Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The great biofuel fraud

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The great biofuel fraud

    The great biofuel fraud
    By: F William Engdahl / Asia Times

    That bowl of Kellogg's cornflakes on the breakfast table or the portion of pasta or corn tortillas, cheese or meat on the dinner table is going to rise in price over the coming months as sure as the sun rises in the East. Welcome to the new world food-price shock, conveniently timed to accompany the current world oil-price shock.

    Curiously, it's ominously similar in many respects to the early 1970s when prices for oil and food both exploded by several hundred percent in a matter of months. That mid-1970s price explosion led the late US president Richard Nixon to ask his old pal Arthur Burns, then chairman of the Federal Reserve, to find a way to alter the Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation data to take attention away from the rising prices.

    The result then was the now-commonplace publication of the absurd "core inflation" CPI numbers - sans oil and food.

    The late American satirist Mark Twain once quipped, "Buy land: They've stopped making it." Today we can say almost the same about corn, or all grains worldwide. The world is in the early months of the greatest sustained rise in prices for all major grains, including maize, wheat and rice, that we have seen in three decades. Those three crops constitute almost 90% of all grains cultivated in the world.





    Washington's calculated, absurd plan
    What's driving this extraordinary change? Here things get pretty interesting. The administration of US President George W Bush is making a major public relations push to convince the world it has turned into a "better steward of the environment". The problem is that many have fallen for the hype.

    The center of Bush's program, announced in his January State of the Union address, is called "20 in 10", cutting US gasoline use 20% by 2010. The official reason is to "reduce dependency on imported oil", as well as cutting unwanted "greenhouse gas" emissions. That isn't the case, but it makes good PR. Repeat it often enough and maybe most people will believe it. Maybe they won't realize their taxpayer subsidies to grow ethanol corn instead of feed corn are also driving the price of their daily bread through the roof.

    The heart of the plan is a huge, taxpayer-subsidized expansion of use of bio-ethanol for transport fuel. The president's plan requires production of 35 billion US gallons (about 133 billion liters) of ethanol a year by 2017. Congress has already mandated with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that corn ethanol for fuel must rise from 4 billion gallons in 2006 to 7.5 billion in 2012.

    To make certain it will happen, farmers and big agribusiness giants like ADM or David Rockefeller get generous taxpayer subsidies to grow corn for fuel instead of food. Currently ethanol producers get a subsidy in the US of 51 cents per gallon (13.5 cents per liter) of ethanol paid to the blender, usually an oil company that blends it with gasoline for sale.

    As a result of the beautiful US government subsidies to produce bio-ethanol fuels and the new legislative mandate, the US refinery industry is investing big-time in building new special ethanol distilleries, similar to oil refineries, except they produce ethanol fuel. The number currently under construction exceeds the total number of oil refineries built in the US over the past 25 years. When they are finished in the next two to three years, the demand for corn and other grain to make ethanol for car fuel will double from present levels.

    And not just US bio-ethanol. In March, Bush met with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva to sign a bilateral "Ethanol Pact" to cooperate in research and development of "next generation" biofuel technologies such as cellulosic ethanol from wood, and joint cooperation in "stimulating" expansion of biofuel use in developing countries, especially in Central America, and creating a biofuel cartel along the lines of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) with rules that allow formation of a Western Hemisphere ethanol market.

    In short, the use of farmland worldwide for bio-ethanol and other biofuels - burning the food product rather than using it for human or animal food - is being treated in Washington, Brazil and other major centers, including the European Union, as a major new growth industry.

    Phony green arguments
    Biofuel - gasoline or other fuel produced from refining food products - is being touted as a solution to the controversial global-warming problem. Leaving aside the faked science and the political interests behind the sudden hype about dangers of global warming, biofuels offer no net positive benefits over oil even under the best conditions.

    Their advocates claim that present first-generation biofuels save up to 60% of the carbon emission of equivalent petroleum fuels. As well, amid rising oil prices at $75 per barrel for Brent marker grades, governments such as Brazil's are frantic to substitute home-grown biofuels for imported gasoline. In Brazil today, 70% of all cars have "flexi-fuel" engines able to switch from conventional gasoline to 100% biofuel or any mix. Biofuel production has become one of Brazil's major export industries as well.

    The green claims for biofuel as a friendly and better fuel than gasoline are at best dubious, if not outright fraudulent. Depending on who runs the tests, ethanol has little if any effect on exhaust-pipe emissions in current car models. It has significant emission, however, of some toxins, including formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, a suspected neurotoxin that has been banned as carcinogenic in California.

    Ethanol is not some benign substance as we are led to think from the industry propaganda. It is highly corrosive to pipelines as well as to seals and fuel systems of existing car or other gasoline engines. It requires special new pumps. All that conversion costs money.

    But the killer about ethanol is that it holds at least 30% less energy per liter than normal gasoline, translating into a loss in fuel economy of at least 25% over gasoline for an Ethanol E-85% blend.

    No advocate of the ethanol boondoggle addresses the huge social cost that is beginning to hit the dining-room tables across the US, Europe and the rest of the world. Food prices are exploding as corn, soybeans and all cereal-grain prices are going through the roof because of the astronomical - US Congress-driven - demand for corn to burn for biofuel.

    This year the Massachusetts Institute of Technology issued a report concluding that using corn-based ethanol instead of gasoline would have no impact on greenhouse-gas emissions, and would even expand fossil-fuel use because of increased demand for fertilizer and irrigation to expand acreage of ethanol crops. And according to MIT, "natural-gas consumption is 66% of total corn-ethanol production energy", meaning huge new strains on natural-gas supply, pushing prices of that product higher.

    The idea that the world can "grow" out of oil dependency with biofuels is the PR hype being used to sell what is shaping up to be the most dangerous threat to the planet's food supply since the creation of patented genetically manipulated corn and other crops.

    US farms become biofuel factories
    The main reason US and world grain prices have been soaring in the past two years, and are now pre-programmed to continue rising at a major pace, is the conversion of US farmland to become de facto biofuel factories. Last year, US farmland devoted to biofuel crops increased by 48%. None of that land was replaced for food-crop cultivation; the tax subsidies make it far too profitable to produce ethanol fuel.

    Since 2001, the amount of corn used to produce bio-ethanol in the US has risen 300%. In fact, in 2006 US corn crops for biofuel equaled the tonnage of corn used for export. In 2007 it is estimated it will exceed the corn for export by a hefty amount. The United States is the world's leading corn exporter, most going for animal feed to EU and other countries. The traditional US Department of Agriculture statistics on acreage planted to corn is no longer a useful metric of food prices, as all marginal acreage is going for biofuel growing. The amount available for animal and human feed is actually declining.

    Brazil and China are similarly switching from food to biofuels with large swatches of land.

    A result of the biofuel revolution in agriculture is that world carryover or reserve stocks of grains have been plunging for six of the past seven years. Carryover reserve stocks of all grains fell at the end of 2006 to 57 days of consumption, the lowest level since 1972. Little wonder that world grain prices rose 100% over the past 12 months. This is just the start.

    That decline in grain reserves, the measure of food security in event of drought or harvest failure - an increasingly common event in recent years - is pre-programmed to continue going as far ahead as the eye can see. Assuming a modest world population increase annually of some 70 million over the coming decade, especially in the South Asian subcontinent and Africa, the stagnation or even decline in the tonnages of feed corn or other feed grains, including rice, that is harvested annually as growing amounts of bio-ethanol and other biofuels displaces food grain in fact means we are just getting started on the greatest transformation of global agriculture since the introduction of the agribusiness revolution with fertilizers and mechanized farming after World War II.

    The difference is that this revolution is at the expense of food production. That pre-programs exploding global grain prices, increased poverty, and malnutrition. And the effect on gasoline import demand will be minimal.

    Professor M A Altieri of the University of California at Berkeley estimates that dedicating all US corn and soybean production to biofuels would only meet 12% of gasoline and 6% of diesel needs. He notes that although one-fifth of last year's US corn harvest went to bio-ethanol, it met a mere 3% of energy needs. But the farmland is converting at a record pace. In 2006 more than 50% of Iowa and South Dakota corn went to ethanol refineries.

    Farmers across the US Midwest, desperate for more income after years of depressed corn prices, are abandoning traditional crop rotation to grow exclusively soybeans or corn, with dramatic added impact on soil erosion and needs for added chemical pesticides. In the US some 41% of all herbicides used are already applied to corn. Monsanto and other makers of glyphosate herbicides such as Roundup are clearly smiling on the way to the bank.

    Going global with biofuels
    The Bush-Lula pact is just the start of a growing global rush to plant crops for biofuel. Huge sugarcane, oil-palm and soy plantations for biofuel refining are taking over forests and grasslands in Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador and Paraguay. Soy cultivation has already caused the deforestation of 21 million hectares in Brazil and 14 million hectares in Argentina, with no end in sight, as world grain prices continue to rise. Soya is used for bio-diesel fuel.

    China, desperate for energy sources, is a major player in biofuel cultivation, reducing food-crop acreage there as well. In the EU, most bio-diesel fuel is produced using rapeseed plants, a popular animal feed. The result? Meat prices around the globe are rising and set to continue rising as far as the eye can see. The EU has a target requiring minimum biofuel content of 10%, a foolish demand that will set aside 18% of EU farmland to cultivate crops to be burned as biofuel.

    Big Oil is also driving the biofuels bandwagon. Professor David Pimentel of Cornell University and other scientists claim that net energy output from bio-ethanol fuel is less than the fossil-fuel energy used to produce the ethanol. Measuring all energy inputs to produce ethanol, from production of nitrogen fertilizer to energy needed to clean the considerable waste from biofuel refineries, Pimintel's research showed a net energy loss of 22% for biofuel - they use more energy than they produce. That translates into little threat to oil demand and huge profit for clever oil giants that re-profile themselves as "green energy" producers.

    So it's little wonder that ExxonMobil, Chevron and BP are all into biofuels. This past May, BP announced the largest ever research-and-development grant to a university, $500 million to the University of California-Berkeley, to fund BP-dictated R&D into alternative energy, including biofuels. Stanford University's Global Climate and Energy Program got $100 million from ExxonMobil; University of California-Davis got $25 million from Chevron for its Bio-energy Research Group. Princeton University's Carbon Mitigation Initiative takes $15 million from BP.

    Lord Browne, the disgraced former chief executive officer of BP, declared last year, "The world needs new technologies to maintain adequate supplies of energy for the future. We believe bioscience can bring immense benefits to the energy sector." The biofuel market is booming like few others today. This all is a paradise for global agribusiness industrial companies.

    All this, combined with severe weather problems in China, Australia, Ukraine and large parts of the EU growing areas this harvest season, guarantees that grain prices are set to explode further in coming months and years. Some are gleefully reporting the end of the era of "cheap food". With disappearing food-security reserves and disappearing acreage going to plant corn and grains for food, the biofuel transformation will impact global food prices massively in coming years.

    Another agenda behind ethanol?
    The dramatic embrace of biofuels by the Bush administration since 2005 has clearly been the global driver for soaring grain and food prices in the past 18 months. The evidence suggests this is no accident of sloppy legislative preparation. The US government has been researching and developing biofuels since the 1970s.

    The bio-ethanol architects did their homework, we can be assured. It's increasingly clear that the same people who brought us oil-price inflation are now deliberately creating parallel food-price inflation. We have had a rise in average oil prices of some 300% since the end of 2000 when George W Bush and Dick "Halliburton" Cheney made oil the central preoccupation of US foreign policy.

    Last year, as bio-ethanol production first became a major market factor, corn prices rose by some 130% on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange in 14 months. It was more than known when Congress and the Bush administration made their heavy push for bio-ethanol in 2005 that world grain reserves had been declining at alarming levels for several years at a time when global demand, driven especially by growing wealth and increasing meat consumption in China, was rising.

    As a result of the diversion of record acreages of US and Brazilian corn and soybeans to biofuel production, food reserves are literally disappearing. Global food security, according to Food and Agriculture Organization data, is at its lowest since 1972. Curiously, that was just the time that Henry Kissinger and the Nixon administration engineered, in cahoots with Cargill and ADM - the major backers of the ethanol scam today - what was called the Great Grain Robbery, sale of huge volumes of US grain to the Soviet Union in exchange for sales of record volumes of Russian oil to the West. Both oil and corn prices rose by 1975 some 300-400% as a result. Just how that worked, I treated in detail in A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics.

    Today a new element has replaced Soviet grain demand and harvest shortfalls. Biofuel demand, fed by US government subsidies, is literally linking food prices to oil prices. The scale of the subsidized biofuel consumption has exploded so dramatically since the beginning of 2006, when the US Energy Policy Act of 2005 first began to impact crop-planting decisions, that there is emerging a de facto competition between people and cars for the same grains.

    Environmental analyst Lester Brown recently noted, "We're looking at competition in the global market between 800 million automobiles and the world's 2 billion poorest people for the same commodity, the same grains. We are now in a new economic era where oil and food are interchangeable commodities because we can convert grain, sugarcane, soybeans - anything - into fuel for cars. In effect the price of oil is beginning to set the price of food."

    In the mid-1970s, secretary of state Henry Kissinger, a protege of the Rockefeller family and of its institutions, stated, "Control the oil and you control entire nations; control the food and you control the people." The same cast of characters who brought the world the Iraq war, and who cry about the "problem of world overpopulation", are now backing conversion of global grain production to burn as fuel at a time of declining global grain reserves. That alone should give pause for thought. As the popular saying goes, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you."

    F William Engdahl is author of the book Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation, about to be released by Global Research Publishing, and of A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, Pluto Press. He may be reached via his website, www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_.../IH01Dj02.html
    "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
    - Charles Mackay

  • #2
    Re: The great biofuel fraud

    It has been my opinion for years that there are too many people on the planet because except in China (where there are way too many people) there are no efforts, not even any discussion, about serious methods of population control. Thank--and I had to say it--God that the entire world is not Catholic.

    Well if the political powers and systems that exist cannot or will not seriously attempt to control population growth, then again I hate to say it, Thank God, for AIDS, floods, famines, droughts, earthquakes, influenzas, wars, and to this must now be added: thanks to the politicians for their efforts to utilize food sources for energy production if it ultimately will be effective in reducing the earth's population. However the planet arrives at fewer people, the end result will be a better planet.
    Last edited by Jim Nickerson; August 01, 2007, 11:50 AM.
    Jim 69 y/o

    "...Texans...the lowest form of white man there is." Robert Duvall, as Al Sieber, in "Geronimo." (see "Location" for examples.)

    Dedicated to the idea that all people deserve a chance for a healthy productive life. B&M Gates Fdn.

    Good judgement comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgement. Unknown.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The great biofuel fraud

      Originally posted by Jim Nickerson View Post
      It has been my opinion for years that there are too many people on the planet because except in China (where there are way too many people) there are no efforts, not even any discussion, about serious methods of population control. Thank--and I had to say it--God that the entire world is not Catholic.

      Well if the political powers and systems that exist cannot or will not seriously attempt to control population growth, then again I hate to say it, Thank God, for AIDS, floods, famines, droughts, earthquakes, influenzas, wars, and to this must now be added, thanks to the politicians for their efforts to utilize food sources for energy production if it ultimately will be effective in reducing the earth's population. However the planet arrives at fewer people, the end result will be a better planet.
      I thought this had more to do with the Seven Sisters keeping the price us over-populated citizens are going to continue to be paying at the pump. Apparently when all these Repatriated D0llars start really flowing home we'll need to put them to use with more Federal Farm Subsidies. Who would have guessed that our Federal System would use those d0llars as part of some very large scam. It takes an awful lot of oil to produce a bussel of grain and when you factor in the transportation costs of Ethanol you get up to about $3 a gallon wholesale instead of todays $2 a gallon for unleaded gas. Why in a market based system would you want to pay more for a commodity? We are rapidly reaching the point of becoming the USSA each and everyday.
      "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
      - Charles Mackay

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The great biofuel fraud

        Originally posted by Jim Nickerson View Post
        However the planet arrives at fewer people, the end result will be a better planet.
        I can envision many ways - nuclear holocaust being one - that would definitely not leave a better planet. And I would not put any one of these methods as out of the reach of stupid venous politicians and other self serving elite all over the planet.

        As for converting land use to bio-fuel monocropping - this is a sure way NOT to lead to a better planet. It is a one way street towards desertification. See "Peak Soil: Why cellulosic ethanol, biofuels are unsustainable and a threat to America" see also "Increasing Soil Erosion Threatens World’s Food Supply"

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The great biofuel fraud

          I'm not happy that ethanol, especially corn-based, has been foisted upon us. I remember as a kid sitting in the car at the gas station seeing graphics of a half-shucked ear of corn with a gas nozzle on the side. Even then, it struck me as a screwy idea.

          That mid-1970s price explosion led the late US president Richard Nixon to ask his old pal Arthur Burns, then chairman of the Federal Reserve, to find a way to alter the Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation data to take attention away from the rising prices.

          The result then was the now-commonplace publication of the absurd "core inflation" CPI numbers - sans oil and food.
          Didn't the latest report claim that core inflation is only 1.9%? What a joke.

          The center of Bush's program, announced in his January State of the Union address, is called "20 in 10", cutting US gasoline use 20% by 2010. The official reason is to "reduce dependency on imported oil", as well as cutting unwanted "greenhouse gas" emissions. That isn't the case, but it makes good PR. Repeat it often enough and maybe most people will believe it. Maybe they won't realize their taxpayer subsidies to grow ethanol corn instead of feed corn are also driving the price of their daily bread through the roof.
          The current administration excels at this. It helps that American consumers have long considered Big Oil to be the boogeyman, and automatically direct all the blame to them when gas prices rise. Not to exonerate the oil companies, they certainly are complicit.

          The heart of the plan is a huge, taxpayer-subsidized expansion of use of bio-ethanol for transport fuel. ... To make certain it will happen, farmers and big agribusiness giants like ADM or David Rockefeller get generous taxpayer subsidies to grow corn for fuel instead of food. Currently ethanol producers get a subsidy in the US of 51 cents per gallon (13.5 cents per liter) of ethanol paid to the blender, usually an oil company that blends it with gasoline for sale.
          This is what bothers me the most. I'm fine with subsidizing alternative energy technologies, provided they actually improve the situation.


          ... creating a biofuel cartel along the lines of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) with rules that allow formation of a Western Hemisphere ethanol market.
          Riiight. I'm sure this would rival OPEC.:rolleyes:

          Ethanol is not some benign substance as we are led to think from the industry propaganda. It is highly corrosive to pipelines as well as to seals and fuel systems of existing car or other gasoline engines. It requires special new pumps. All that conversion costs money.

          But the killer about ethanol is that it holds at least 30% less energy per liter than normal gasoline, translating into a loss in fuel economy of at least 25% over gasoline for an Ethanol E-85% blend.

          ...

          This year the Massachusetts Institute of Technology issued a report concluding that using corn-based ethanol instead of gasoline would have no impact on greenhouse-gas emissions, and would even expand fossil-fuel use because of increased demand for fertilizer and irrigation to expand acreage of ethanol crops.
          The government and ethanol industry have carefully skirted around these three significant negatives. If most people became aware of what ethanol really does to their cars and their fuel efficiency, I think voting pressure would shut this down in a hurry. Alas, I'm not holding my breath.

          No advocate of the ethanol boondoggle addresses the huge social cost that is beginning to hit the dining-room tables across the US, Europe and the rest of the world. Food prices are exploding as corn, soybeans and all cereal-grain prices are going through the roof because of the astronomical - US Congress-driven - demand for corn to burn for biofuel.
          This is unfortunate, and although I agree with Jim that a reduction in world population would probably be beneficial, the world would get the most bang-for-the-buck if that population reduction happened here in the United States, rather than in the desperate third-world countries that will be most affected by rising grain prices. Furthermore I'm not really keen on my tax dollars funding indirect genocide (whether by diverting grains from food production to ethanol production or fighting a war in Iraq).

          Little wonder that world grain prices rose 100% over the past 12 months. This is just the start.
          Sounds bullish for investing in grains, however one might go about that. (The futures market is out of my realm.)

          Pimintel's research showed a net energy loss of 22% for biofuel - they use more energy than they produce. That translates into little threat to oil demand and huge profit for clever oil giants that re-profile themselves as "green energy" producers.
          Also sounds bullish for oil companies.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The great biofuel fraud

            Nice thoughtful comments, zoog.

            Originally posted by zoog View Post
            I'm not happy that ethanol, especially corn-based, has been foisted upon us. I remember as a kid sitting in the car at the gas station seeing graphics of a half-shucked ear of corn with a gas nozzle on the side. Even then, it struck me as a screwy idea.

            Didn't the latest report claim that core inflation is only 1.9%? What a joke.

            The current administration excels at this. It helps that American consumers have long considered Big Oil to be the boogeyman, and automatically direct all the blame to them when gas prices rise. Not to exonerate the oil companies, they certainly are complicit.

            JN: This highlights the igorance of Americans, including myself in so many things.

            This is what bothers me the most. I'm fine with subsidizing alternative energy technologies, provided they actually improve the situation.


            Riiight. I'm sure this would rival OPEC.:rolleyes:

            The government and ethanol industry have carefully skirted around these three significant negatives. If most people became aware of what ethanol really does to their cars and their fuel efficiency, I think voting pressure would shut this down in a hurry. Alas, I'm not holding my breath.

            JN: very good, zoog, don't hold your breath until change occurs, though it would lead to a bit of population reduction. I don't enjoy being negative, but the "scam" foisted upon us of believing your votes are going to change anything needs to be recognized. Politicians vote based on two things, their own benefits and getting reelected. Oh, and don't ever over estimate the intelligence of the US public.

            This is unfortunate, and although I agree with Jim that a reduction in world population would probably be beneficial, the world would get the most bang-for-the-buck if that population reduction happened here in the United States, rather than in the desperate third-world countries that will be most affected by rising grain prices. Furthermore I'm not really keen on my tax dollars funding indirect genocide (whether by diverting grains from food production to ethanol production or fighting a war in Iraq).

            JN: Population needs to be lowered everywhere is my thinking. Despite whatever discomfort one has about how tax dollars are spent, I would not worry too much about it, because it will be a waste of one's worry resources. Politicians I can assure you have no concern about what concerns you--except at it might also benefit them personally and/or lead to their re-elections.

            Sounds bullish for investing in grains, however one might go about that. (The futures market is out of my realm.)

            JN: check out GSG, GSP, DBC. I've forgotten the specifics, but some or all have exposure to grains, I am rather sure.

            Also sounds bullish for oil companies.
            Last edited by Jim Nickerson; August 01, 2007, 12:43 PM.
            Jim 69 y/o

            "...Texans...the lowest form of white man there is." Robert Duvall, as Al Sieber, in "Geronimo." (see "Location" for examples.)

            Dedicated to the idea that all people deserve a chance for a healthy productive life. B&M Gates Fdn.

            Good judgement comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgement. Unknown.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The great biofuel fraud

              I'll need to do some digging and/or recollecting, but someone had put together a graph of Oil BTUs (thermal units, or energy equivalent) vs. Corn BTUs. The Corn BTUs recently jumped to similar levels as Oil.

              This was probably Mish, but it does say that if energy is the ultimate goal, the market will find ways to meet its goal.

              Corn Ethanol while certainly less efficient than gasoline and also not necessarily better for environment, nonetheless the ultimate consideration is price.

              Just as with outsourcing jobs, I believe that the ancillary effects of agricultural energy production - that being higher food prices, is irrelevant to the farmers and gas stations, just as the local/national economic effects of job outsourcing are irrelevant to the corporations doing it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The great biofuel fraud

                Originally posted by Rajiv View Post
                I can envision many ways - nuclear holocaust being one - that would definitely not leave a better planet. And I would not put any one of these methods as out of the reach of stupid venous politicians and other self serving elite all over the planet.

                As for converting land use to bio-fuel monocropping - this is a sure way NOT to lead to a better planet. It is a one way street towards desertification. See "Peak Soil: Why cellulosic ethanol, biofuels are unsustainable and a threat to America" see also "Increasing Soil Erosion Threatens World’s Food Supply"
                Rajiv,

                I didn't note, nor actually think of total nuclear destruction of the planet, but other than that or the development and release by mad-men of some biological agent that would reduce the planet's population, I will stick with my assertion and firm belief that with fewer people, the planet would be a better place. What society needs to do is to control the population size, but with all religious influence that exists in the world, that probably isn't going to happen. Thus, the best means will be so-called acts-of-god, natural disasters, disease that will reduce the numbers, or stupid man-made results such as desertification. Population reduction would stop a lot of suffering and most likely insure some prolongation of inhabitation of the planet by man.
                Last edited by Jim Nickerson; August 01, 2007, 03:12 PM.
                Jim 69 y/o

                "...Texans...the lowest form of white man there is." Robert Duvall, as Al Sieber, in "Geronimo." (see "Location" for examples.)

                Dedicated to the idea that all people deserve a chance for a healthy productive life. B&M Gates Fdn.

                Good judgement comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgement. Unknown.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The great biofuel fraud

                  Originally posted by Jim Nickerson View Post
                  Population reduction would stop a lot of suffering and most likely insure some prolongation of inhabitation of the planet by man.
                  Jim,
                  I have no quibbles with you regarding that statement. I do however regard politicians and their ilk, with poor regard as to their ability to solve problems.

                  On a positive note, there is plenty of good news to be had on the Indian population front. the fertility rates have been dropping much faster tahn have been historically projected.

                  Also, North Americans are currently the most profligate users of world resources. From "Natural Resources and an Optimum Human Population"

                  The Population Reference Bureau estimates that the average American consumes about 23 times more goods and services than the average world citizen. Americans also bum 10,000 liters (2600 gallons) of oil-equivalents per year —seven times the world average. Clearly, achieving a US standard of living is impossible for the rest of the world, based both on projections of future resource availability and on population growth. The affluent standard of living now enjoyed by Americans (made possible by our abundant supplies of fertile cropland, water and fossil energy) is projected to decline if the US population doubles during the next 63 years.
                  Also, it should be realized that
                  Inequalities in consumption are stark. Globally, the 20% of the world’s people in the highest-income countries account for 86% of total private consumption expenditures — the poorest 20% a minuscule 1.3%. More specifically, the richest fifth:

                  * Consume 45% of all meat and fish, the poorest fifth 5%
                  * Consume 58% of total energy, the poorest fifth less than 4%
                  * Have 74% of all telephone lines, the poorest fifth 1.5%
                  * Consume 84% of all paper, the poorest fifth 1.1%
                  * Own 87% of the world’s vehicle fleet, the poorest fifth less than 1%
                  From "Behind Consumption and Consumerism"
                  Original Source: — Human Development Report 1998 Overview, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The great biofuel fraud

                    Originally posted by Jim Nickerson View Post
                    . . . I will stick with my assertion and firm belief that with fewer people, the planet would be a better place. What society needs to do is to control the population size, but with all religious influence that exists in the world, that probably isn't going to happen. Thus, the best means will be so-called acts-of-god, natural disasters, disease that will reduce the numbers, or stupid man-made results such as desertification. Population reduction would stop a lot of suffering and most likely insure some prolongation of inhabitation of the planet by man.
                    Jim, you might want to check this website: http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.action.html
                    Optimum Population Trust is a British group with some smart ideas. The web page in the link is geared toward UK citizens, but you can at least get read about the pragmatic strategies they recommend.

                    I am as cynical as you are about the prospects for success in this area. However, you and I are among the wealthiest, best educated, and best self-educating people on the planet. If we only spout off cynicism without at least sharing news about what constructive work is happening in the world, then there really is no hope.

                    I'll respond to your suggestion that a purge of surplus humanity is going to make the world a better place. It could be true, but only on a multi-generational timescale. In fact it has happened before, as chronicled by David Hackett Fischer in his history of price inflation, The Great Wave. It took 150 years of plague, war, and anarchy in the 13-14th century in Europe, to shake out the economic imbalances of the prosperous times that came before. By the time of the European Renaissance, those times were completely forgotten by most people.

                    During the timespan of a one generation, the "purge" method would be hell on earth. You imagine various calamities which would strike, but there also would be a huge loss of knowledge, institutional systems, technology, and so on. You're talking about a new civilization, my friend, starting over. It may or may not be smarter than ours, able to look at our fate and learn.

                    Maybe we are smart enough to engineer a softer landing such as the Optimum Population Trust is attempting. I said maybe, and I'm not betting on it.
                    Last edited by quigleydoor; August 01, 2007, 04:57 PM. Reason: For some reason my HTML is not working

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The great biofuel fraud

                      C1ue - I beg to differ.

                      Corn ethanol will be an unmitigated disaster for the poor, for the environment, for food prices, for gasoline prices, for topsoil erosion, for water usage, for waking up to the inescapable and increasingly dangerous dependence on foreign oil, and the list goes on.

                      However please accept this reply from someone who has a great deal of respect for the sharpness of practically all your posts.

                      Tet, please don't fall out of your chair - Compliments on this topic, from someone who's name is horse manure, or maybe cow-dung to you at present. I think it's an excellent post and general debunk of a really, really toxic American delusion.

                      This discussion of the pipe-dream of biofuels needs to be taken to Washington and stuffed down the shirts (with some ice-cubes) of every numb-nuts in Congress, as they are the ones providing a back-draft to all the numb-nuts in the Senate, from whom we get America's very worst pork-barrel legislation spewing back at us - to then mushroom the 'corn lobby' into a universal opium dream of a solution to America's vulnerability to OPEC.

                      Ditto for "teaching OPEC a lesson by building windmills', and "teaching OPEC a lesson with shale oil" and "teaching OPEC a lesson by poaching on (presumably) friendly Canadian tar sands", and "teaching OPEC a lesson by suing them for high prices", and "teaching OPEC a lesson by consuming less" and "teaching OPEC a lesson by inventing the electric car" and so forth. If this comes about, the one getting a spanking will be America, not OPEC.


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The great biofuel fraud

                        Originally posted by Rajiv View Post
                        Jim,
                        I have no quibbles with you regarding that statement. I do however regard politicians and their ilk, with poor regard as to their ability to solve problems.

                        On a positive note, there is plenty of good news to be had on the Indian population front. the fertility rates have been dropping much faster tahn have been historically projected.

                        Also, North Americans are currently the most profligate users of world resources. From "Natural Resources and an Optimum Human Population"
                        Perhaps Al Qaeda has it correct to a degree with its antipathy toward the "civilized" Western world. Wiping out the US at least would certainly help the natural resources picture, and then there is China.

                        Nice research, Rajiv.
                        Jim 69 y/o

                        "...Texans...the lowest form of white man there is." Robert Duvall, as Al Sieber, in "Geronimo." (see "Location" for examples.)

                        Dedicated to the idea that all people deserve a chance for a healthy productive life. B&M Gates Fdn.

                        Good judgement comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgement. Unknown.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The great biofuel fraud

                          Originally posted by quigleydoor View Post
                          Jim, you might want to check this website: http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.action.html
                          Optimum Population Trust is a British group with some smart ideas. The web page in the link is geared toward UK citizens, but you can at least get read about the pragmatic strategies they recommend.
                          It is good to see that there are some apparently serious efforts toward copulation control. I applaud their efforts.

                          Originally posted by qd
                          I am as cynical as you are about the prospects for success in this area. However, you and I are among the wealthiest, best educated, and best self-educating people on the planet. If we only spout off cynicism without at least sharing news about what constructive work is happening in the world, then there really is no hope.

                          I'll respond to your suggestion that a purge of surplus humanity is going to make the world a better place. It could be true, but only on a multi-generational timescale. In fact it has happened before, as chronicled by David Hackett Fischer in his history of price inflation, The Great Wave. It took 150 years of plague, war, and anarchy in the 13-14th century in Europe, to shake out the economic imbalances of the prosperous times that came before. By the time of the European Renaissance, those times were completely forgotten by most people.

                          During the timespan of a one generation, the "purge" method would be hell on earth. You imagine various calamities which would strike, but there also would be a huge loss of knowledge, institutional systems, technology, and so on. You're talking about a new civilization, my friend, starting over. It may or may not be smarter than ours, able to look at our fate and learn.
                          To me it is quite discomforting to think of a near total destruction of mankind by some natural or man-made disaster, not that I should worry because odds are when and if it occurs I will already be gone or would die in the disaster. I have thought for minutes about how would survivors possibly go on toward reconstructing the state of knowledge and technology that existed? I presume repositories for such things as how to make an Intel Pentium Dual Core whatever chip exists, but would the survivors necessarily be smart enough to figure it out. Were I a survivor, I wouldn't be smart enough. I do believe there are seed repositories in place, so if they can be found and utilized, then at least lack of possible starvation would allow those left standing to try to reconstruct something. How crazy are such considerations, when given that intelligent (presumably so) people actually have a choice? The problem is no leaders have the fortitude to be serious about leading people to make choices for the long-term betterment of mankind, or for long-term assurances that they may actually arrive at something that will represent the "long-term."

                          Originally posted by qd
                          Maybe we are smart enough to engineer a softer landing such as the Optimum Population Trust is attempting. I said maybe, and I'm not betting on it.
                          Today the world is smart enough to insure long-term survival of mankind, hopefully not with the notion of everyone achieving the "American lifestyle," but something more on the order of the Japanese or Dutch lifestyle, and there are likely even better examples of moderate, yet quite tenable lifestyles. The thing that is totally missing is will power and leadership. The US has certainly during my lifetime been a leader in so much that could potentially benefit long-term survival, but to my reckoning we have squandered all credibililty in being serious about anything other than our own momentarily gratification. It is quite sickening the reality of what America has come to represent. Don't you think we Americans mostly are right up there is the top 20% of the data Rajiv put up a few posts back.

                          Well, what is the best way to play this so that we all end up being financially assured of remaining in the top 20% of resource depleters?

                          Edit: One thing that is not to be forgotten, once we get through discussing all this, the end result will be nil change.
                          Jim 69 y/o

                          "...Texans...the lowest form of white man there is." Robert Duvall, as Al Sieber, in "Geronimo." (see "Location" for examples.)

                          Dedicated to the idea that all people deserve a chance for a healthy productive life. B&M Gates Fdn.

                          Good judgement comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgement. Unknown.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The great biofuel fraud

                            Originally posted by Jim Nickerson View Post
                            Today the world is smart enough to insure long-term survival of mankind, hopefully not with the notion of everyone achieving the "American lifestyle," but something more on the order of the Japanese or Dutch lifestyle, and there are likely even better examples of moderate, yet quite tenable lifestyles. The thing that is totally missing is will power and leadership.
                            Jim,

                            My links are in the US and India -- so in some ways I can see both sides of the equation. There are dedicated people working on alleviating poverty in a sustainable way. For example there is a group that I know in Dehradun, India that does good work - People's Science Institute (PSI) You would get a good idea of issues that affect rural communities in the third world

                            On this side of the world, localizing production and consumption, and working primarily in local communities would go a long way towards a less resource intensive lifestyle in North America

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The great biofuel fraud

                              Originally posted by Lukester
                              C1ue - I beg to differ.

                              Corn ethanol will be an unmitigated disaster for the poor, for the environment, for food prices, for gasoline prices, for topsoil erosion, for water usage, for waking up to the inescapable and increasingly dangerous dependence on foreign oil, and the list goes on.
                              Lukester,

                              Actually, I am agreeing with your sentiment.

                              I am merely saying that the overall costs of corn ethanol will not be taken into consideration by producers as they will individually have net benefit.

                              Government is apparently not going to take this into consideration as there is a political agenda, possibly also a geostrategic agenda (less dependence on foreign sources).

                              Business/corporations won't take this into account as ultimately they only care about profit.

                              And most individuals won't take this into account as media, business, and government all seem to be pushing in this direction.

                              Note that the graph in question only talks about $ price of BTUs of Corn Ethanol vs. Oil. It is not an overall assessment of net cost.

                              I can't find the original link, but it is not too hard to reconstruct some of this data.

                              From: http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html

                              1 gallon of gasoline = 115,000 BTUs
                              1 gallon of ethanol = 75,700 BTUs

                              Assumin $3 gallon for gasoline and $2.2 per gallon ethanol (from http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/07...ht-go-up-soon/), you can see that the relative price per BTU of oil is pretty close to that of ethanol.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X