 | Gail Tverberg's Talk: Expected Economic Impact of an Energy Downturn | The Oil Drum | The Scales are Balanced |  |
267 comments on DrumBeat: April 14, 2008
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
267 comments on DrumBeat: April 14, 2008
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- What "Lower Consumption" Means
- Tricking and Treating the Future
- Meeting Energy Decline Part-Way - Potatoes?
TOD:Europe
- The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction - Part IV: Energy from Breeder Reactors and from Fusion?
- The US stimulus and "green jobs"
- EROWI - energy return of water invested
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Saturday 7th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 30th October 2009
- Details of Solar Flagships Released
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“Most people spend more time and energy going around problems than in trying to solve them.”
—Henry Ford
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Biofuels Nothing Short of Disaster
Well biofuels ain’t gonna save us. They just might help destroy us. Back to the drawing board.
There was a discussion yesterday about denial. Those who believe that we can “find something else” that will stave off, or even mitigate, absolute disaster are in the worst kind of denial. Biofuels are made from food, or land that once produced food. That leaves wind, solar and nuclear to replace all liquid fuel that powers the planet. That leaves wind, solar and nuclear to replace all the fertilizer, pesticides, plastics and everything else that are presently created from fossil fuel.
Sorry, it just ain’t gonna happen.
Ron Patterson
One thing I find interesting is that I have had conversations with average people, and most people are starting to get it. They are seeing higher food prices as a consequence of the push for ethanol. Some people who have read up on the subject are still holding out hope for things like switchgrass or algae or some such, but the tide is turning against corn ethanol in particular.
I agree. I think the tide has turned on corn ethanol.
We'll still use some, of course, as long as we have the Iowa caucuses, but even Dubya is looking to cellulosic, not corn.
I agree. I think the tide has turned on corn ethanol.
The tide of public opinion has turned, as well as the scientific tide. I doubt the political tide will turn, as we have set events into motion that will be hard to undo. Will we drop the subsidies? I suppose with mandates we don't really need them. All the subsidies do is mask the true price. But will we undo the mandates? Will the farm state senators allow it? No, I don't think so. Corn farmers who are becoming accustomed to higher earnings will scream long and loud. Big Ethanol like ADM has enormous lobbying power.
Nate and I discussed this yesterday. We won't win the political battle, until the consequences are so dire that that even an Iowa Senator can't deny them.
No, I don't expect them to drop the subsidies. But I don't expect them to be increased, either.
I think you're onto sommething. But even if the ethanol farmers were somehow won over, there's still the problem that it fuel prices will then rise (with or without a decrease in ethanol production) and consumers will then also yelp loud and clear and ethanol would be put right back into production.
After the political BS and public perception issues are removed from the equation, it really becomes a question of whether the average american would rather drive or know their neighbors will have enough to eat.
The first ethanol corn farmer that gets lynched for selling "food for fuel" will cause a bit of thinking to go on over in farm country. That problem is self-correcting, though unfortunately too late to matter for the empire as a whole.
If reason can't beat ethanol, I doubt threats of murder will help the anti ethanol cause. It shows the hysteria caused by confusing animal feed and human food. Corn is used mostly for animal feed. Those who threaten violence probably don't care.
Farm country will survive long after any lynchings. It is those who reject ethanol who will not survive (at least as well). Iowa is booming. The coasts are crashing.
Maybe Kuntsler is right. But I thought it was those who don't understand Peak Oil who would become violent. If it is the Peak Oil crowd who are going to commit violence I'm out of here.
By the way nearly every Iowa corn farmer sells corn for ethanol. There are about 100,000 of them. And most of them have guns.
"It shows the hysteria caused by confusing animal feed and human food. Corn is used mostly for animal feed."
x's attempts at obfuscation and distortion are unabated. The issue is not the use of corn. Farmland for food production or farmland for carfuel production? That's the issue.
EDIT: I should add that the smart use of resources such as the oil and gas consumed by corn producers, and that wasted in the ethanol plants, directly and indirectly, is also at issue.
My question is:
What do we do with the 150 Million Acres that we were farming a couple of decades, ago, but that are lying fallow, Now? What about the 150 Million Acres that Brazil has lying fallow?
Where I live, much of the former farmland is now covered with McMansions, after having its topsoil stripped and sold. In any case, you need more than land. You need water, and if you're talking agribusiness-scale farming, you need fertilizer and pesticides. I would also guess that land that came out of production tended to be marginal land. On the bright side, lying fallow for a while should have improved the soil quality over the vermiculite substitute that covers much of American farmland.
Some of the most productive farmland in the world and the largest reserves of fresh water are in the USA. A lot of it is being used to grow sod for McMansions as well as flowers to sell to "look at" or make the garden "purty". But we Americans are a stupid and vain people. And we only know two speeds: Complacency and Panic.
I personally believe that we are now on the plateau of peak oil. Sure, I hear a lot of talk from politicians about fixing the "energy problem" but it is empty election year rhetoric. Yeah Congress is going to put up a big wall to the south to keep out the poor and we'll figure out how to bus em in to pick our vegetables and then make sure they get home after they're done. But most of them SOB's we'll elect have the primary intention of getting a nice townhouse overlooking the Potomac and hanging with trendy new socialites. It is all Bullshit!
Even though I have as much or more than everybody else to lose I think that Americans need a "good lickin'" and not just one. We aren't bright enough to learn the first time...We're going to need several hard lessons before we get it.
Much of the best farmland in the US is either unused or being built on. The parts that are suited for suburban development have a price that is too high to farm on (at least until recently). Many of the other parts, in the "original 13 colonies" region mostly east of the Appalachians, have good soil and natural rainfall but tend to be hilly and irregular, with lots of small waterways etc. Not to mention roadways, stony soil, etc. This was just fine for the "family farm" of 20-300 acres, but it is not suited for mechanized agriculture. These areas are making a bit of a comeback with organic and other high-value ag uses, but they haven't been able to compete against super-low subsidized corporate farming prices.
Food prices are still way too cheap. I put up historical graphs of food prices on my website at:
http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2007/021707.htm
Many less developed countries have been complaining for years that modern subsidized, factory farming has made food so cheap that it is uneconomical for people to continue traditional ways of agriculture. This creates dependency, with the consequences we are seeing today. What is true around the world is also true within the US. The areas that are suited for traditional, family-size agriculture (Pennsylvania for example) are lying unused because nobody gets paid for farming. Today, a bushel of corn is selling for about $6. A bushel of corn has 56 lbs. Just try to plant, grow and harvest 56 lbs of corn in your backyard garden. For that, you get $6, minus your expenses for seed, fertilizer, the implied cost of the land, etc. Not to mention the labor. It's a lot easier just to flip burgers or clean hotel rooms for an hour.
The historical long-term average prices for grains are about 6x higher than today's prices, adjusted for currency devaluation. If corn was $36 a bushel, it might be interesting again.
Just wait a bit, it will get there.
The thing is though, that same back yard garden space that could grow 56lbs of corn could grow several hundred pounds of fresh vegies and fruits maybe worth $600 or more. As a general rule, the more water content, the more it makes sense for it to be grown as close to the consumer as possible, while the less the water content, the more it makes sense to produce, store, and transport it at a distance in bulk quantities. Water is heavy, evaporates, and promotes rot; that is the basic physical reality underlying these considerations.
Kdolliso, you should never post crap like this without a link. Everyone will think you are just pulling the figures out of your ass, which you are.
The US has just under 450 million acres in cultivation. http://www.carryingcapacity.org/resources.html 150 million acres would be 32%, almost one acre in three. That many acres are not lying fallow.
Brazil is clearing rain forest to grow sugarcane. Often rain forest land will stop producing after a few years and must be abandoned. Nothing will grow there so they must clear more rain forest. But no land that can produce is lying fallow in Brazil.
You just make crap up Kdolliso!
Ron Patterson
Ron,
you should have figured out by now that I don't "make stuff up." Here is a real link on "land use" in the U.S. It's the first item on yahoo.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/AH712/AH7121-1.PDF
You will notice that there are 2.2 million acres in the U.S. 1.2 million Arable Acres. We, currently, row crop 246 million acres for the major 8 crops. There are many more than 150 million acres that can be farmed (including the 34 Million Acres that we pay landowners NOT to farm.
Speaking of "Making Things Up:" The Sugar Cane Land is 1,000 Miles South of the Rain Forest. If you bothered to do research, rather than attack me, you would find out that the Rain Forest is logged For the LOGS! After it's logged, it's grazed. After it's grazed the little subsistence farmers come in and try to raise a few crops on it. There are 150 Million Acres (the President of Brazil's number, not mine) of previous rain forest land available for crops (usually, soybeans.) No one in their right mind could think that the rain forest is being logged so some little subsistence farmer could come in and plant beans for a couple of years.
No, you make crap up. You pull stuff right out of your ass that has no basis in truth! This PDF was published in 1996! It says absolutely nothing about today because it was published almost 12 years ago. And you showed nothing about Brazil. You just expect everyone to take your word for it. Well, I for one do not.
And sugarcane is causing destruction of the rain forest. Sugarcane is taking over soy land in the south and driving soy production into the Amazon Rain Forest.
Ron Patterson
Riots around the world are over the high cost of food. Land, formerly used for food is being diverted to plant grains for biofuels. That is the problem, not just corn. That is what has driven every food staple through the roof. As I posted above, biofuel production is triggering widespread famine around the world.
Land used to produce biofuels instead of food is the problem! People are rioting and threatening violence because they are hungry!
Ron Patterson
Ah, Darwinian, look where they're have "problems." It's the "failed governance" list of Earth's economies. Socialist, corrupt, "Command" economies with high tariffs (import, and Export,) and subsidy/control schemes.
We fed more people last year than any year in history. Our Ag Exports were WAY up.
It's goofy export tariff schemes like Argentina's, and India's that will cause people to starve, not free-market food exporters like us.
not free-market food exporters like us
ROTFLMAO !
Alan
kdolliso -- you might try lurking here for awhile and learn something before opening your mouth and exposing your ignorance.
Our Ag Exports were WAY up.
Prove this. Show your work.
Looks to me like U.S. Ag exports are up about 140% YOY in 2008, and up about 165% vs. 06'.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/fatus/
Caveat: The weaker Dollar will account for 15%, or so; but, it's still a lot.
That's in dollar terms.
Here's some USDA info on land under cultivation and exports.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Baseline/crops.htm
Yes, it's the price of food that's way up, not the volume. By kdolliso logic, Saudi Arabia's oil exports are also up by approaching 100% Year on Year.
And it looks to me like such claims are full-o-bogons.
http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/pubs/nwl/2004/2004-4-leoletter/paper.htm
Finally, a recent announcement has signaled a shift in the U.S. position related to balance of agricultural trade. The 2005 forecasts from the U.S. Department of Agriculture indicate that the United States will have a neutral or negative trade balance for the first time since 1959.
"Net food" appears to be close to zero.
So what, exactly are you trying to prove by your claims Kdolliso?
I said volumes. not
dollarpeso value.And a single year in agriculture is highly variable.
The USA is doing it's best to reduce the volume of food exports with 1) Suburban and Exurban sprawl destroying some of the best lands and 2) converting corn into ethanol.
As for "free market", I can support that. Redirect the $7 billion or so (forgot exact figure) in ANNUAL ethanol subsidies to something worthwhile # and eliminate the tariff on Brazilian sugar cane derived ethanol.
There has been some suggestions and discussions in Louisiana about using domestic sugar cane or molasses residue from processing for ethanol, but caution over the bubble has restrained any investment. Cattle feed is a strong market for molasses.
BTW: Dried Distillers grains have definite upper limits in cattle feed before they get scours (diarrhea). Similar limits for chicken and pork. Unsure about catfish (not much need to dry the feed for them if it cna delivered quickly before souring :-)
How close is the USA to reaching that upper limit ?
Best Hopes for Better Mitigation to Peak Oil,
Alan
# GWB killed a $900 million federal subsidy that killed the DC Metro extension to Tyson's Corner & Dulles Airport (locals made up rest of $5 billion cost). This extension, when built out, will save 20,000 to 25,000 b/day for a century or more. *MUCH* better deal than corn ethanol.
May I suggest that you read Bad Samaritans: The Secret History of Capitalism by Ha Joon Chang. Chang is an economics professor from Cambridge. He argues that most of the largest economies in the world became major economic powers by protecting their nascent industries with tariffs. If you don't have the time or inclination to read his book, check him out on C-Span's Booknotes. Chang is a very entertaining writer and speaker and he uses historical examples to show how major powers from the US, Great Britain, S. Korea, Japan used protectionism to grow their economies. Those who praise the virtues of "free-trade" often ignore the real history that very few countries have become major economic powers without protecting their homegrown industries.
Phreephallin,
You've, absolutely, nailed me on that one. One caveat: I don't think there's much history of "export" tariffs in the countries you mentioned; but, on the other hand, I wouldn't bet my life (or beer) on it. :)
Let's also not forget overpopulation, or more preceisly, the ratio of natural resources (esp. arable farmland) : population, which correlates quite nicely with that map of countries experiencing food riots.
In countries where buying food requires half to three-quarters of a poor person's income, "there is no margin for survival," he said.
Countries where buying food requires half to three-quarters income for a significant % of the population also tend to have the highest birth rates on the planet, and are invariably much higher than the rate of replacement (birth/death).
Corn ethanol is a non-starter from an EROEI perspective, but it is *not* the primary reason WHY there are food riots in these countries. The problem is, too many f**king people and sky-high birth rates in the most backward, resource-poor countries.
Harm - I agree with you but ranting about over-population on the oil-drum is preaching to the choir. People who read and comment on the Oil Drum get it.
But where are you when that group of right-to-lifers are protesting abortion clinics and lobbying to shut down a womans right to choose? Why don't you protest fertilization centers?
Les Knight, the founder of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, gets up every day and talks to some narrow minded media pundit about the need to curb human exponential population growth and smilingly puts up with ridicule, abuse and death threats. That is Cojones!
He also has one of the best web site on the internet:
http://www.vhemt.org/
People on the Oil Drum are far more likely to stand up for what is right (even if those actions put them on the outside of their contemporaries) than any group of people I've come across.
People also have a right to not be poor as shit and starving. By having kids like it's nobody's buisness impedes on other's ability to have at bare minimum a substance level (as in not waiting for UN food aid to save your sorry ass).
People used to have six or eight kids because, if they were lucky, maybe one or two or three of them would actually survive disease or famine or war and make it into adulthood. Made sense at the time. Then we developed basic sanitation & hygene (the #1 medical miracle), vaccinations, & antibiotics, and increased agricultural production, so now most of those kids could make it into adulthood.
That was the moment to cut back on having kids. Unfortunately, people didn't get the memo immediately. They have since caught on and are making a good progress at getting the baby making down to more sustainable levels. Unfortunately, there was a delay of a few decades, which is why we are leveling off at a too high 8-10B instead of a less disasterous 4-5B.
"Unfortunately, people didn't get the memo immediately. They have since caught on and are making a good progress at getting the baby making down to more sustainable levels"
--I wouldn't be suprised if a lot of it (besides China) is just people are too starving to feed themselves, let alone more kids. And I can't imagine starvation doesn't doo some bad shit to people's reproductive systems.
No, that's simply the expression of self hatred that is increasingly common among members of the western " commoditized" society where "education" and conditioning is designed to destroy the centered individual.
Land used to produce biofuels instead of food is the problem!
Right. Sure.
That being a farmer is long hours around dangerous machines that are expensive while the land you have has gone from tens of dollars to thousands of dollars so people can build housing 'in the country' has had nothing to do with it. Its all about the food to fuel. Nothing at all with people getting old and cashing out.
Eric, try to get a grip on what this debate is all about. We are talking about food shortages around the world, primarily in third world countries where food prices have risen so high people can no longer afford to eat. You are trying to make cute remarks about conditions in the USA which have no relevance to the discussion.
Just News.Google "food riots" and you will get a very tiny clue as to what we are talking about Eric! People are starving, dying in the streets from malnutrition and related diseases and you wish believe the primary problem is farmers in the US working long hours around dangerous machinery and old people dying because they are old. For God's sake, get a clue!
A few food riot URLs and there will be lots of different ones tomorrow:
http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-04-14-voa23.cfm
http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Economics/2008/04/14/food_riots_to_hit_mani...
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/Politics/0,,2-7-12_2305864,00....
http://www.dawn.com/2008/04/14/top1.htm
Ron Patterson
In Haiti
mobs took over the streets, smashing windows, looting shops, setting fire to cars and hurling rocks at motorists.
Elsewhere in the article land use for biofuels is sighted as one of the irritants as well as high fuel costs. Today in Haiti it seems they are 'getting it' and taking it out on the motorist.
taking it out on the motorist.
VS, oh perhaps the ownership of property shows you are part of a higher class then the rioters?
It's likely to be both reasons. The biofuels angle is so essential talking about someone who is already hungry. You tell them the price of food is beyond their reach and add the (well publicized)awareness that wealthy people are burning food in their cars thus driving up the price. Bound to get just the reaction we are seeing. I'm betting it plays a role and will continue to intensify as a cause of conflict as this plays out.
We are talking about food shortages around the world, primarily in third world countries where food prices have risen so high people can no longer afford to eat.
And somehow the job of the farmer isn't suck-y (vs factory work) and what was land near cities isn't being used for housing in other nation-states? Or diets moving towards meat eating in other nation states? Or even changes in water for irrigation. Or the changing of the rice planting so that the rice eating bugs now have food.
Not only are you SO educated you know there are no conspiracies, but you also know every other nations land/farming use so you can say 'the reason for the shortage is biofuels. Period.'
TOD is so blessed to have you here Ron Patterson, making sure that we all know that its all about making bio-fuel and no other reason. Just like you've said.
Eric, the third world has been teetering on the verge of collapse for decades. The entire world is deep into overshoot. A good percentage of the world's people live on the very verge of starvation. The rising price of food, caused by production cuts because of biofuel production, is driving many into starvation.
No one has ever claimed that biofuels was the ONLY cause. But when so many millions of people live at the very edge of existence, that is enough to push many of them over that edge.
What you, and many others, do not seem to understand is that much of the world's people live at the very limit of their existence. Wheat prices have more than doubled in the last year and quadrupled in the last three years.
http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/CW/M
People who were, before the sudden rise in grain prices, living at the very edge of starvation, are now starving. Look at the chart at the URL I posted. That is wheat. That is what bread is made from. That is the price rise people are facing, people who before could barely afford to stay alive are now pushed over the edge.
It is the biofuel production drive that has caused grain prices to go through the roof. It is the biofuel production drive that has driven people from the verge of starvation, into starvation. And some of them are pissed. Some of them are rioting.
Eric, is this all that difficult to understand? Really, is it all that difficult????
Ron Patterson
Ron, I think you might have to expand on this a little bit before you can expect to convince anyone, especially as the specific grain you mention is _wheat_. Now I have not investigated this at all, so I am not saying you are wrong, but we know that there have been massively short wheat harvests in nations such as Australia (a major exporter). That was to do with drought (at least in the Australian case). On the face of it, there is no obvious connection between rising corn prices in the US, and rising wheat prices on the world market.
Rice, incidentally, is also rising very fast. Why? Does the land used in the US for maize compete with that for rice? What is the connection between rice and corn?
I can easily accept that _corn_ prices are going up because of biofuel production. But the other grains?
Like someone has already pointed out, by and large corn is not a staple of Third World diets - though it is a staple of animal feed, and high-fructose corn syrup hidden in everything you eat pretty much keeps you First World 'Merkans running (and, incidentally, obese).
But it ain't you folks who are starving.
No one has ever claimed that biofuels was the ONLY cause.
Huh. Looks like that was the claim.
Now, noting how 'teetering on the verge of collapse for decades.' is far more truthful. So is 'People who were, before the sudden rise in grain prices, living at the very edge of starvation, are now starving. '.
So if the issue of the day was not biofuels, in the future it coullda been UG99, a lack of PNK, rainfall/snowmelt changes, or even the blanket 'overpopulation'. Their situation has been bad for a long time. Biofuels only helps to make it an issue today.
There's a difference between a food shortage and higher prices. The total amount of food hasn't changed all that much, just as the total production of oil hasn't changed much. I will agree that the question of who gets the food is one that is rather fraught with injustices. However, many tens of millions of people were starving with super-cheap food prices, too, so that is a problem that is not exactly new. The effect of higher prices will be that lower-value uses of food (such as a fuel feedstock or animal feed) will be abandoned somewhat in favor of higher-value uses of food (such as direct human consumption). It would be nice if a subsistence allocation of food to the poorest is considered a "high value use" of food, via government participation if necessary.
Oh please can't I be You.
How in the world would a corn farmer get lynched? Everyone here has had great benefit from the ethanol boom and it's not like we're know for being great world travelers.
Sadly, the lynchings will be shop keepers in the countries experiencing food stress, not those here who are simply doing want gets them the best return on their time and money.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here are you Saying:
"Although the people who are going to be killed are shop keepers in foreign lands the people who should really be killed are the farmers who tried to make an honest profit from their labour."
is that what you're saying?
It is possible that people are catching on about ethanol - but they still want to be presented with a "solution". They are NOT catching on that there is none (at least none that won't require changes outside of what they are willing to consider), and this disconnect will prevent anything from changing.
Exactly.
The presumption is that the BAU solution is out there; we need only to choose the right one.
No consideration for the fact that we need fundamental change.
What is the "crack spread" on turning Natural Gas into Ethanol it's going to be eaten away as NG gets more expensive.
I agree that overturning the existing mandate will be difficult, especially with the prevailing 'one dollar-one vote' form of democracy. Still, some solace is to be had watching evidence-based reality kill the efforts of space cadets such as Dr. Robert Zubrin to have flex-fuel vehicles mandated, as well as efforts to increase the proportion of mandated bio-fuel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Zubrin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Victory:_Winning_the_War_on_Terror_b...
Does anyone expect new investment money in the ethanol boondoggle? How long before the Earth Liberation Front turns its attention from SUV sales lots to ethanol plants?
Well considering that the seems the dems have all the money, we might be seeing the "tyrnany of the poor and minorities"
Errr, both sides borrow and spend. Team B does it better than Team A is all.
(But make no mistake - the Teams are just putting on a show - its not about getting real work done.)
I didn't know, but a little googling around revealed that the "Earth Liberation Front" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Liberation_Front) has made it from John Brunner's "Sheep Look Up" into reality. Interesting fact.
I can't swing a cat (and I have plenty of those) without hitting someone in the business - the only folks here who don't think ethanol is going under are those involved in operating ethanol plants. I've talked to, in the last week or so, the agronomist for one of our coops, a couple of farmers, some other business leaders in the area, and when the topic of ethanol comes up we're talking its impending doom.
Senator Harkin or Grassley wouldn't admit it, but I think everyone knows that this is coming.
There also seems to be a fair amount of recognition of the problem among beer drinkers, since there's now a Hops shortage thats affecting microbreweries as a result of farmers switching over en masse to corn for ethanol.
This (hops shortage) can only be a good thing long run. If a shortage of a luxury item like beer (and I do like a hops filled beer) helps more people to understand the problems with ethanol, and perhaps the wider energy problems, than it wil inevitibly be (slightly) less painful than if (when?) there is a shortage of oh say... bread perhaps.
"Beer.. the solution and cause to all our problems!" Homer J Simpson
(Okay, Ron, I know you're a Bourbon man)
Bob
Fermenting Revolution: How to Drink Beer and Save the World
http://www.alternet.org/story/80882/
Eric Sevareid's Law: "The chief cause of problems is solutions."
Biofuels are the perfect example of Sevareid's law.
The hops shortage has little if any to due with farmers planting corn, at least in the US. Virtually all of the hops are grown in the Pacific Northwest, with 75% of the acreage in the Yakima valley alone. Corn is not planted there in any significant amount.
http://www.usahops.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page&pageID=2
It at least has to do with it indirectly. The price of hops is going up along with the price of everything else. Here's an article from last fall that illustrates some of the info. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21491206/
But the one thing I have to stress about this is that its the perfect way the open up discussion with the average american (men, mostly) about peak oil. I just got a friend of mine to listen to me briefly explain the dynamics of oil supply and why its making beer more expensive.
People (especially American men) are less receptive to discussion about getting into a 2 seater smartcar and more receptive to wondering what they will do about this unfortunate increase in beer prices (seriously!). It really is an effective conversation starter for spreading the word.
I'm with ya in spirit, man, but hops is high because production bounced down to far off an overproduction bubble (from your MSNBC article):
Where are you from JoulesBurn? I live in Oregon but I lived in Central Washington in the 80s and I have gone there several times over the years. I saw lots of corn growing south of Yakima all the way to the Canada. Your reference says nothing about corn.
As the coming energy collapse - Peak Oil - Peak food - apocalypse - crash of civilization does not seem to resonate with the public, perhaps "Peak Beer" will catch the attention of the populace. At least that of "Joe Six Pack".
Maybe I should get ahead of the curve and copyright the phrases "Joe four-pack" and "Joe two-pack" while I have the chance.
;-)
Sorry if this link has been posted before. Not sure if it scales...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/04/01/algae.oil/
index.html#cnnSTCText
Ten little energy-solutions were initiated, one was debunked, and then there were nine ….
Biofuels are going to mean, you eating a burrito before taking off somewhere on your bicycle.
.....mmmmm.........burritos.......
lol
See http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/64c69186-0952-11dd-81bf-0000779fd2ac.html?ncli...
In particular, look down page at the graphs of global food prices and biodiesel production. They're almost identical -- which probably somewhat overstates the case. (An instance of the facts overstating the case?)
Why go back to the drawing board? Why not just admit that since there is no panacea, in your point of view? Nothing will be done just because it is right, and no one can say that "we must do" a particular thing, so, ergo, there are no solutions.
Sorry, I have to think that if Americans were intelligent enough to do "the right thing" as I think of it, and conserve on a massive scale, such as mass transit (preferably electrified rail), carpool, walk/hike to work, triplink, and all of the other possibilities to save liquid hydrocarbons, we could reduce the approx. 2/3 of our nationwide consumption of fossil fuels by a substantial amount (I do not have a link to the actual % of our consumption which is used for transportation, but I think it is 68%). The idiocy of single passenger commutes in gas guzzlers, or even thinking 40-50 mpg vehicles will do anything substantial to reduce our consumption drives me crazy.
So does adopting a hopeless attitude.
I have no idea for how long, but the US presently produces some approx 35% of our own consumption, which might not be enough to supply us with your laundry list (plastics, pesticides,etc.), but we are at a point where literally everythingwe can do to reduce demand counts. And, it counts with respect to PO and GW/CC. Sure, we have the same problems with depletion as every other producing country, but we are consuming excessively and "have" to stop.
Woody, what we "have" to do and what we "will" do are two entirely different things. You simply cannot propose a solution to a problem that has not arrived, have everyone adopt that solution and prevent the problem from happening. The world does not work that way because only a very few people will believe that a problem actually exists, or that a problem is about to happen.
People will act only after the problem is already upon them and affecting them personally. People will stop over consuming when they can no longer afford to consume just as people will stop eating when they can no longer afford food. That is a happening right in Haiti and a lot of other places.
And if my hopeless attitude bothers you that much then just sing "Don't worry, Be happy, Consume less, Consume less" and see if that helps.
Ron Patterson
Some of the other people on here are also doing the right thing, and doing what they/we can to actually make a difference. How does that saying / prayer go "God, give me the strength to change things which need to be changed, accept the things I cannot and the wisdom to know the difference." I can change this aspect of my life, others are changing this aspect of theirs, and many more seem to want to. Maybe we won't be enough, but maybe we will influence others. My son is 43, still an Anthropogenic GW denier, but is nonetheless is starting to make the changes in his life to make it more livable and hold himself up as a responsible person.
We can make a difference, and we do have the strength to change them. We cannot totally solve the problem, but hypothetically, let's say that we can reduce fossil fuel use by 15%. That reduces our overall consumption by over 10%. Since we import 68%, that drops our imports to 58%, and reduces worldwide comsumption by roughly 2.5%. Think that might stop some of the idiocy in the manufactured fuels industry? It would allso give those who would become GTL and CTL plant operators some time to clean up their act, which could be mandated, if we had enough people doing the right thing. This right thing being electing responsible people to Federal elected positions who will actually represent the people who elected them, and be responsible with both or dollars and our environment. We still have to have business, and we have to have an equitable treatment for the people who cannot make it in our current economy.
Now, if we really applied ourselves, we could also do something in the electric vehicle arena, get electiified rail up and going, and switch to local sourceing of what we need.
We will not solve the problem, we can have a "soft landing", even though I doubt that enough people will make the changes in their lives to make that happen. At the least, we can die trying, in a metaphorical sense.
Either that, or "Party On." Your party must be a real bummer - everything is of no consequence, so why try, right?
Hope for the best (within the bounds of reason), but plan for the worst. Try to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem, but also try to minimize your vulnerability as much as you possibly can. That's what I'm trying to do, anyway.
Ron - I didn't get a chance yesterday to check out the comments on denial yesterday but it looks like psycologists now have a term for coming to reality: "Waking Up Syndrome"
Here is a link:
http://www.hopedance.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4...
“Humankind cannot bear very much reality." — T. S. Eliot
Thanks Joe, this looks good. I am going to print it out and read it at my leisure. But this line caught my eye: Build a lifeboat for ourselves and our loved ones. That is what I have been preaching for years.
Ron Patterson
"Best hopes" that "our loved ones" in the lifeboat with us wait until we're dead before eating us. The ape's cannibal nature tends to crop up in survival situations.
There is a lot of reality in that short article Joe.
It's a revealing and not too subtle read.
Well, what choice do they have? They're scared. Grasping at straws is what drowning ppl do.
Or land that once supported a diverse, integrated ecosystem that functioned as an optimum solar energy harvesting plenum... that was destroyed... to produce food so that the ecocidal ape could grow its population. Now some apes are more than happy to consign other apes to starvation so that they can continue to operate the machines that drive them.
All you need to do in order to secure peace of mind is buy in for the years or decades 'til personal mortality makes it all irrelevant.