Skip to main content

View Diary: Wind is king, biofuels are bunk (118 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Water scarcity ... (0+ / 0-)

    That said, people love to cite the amount of water that goes into biofuel crops, but water scarcity is not everywhere an issue.

    Water scarcity is a huge issue. It will get very bad as global warming progresses.

    And the original paper of this story says you need to use some 90% of US land to produce anough bio-fuel to power the entire car fleet of US. Obviously not a feasible solution.

    •  Did you bother to read it? (0+ / 0-)

      "Water scarcity is a huge issue" in certain parts of the world in certain circumstances, and where it is an issue public policy should handle that using the means I describe in my comment that you choose not to address because you prefer a straw man for your argument. In most of North America crops grow just fine without irrigation, and are supported by naturally occurring rainfall. But--and this is the point I am making--you and other activists cite the necessity of crops for this naturally occurring rainfall as a social cost, as if that rainfall that might otherwise fall on a parking lot or on a suburban lawn is, only when it falls on a corn field, subtracting something from our society and the environment. Have you examined your assumptions? Do you read these things and actually think or repeat them robotically verbatim? Is there a cord that gets pulled to make you talk?

      Finally, your second paragraph is also misleading. Only if we expect biofuels to power the entire car fleet of the US is it a nonfeasible solution--that is the language of your statement. The argument I am making economically is on behalf of farmers, who are between two and three percent of the US population and are rapidly dwindling. If these three percent are kept prosperous and productive using some small percentage of the total landmass producing sugarcane, sugarbeets, sweet sorghum, sweet potatoes, and soybeans to make biofuels that reduce global warming fractionally by electricity generation or consumption in some cars, in fields grown right alongside your solar farms or your windmills, how is that a failure? Why is it that you define as a failure the inability of any given solution to solve the entire problem by itself? Is there any aspect of your closeminded approach that can accept the necessity of multiple solutions proceeding to a common goal in turning back the greatest ecological threat faced by the species?


      "It's like we weren't made for this world, But I wouldn't really want to meet someone who was." --Of Montreal

      by andydoubtless on Sun Dec 14, 2008 at 10:47:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site