Some unsettling comments about Pimentel at the Peak Oil Debunked website today:

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2005/10/123-more-racist-connections.html

Pimentel was part of a group trying to take over the board of the Sierra Club, running on a nativist, anti-immigrant platform. His candidacy attracted the support of a number of racist and white supremacist groups, who made an attempt to flood the Sierra Club voting rolls.

Unfortunately Peak Oil, like other fringe beliefs, has a tendency to attract a variety of extremist groups. Anti immigrant and racist beliefs are likely to filter in if people are not vigilant.

Ok, I have to reply to that. David Pimental is in his 80s and has been a tireless warrior on behalf of the environment most of his career. Recently he has gotten bad press because new technology has shown corn-to-ethanol EROI is 'might be' higher than 1 -perhaps as high as 1.6 to 1- big deal - in the scheme of things he suggested it is not a route that society should pour resources into - not enough land - not enough energy - 5 to 1 should be near a minimum threshold for new alternative energy schemes.

In any case, he has been out there researching problems and giving speeches and training ecologists for 50years -I assure you that there is not one Peak Oil spokesperson who EVERYONE agrees with all of his/her points - we kind of peel the layers of the Peak Oil onion and pick and choose what components make sense to us.

JD, on Peakoildebunked.com is smart and a good writer - but is he giving speeches where people can publicly criticize him on his views? Has he published hundreds of peer reviewed scientific articles? My point is that its tough for someone who doesnt risk to criticize someone who does.

RE: immigration - I have no solid opinion, but oil per capita use on the planet peaked in 1978. When resource quality has peaked in prior societies and organisms, there were eventual population declines - maybe his 84 year old viewpoint is one of experience and scholarship, rather than racism.

Virginia Abernethy is a white separatist and has numerous connections with racist hate groups.

For example, she is on the editorial advisory board of the newspaper for this site:
http://www.cofcc.org/

Pimental works with this woman. As does Marcia Pimental, Albert Bartlett, William Catton, Herman Daly, and L. Hunter Lovins:
http://www.carryingcapacity.org/

Heinberg's book (The Party is Over) has a promotional blurb from Abernethy, and Heinberg mentions Abernethy as a person with political ideas relevant to peak oil:
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/transcripts/220

This is all very unsavory, and, at the very least, constitutes collusion with racists.

That is indeed disgusting as well as a serious threat to the credibility of peak oil theory. Some people on this list site have worried that Matthew Simmons' speculations about $100 oil would discredit peak oil. But in Simmons' case, that fact of rising prices is likely to soften any loss of credibility from missing a dollar target. It's different business entirely with racism and xenophobia. These fringe elements should be seen as the threat they are. The more peak oil commands credibility, the more its opponents will seize on these kinds of claims to shoot it down. Keep in mind that for a while there was a whisper campaign that Simmons was a racist. Stuff like this is effective. For example, a Japanese think tank's report last year on peak oil and Simmons' arguments referred to this rumour without criticism, thereby casting peak oil as a whole in a sleazy light for readers. Because much of the peak oil theory centres on the Saudis' production capacity and credibility, it will tend to be politically vulnerable to charges that it is anti-Arab. To add to the problem by having white separatists write blurbs on peak oil books is, to say the least, foolish.
I can not guarantee for the visions of myself not to mention for the visions of the people I know.

In each movement, organisations or whatever there are people having different interests or trying to use the idea behind that organisations to persue their own goals. Even the army is not monolythic. Basicly I find arguments like this quite impotent - if you can not rule out the argument, rule out the person. Quite distasteful JD.

With regard to the EROEI of ethanol: Pimental based his calculations on North American corn -- one of the most inefficient sources of ethanol. The relevant calculations today are the EROEI of Brazilian sugar cane ethanol, and the EROEI of cellulose ethanol (poplars, willows, sunflowers, hemp) which uses the entire plant mass.

It's very unlikely that the EROEI of Brazilian ethanol is 1.6 or less, because it sells for $25/barrel = $7.81/MMbtu, versus about $10/MMbtu for crude oil. It's cheaper than oil.

JD- I never dismissed ethanol - just ethanol from corn. many biomass technologies from switchgrass to sugar cane (and algae and palm oil) are much higher EROIs than corn - somewhere in the middle is an acceptability threshold - pimental never dismissed biofuel - just ethanol from corn.