ethanol - bad for America, bad for humanity, and bad for planet Earth...
but good for our lord and saviour's election campaigns so what of it?
I cannot believe how many people fell for the greatest fraud of the twenty-first century, and how many still want to give him the wholly unearned benefit of the doubt.
A fool and his democracy are soon parted.
It's just amazing to me that no one wants to talk about the elephant in the room: there are too goddamn many people.
Incorrect.
The elephant is total consumption. If somehow the total population was reduced by half tomorrow, but that half all consumed like the wealthiest today, we'd be in even worse shape.
It is a common dodge among the privileged to point at excessive population as the problem. The problem is not how many humans there are, but how many resources those humans use in total. The numerous poor use far less per capita.
Note that China, which has drastically reduced its population growth, is an environmental basket case primarily because its resource consumption has risen so dramatically--and far faster then the slowing increase in its population.
The elephant is total consumption. If somehow the total population was reduced by half tomorrow, but that half all consumed like the wealthiest today, we'd be in even worse shape.
That's just plain stupid; and that's the kind of thinking that has put the planet in such peril. I'm talking about one variable: population. You can throw in a bunch more variables and adjust them however you like to come up with whatever nonsense you like; but the fact is indisputable: more people require more resources, period. Positing some nonsensical argument about everyone living like Bill Gates is laughable. Of course people should be conscientious of the world around them, but that consideration is completely independent of the strain of overpopulation.
Considering the marginal if not negative energy 'saved' with ethanol, and add onto it *any* increase in food, it's a dead end. At best it's an interim solution to reduce foreign oil dependency.
If people are serious, we need to be subsidizing solar and wind. The historical subsidization of oil currently crushes that of renewable resources (it's something like 12:1). It's time to turn that around.
Persons A-H drive cars, fly often on aircraft, eat too much, own a big houses full of stuff and fill the garbage can each week, water enormous lawns, and feel overpopulation is causing environmental disaster. They write checks to the Sierra Club and post to Salon. They buy an expensive VW diesel and feel good about filling it full of bio-diesel fuel.
Persons I-Z ride old bicycles or overcrowded buses or walk, never fly, are rail-thin, live in tiny shacks thatched with waste plastic, pick garbage, get a few gallons of water at a public tap, and feel that overconsumption by people like Persons A-H is causing environmental disaster. They don't have checking accounts or computer connections. They go to the market and pay increased prices on basic staples like cooking oil and corn.
Maybe we can agree it's just a matter of perspective.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
