Daily Kos

A Broken World: Biofuels & Carbonized Cats

Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:17:13 PM PDT

It’s a broken world.

One Jewish myth says this is literally true.  The sixteenth century Kabbalist Rabbi Isaac Luria taught

that God created the world by forming vessels of light to hold the Divine Light. But as God poured the Light into the vessels, they catastrophically shattered, tumbling down toward the realm of matter. Thus, our world consists of countless shards of the original vessels.

A lot of things in our world remind me of this myth, like secret prisons, the Iraq war, and the state of American health care.  

But learning about biofuels has really driven this home to me.

Calling biofuels "a bad idea" just doesn't do it justice.  I think Jean Ziegler, the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, got it about right: it’s "a crime against humanity."

Ziegler’s reasoning will be familiar to many members of this community.  It is often more lucrative to turn crops into gasoline for the rich than into food for the poor.  Likewise, it often pays more to use arable land for growing biofuel than for growing food.  So biofuels have helped push the price of food to record levels.  Millions of Americans who had been experiencing "food insecurity" are now experiencing, er, greater food insecurity.  And things are worse in parts of the third world.

Swaziland is in the grip of a famine and receiving emergency food aid. Forty per cent of its people are facing acute food shortages. So what has the government decided to export? Biofuel made from one of its staple crops, cassava. The government has allocated several thousand hectares of farmland to ethanol production in the district of Lavumisa, which happens to be the place worst hit by drought. It would surely be quicker and more humane to refine the Swazi people and put them in our tanks. Doubtless a team of development consultants is already doing the sums.

Remember, filling an SUV’s tank with gas requires using roughly enough corn to feed a person for a year.

It’s a broken world.

Meanwhile, the Amazon is being burned to make room for plantations growing biofuels.  Of course, the biofuels are then called "carbon-neutral."

According to a studies published today in Science Magazine (as reported in the Independent)

Growing crops to make biofuels results in vast amounts of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere and does nothing to stop climate change or global warming, according to the first thorough scientific audit of a biofuel's carbon budget.

Scientists have produced damning evidence to suggest that biofuels could be one of the biggest environmental con-tricks because they actually make global warming worse by adding to the man-made emissions of carbon dioxide that they are supposed to curb.

It’s a broken world.

Much of the demand is driven by Government policy in the US and Europe.  The deforestation and famine in the third world are caused by policies designed to help the rich world navigate the energy crisis.

It’s a broken world.

Not that I have any right to get on a high horse about biofuels.  I understand that compromises on some issues are necessary.  Take the 2007 Energy Bill; it was a tradeoff.  It contained a lot of good stuff (replacing subsidies for oil with subsidies for solar, wind and efficiency), some harmless stuff (increasing CAFÉ standards to be only a couple of decades behind the rest of the world) and a crime against humanity (a massive requirement to create more ethanol).

I helped organize the DKos part of the effort to pressure congress to pass the bill.  (1, 2, 3, 4).  In writing those diaries, and interacting with the community, I learned some things that will help the next time round.  And I was immensely grateful for and proud of the community’s response at helping to flood congress with calls.  

Unfortunately, our efforts weren't enough.  As the Bill progressed, the Dems naturally caved on all the good parts.  But the mandate and subsidies for massive ethanol expansion remained in there, with strong bipartisan support.

It’s a broken world.

Here’s some more of Luria’s teaching, with emphasis on the new bit:

as God poured the Light into the vessels, they catastrophically shattered, tumbling down toward the realm of matter. Thus, our world consists of countless shards of the original vessels entrapping sparks of the Divine Light.

Many people can see that Light.  Duke Ellington sure could

The colors of the rainbow, so pretty in the sky
Are also on the faces of people passin' by
I see friends shaking hands, saying how do you do
They're really saying, I love you.

I hear babies cry, I watch them grow
They'll learn much more, than I'll ever know
But I think to myself, what a wonderful world.

I’m not bold enough to share much of my personal life here, but I will say that the first two lines of that last stanza have particular meaning to me.  There are some babies whose growth I watch quite closely:

They’ll learn more than I’ll ever know.

This is the remarkable part: things are getting better.  Much, much better.

Even as Rabbi Luria studied Kaballah with his students in 16th century Russia, 1000 miles away

In 16th century Paris, a popular form of entertainment was cat-burning, in which a cat was hoisted in a sling on a stage and slowly lowered into a fire.  According to historian Norman Davies, "[T]he spectators, including kings and queens, shrieked with laughter as the animals, howling with pain, were singed, roasted, and finally carbonized." Today, such sadism would be unthinkable in most of the world. This change in sensibilities is just one example of perhaps the most important and most underappreciated trend in the human saga: Violence has been in decline over long stretches of history, and today we are probably living in the most peaceful moment of our species' time on earth...

Cruelty as entertainment, human sacrifice to indulge superstition, slavery as a labor-saving device, conquest as the mission statement of government, genocide as a means of acquiring real estate, torture and mutilation as routine punishment, the death penalty for misdemeanors and differences of opinion, assassination as the mechanism of political succession, rape as the spoils of war, pogroms as outlets for frustration, homicide as the major form of conflict resolution--all were unexceptionable features of life for most of human history. But, today, they are rare to nonexistent in the West, far less common elsewhere than they used to be, concealed when they do occur, and widely condemned when they are brought to light.

And war?  Well, as the Economist recently noted:

The number of conflicts (both international and civil) fell from over 50 at the start of the 1990s to just over 30 in 2005... In total, the death toll in battle fell from over 200,000 a year in the mid-1980s to below 20,000 in the mid-2000s.

Think today’s economy sucks?  Imagine living several hundred years ago, when job titles included Galley Slave, Serf, and Emptier of Chamber Pots for Those Who Enjoy Carbonizing Cats.

And then there’s the day-to-day stuff.  When King Solomon’s tummy started rumbling in the middle of the night, he probably found it hard to get a hot midnight snack, let alone a bowl of ice cream.  Many of his kids died in infancy, and some of his wives and concubines probably died in childbirth.  He never talked to a friend on the other side of the continent, never heard a Mozart symphony and never read a novel.  He never understood why the stars shine, nor the reasons for the colors of the rainbow.

I learned why the stars shine.  

I learned about the colors of the rainbow, so pretty in the sky.  I learned much more than Solomon ever knew.

So has nearly everyone else with a college education.

Humanity is moving in the right direction

Here’s the final bit of Luria’s teaching:

Humanity’s great task involves helping God by freeing and reuniting the scattered Light, raising the sparks back to Divinity and restoring the broken world.

Jews call this Tikkun Olam—healing the world.

(Digressing a step from the sublime to the, er, less sublime, let’s look at this site.  Yes, Kos is a bit broken now.  The primary wars are rough; a lot of good people are leaving, and it’s tough to get a word in edgewise through the "Obama/Clinton will save us/destroy us!!!" crowd.  This too shall pass—possibly within a few weeks.  Looking at the big picture, the site is getting less broken.  As a community, we are broadening and deepening, forming ties, learning about how to try to influence congress and campaigns, meeting each other, learning how to learn those things about the world that the media won’t tell us.  I doubt that DailyKos has a divine origin or once had a perfect state but—-if it did, we are restoring it.)

Yes, the process of healing the world has setbacks-- one glance through the headlines of this accursed century proves that.  Some future setbacks might be far larger—I have no idea how many of us will survive Global Warming, and I have no idea how many of the world’s poor will survive the rich world’s "solutions" (like biofuels) to the energy crisis.

Some reversals might be permanent.  A judgment error, a megalomaniac, or a computer malfunction could lob a few missiles over the Pole, leading to a permanent end to humanity.  Even Luria’s shards are not indestructible.

But I believe that, overall, we are putting the shards back together.  We are creating (Luria would say restoring) types of beauty our ancestors literally could not imagine.  We are removing sharp, jagged edges from our world.  We stopped using slaves to grow cotton; one day we will stop using arable land in a hungry nation to grow biofuels.  Today, we still dump gigatons of dangerous fossil fuel waste into the atmosphere which are melting the Arctic and will kill countless species; but one day, we will stop carbonizing our biosphere even as it screams in agony, just as we stopped carbonizing cats.  

It’s a broken world.  We are fixing it.

Tags: biofuels, Kaballah, tikkun olam, global warming, Rescued (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 35 comments

  •  Tip Jar (11+ / 0-)

    As always, please be sure to check out Energize America to do your part in healing the world (or at least the energy and environmental parts of it).

  •  Marriage and related myths (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    RunawayRose, A Siegel, kyril

    There are many other myths around Luria's teaching, but only one sticks in my mind.

    When two people join their bodies and souls in marriage, it is as if two broken shards are joined.  The divine light within both mingles, and the world is a little more whole.

    Please use this thread to discuss any others you may know, or to talk about similar stories/parables in other religions and cultures.

  •  And One Man, or Woman is going to "change" this? (0+ / 0-)

    There is no hope left for humanity, and we dont deserve any hope, we are a plauge on this planet, and Mother earth is ready to shake loose of us, and we deserve it 100%, maybe not on a personal level, but on a global scale,

    One 3rd of the world deserves to die in horrible violent acts of war and global destruction,

    One 3rd that were conscience of our deeds, and working to prolong the inevitable,

    And the other half deserves to be set free from their prisons of 3rd world status, and or slave labor,

    Yes, it is fuzzy math!

  •  Interesting take on ths issue (5+ / 0-)

    I've been working on the biofuels issue for a while now.  There has been so much fragmented, poorly conceived, self-contradictory policy-making on biofuels, it's stunning.  Hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies at the federal, state, and local level, and they still haven't even thought through (for example)...how to get the stuff to market!

    He said that in order to build the ethanol market to its maximum potential 14 billion gallons, or 10 percent of gasoline consumption the capacity has to exist to transport it by rail to the East Coast, the West Coast and the South. Because of its corrosive nature, ethanol can't be moved by pipeline.

    It's been incredibly frustrating in the Midwest to watch this juggernaut take over.

    There are at least some voices of reason beginning to be heard.  I encourage anyone interested in this issue to have a look at the statement on biofuels and sustainability recently prepared by the Ecological Society of America.  For those of you in or near Washington DC, consider attending a conference that the ESA is coordinating on the ecolgoical dimensions of biofuels on March 10.

    •  Glad you're following this (4+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      RunawayRose, A Siegel, MizC, Neon Vincent

      I agree, its amazing how little thought has been put into biofuels.  Hopefully, the tide will soon be turned back.

      And this is just the "solution" we come up with before the energy crisis gets truly serious.  Imagine what hair-brained schemes we'll come up with in a few years.

      •  I hope there are LOTS of hair-brained schemes (3+ / 0-)

        A lot of science takes place in the rubble of failed experiments.  The Michelson-Morley experiment  in 1887 did not find a "satisfactory" velocity for the "luminferous aether", but inadvertently laid some groundwork for Special Relativity.  From alchemism we got chemistry and from astrology we got astronomy.

        Most of us are typing from personal computers.  In the early 1980s, two flavors of Atari, two flavors of Commodore, TI-99/4A, Apple and Sinclair crowded the shelves.  In the 1980s and 1990s, multiple flavors of Unix were rife.  This resolved itself by fair means and foul to the current Windows/Mac/Linux paradigm.  

        While it is important to know how to do something, it is also important to know how NOT to do it.  It looks like ethanol from grain is heading toward failure, but cellulosic ethanol shows more promise and less competition with corn.  If ethanol must be processed and consumed near its place of origin, that means more oil for the rest of us.  

        Dems in 2008: An embarassment of riches. Repubs in 2008: Embarassments.

        by Yamaneko2 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:47:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Michelson-Morley (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Ignacio Magaloni, EquationDoc

          was two guys spending a few months walking around a tub of mercury looking for changing interferometry patterns.  It probably cost a few hundred thousand in today's dollars, and caused no particular ill effects.

          Corn-based ethanol has cost tens of billions of dollars and several years.  The opportunity cost was huge.  Not to mention the extra CO2 in the air, and the additional kids who went to bed hungry.

          We can afford mistakes on the scale of michaelson-morley or commodore.  We can not afford them on the scale of biofuels.

          •  Thanks, I was just about to point this out. nt (0+ / 0-)

            -7.88 -8,77 Just a wine sipping, brie eating, $6 coffee drinking, Prius driving, over educated, liberal, white, activist, male New Englander for Barack Obama.

            by EquationDoc on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:47:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Corn ethanol (0+ / 0-)

            Call me in the minority, but I think it's about time corn prices have risen.  They've been artificially depressed for years, and while it's been bad for small-scale farmers in the US, it's been devastating for corn farmers in the third world (especially Mexico).  Yes, this hits both ways.

            Secondly, sure, 56 pounds of corn only yields 2.7 gallons of ethanol.  But it also yields 17.4 pounds of dried distillers grain, which is basically a nutrient concentrate.  This is fed to livestock and significantly decreases the amount food that would otherwise have to be fed to them.  Remember, if you want an industry to attack, it's the meat industry; check out the New York Times article, "Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler".  Among the more sobering statistics: about a third of the Earth's non-ice-covered land is involved, directly or indirectly, in raising livestock.

            The CO2 emission studies aren't very clear cut.  Check out the comments on the autobloggreen article on the subject for details.  Basically, they make a lot of simplifying assumptions to arrive at the conclusions that they do.

            As for cassava, let's take a look at the economics.  A cassava farmer can grow cassava and eat it.  So they're not going hungry.  Or, they can sell it and buy other food (even if imported).   And the net loss is?  If the "other food" prices are high due to ethanol, then the cassava sale prices for ethanol production will be similarly high.  One ton of cassava will produce ~60 gallons of ethanol if it has 25% starch.  Assuming an open market price of $1.50/gal, that's $90/ton.  Cassava sells for about $25/ton (http://www.sciencedirect.com/...), so that's a huge markup, even after processing costs.

            Anyways, I think it's important to keep the focus on the most destructive biofuels -- palm oil probably being the worst.  Palm oil biodiesel essentially guarantees rainforest destruction, and unlike sugarcane ethanol, it's not incredibly efficient -- about the same as from soybean oil, if I recall correctly.

            Finally, one has to face the fact that we are burning fuels, and they have to come from somewhere.  A sale of offshore oil gets blocked, and we cheer.  ANWR drilling gets blocked, and we cheer.  Some biofuel development contract gets blocked, and we cheer.  And then we all hop in our cars and drive to work on good ol' dirty Canadian bitumen-derived gasoline that involves strip-mining thousands of square miles of Albertan countryside, taking solice that our car gets 30-50 mpg, and ignoring how even that is still consuming large quantities of the product that we're denouncing.  It's always coming from somewhere, so let's not pretend otherwise.  It's not someone else's problem; it's our problem, and that problem is our consumption.

            •  You are assuming (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              chapter1

              that it's the farmer yanking the cassavas out of the soil who gets the money for them. Also, that his farming operation is sufficiently modern for him to be able to supply the demand for cassava-based fuel.

              We need to be very clear about this: It is not the sellers of biofuel cassavas who are starving. It is the farmers who labor for the sellers -- and, more to the point, the former farmers who were cleared off the land by the technological improvements the owners implemented in order to increase their yields to meet demand. A low-tech subsistence farmer gains little access to this market, and what money he does earn doesn't go very far, because he is no longer growing his own food nor acquiring it from local sources. The real money will go to the middlemen who buy up and commodify the cassavas. They are not the ones who are starving to begin with.

              I hate to say it, but we're actually better off biding our time and continuing to burn oil while the Overton window on fuel consumption moves rather than embrace this gruesomely misbegotten idea. Which is not to say that oil consumption is any less destructive than it was yesterday, only that people don't fully fathom how much more destructive biofuels are.

              One last point: Anyone who lives in Illinois and likes to eat corn is grimly aware of how genes from corn grown for feed and fuel are getting into corn grown for the dinner plate and making it starchy and tasteless. Even at the farmers' market, trying to buy good fresh corn is a crapshoot. We are ruining one of our finest agricultural products.

              "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk." --Ian McDonald

              by Geenius at Wrok on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:18:12 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed. (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          dewley notid

          It amazes me no end that people who believe that we can radically increase the efficiency of automobiles that already use computer-controlled engines to drive computer activated transmissions insist that biofuels must forever be mired in the status quo.

          Biofuel can come from a lot of places, not just corn.  Let's see -- Brazil gets a third of it's fuel from sugar cane.

          People are even working on using thermal depolymerization to turn turkey guts into fuel.

          Fuel v. food, in the absence of a glut is a bad trade.
          Slash and burn clearing of forests is a bad deal from any perspective.

          Making fuel out of unwanted or undervalued things that would rot or burn carbon back into the atmosphere anyway beats the heck out of digging dead dinosaur goo out of the ground and belching its by-products up into the air.

          Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

          by dinotrac on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:28:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  It's unjust and immoral (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    A Siegel, chapter1, Neon Vincent

    to use food to make fuel when so many people in the world go hungry.

    According to Lester R. Brown,

    For the 2 billion poorest people in the world, many of whom spend half or more of their income on food, rising grain prices can quickly become life threatening. The broader risk is that rising food prices could spread hunger and generate political instability in low-income countries that import grain, such as Indonesia, Egypt, Nigeria, and Mexico.

    And

    The 55 million tons of U.S. corn going into ethanol this year represent nearly one sixth of the country’s grain harvest but will supply only 3 percent of its automotive fuel.

    So using so much grain won't really make a dent in our gasoline consumption, but because someone can make a profit, it's worth pushing up prices of the most basic food crops?

    Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

    by MizC on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:51:20 PM PDT

    •  When you visit a station that sells E-85... (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      chapter1, MizC

      ...look at the list of vehicles that can use that fuel.  It's composed almost entirely of vehicles that are big or American, and generally both.  E-85 supports an "energy independence" policy, not an environmental one.

      "Iraq: the bravest 1% fighting for the richest 1%." ~ An Unknown Kossack.

      by Neon Vincent on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:28:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  worse, that "energy independence" policy (3+ / 0-)

        is unworkable. There is so much inefficiency built into corn ethanol that there isn't enough agricultural land in the US to grow our way to energy independence via corn ethanol.

        Corn ethanol is about filling the rice bowls of agribusiness, not about fixing global warming or solving the problems connected with running out of oil.

        Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

        by alizard on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:07:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly. (0+ / 0-)

          Kossack Mikebert calculated that converting all of our current corn crop would replace only 11% of gasoline use in the US and that it wouldn't be cost-effective without subsidies until gasoline rose to at least $5/gallon.  That's not going to achieve energy independence.  Furthermore, he calculated that adding cellulosic ethanol to the mix wouldn't work at getting the US off imported oil until the price rose to $10/gallon, and only then because of "demand destruction."  Mind you, Mikebert is an optimist!

          "Iraq: the bravest 1% fighting for the richest 1%." ~ An Unknown Kossack.

          by Neon Vincent on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:26:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Do you honestly think that dirt cheap prices ... (0+ / 0-)

      ... for oil-fed monoculture in the US is somehow going to feed someone in the Democratic Republic of Congo?

      That if only Monsanto and Archer Daniels Midland realized that the policies they have been pushing, directly and through the Department of Agriculture and USAID, caused suffering and hardship worldwide, they would stop?

  •  It's true that we've (0+ / 0-)

    made a lot of progress.

    But we've also grown immensely in power and so the tolerance for human imperfection has grown smaller.

    Great diary.

  •  The tariff on imported ethanol was repealed ... (0+ / 0-)

    ... by the 2007 Energy Bill?

    That's a surprise ... indeed, its the first time I heard of it.

    What I see in this diary is two ideas hopelessly muddled together ... one very important, and one that is as we speak causing more death and destruction across low-income nations than anything referred to here.

    The important idea is very straightforward, yet gets almost no notice. For any large nation, if its imported, its not a sustainable energy source. Full stop, period. There just is not "other earth" for every large nation to import its energy from elsewhere. So unless the energy is coming from our own biocapacity, its not a sustainable, renewable, energy source, no matter what it may seem on the surface.

    The pernicious idea is the vicious lie spread by Archer Daniels and Monsanto that a world where "we" are providing food for "poor countries" is a good thing, despite the fact that it rests upon our transnational corporations first hampering, hobbling, and if necessary destroying the ability of poor nations to feed themselves.

    They are corporations ... piles of money to which people pledge allegience. If they make money from exporting oil-fed corn to a low income nation, then they make more money if the low income nation is dependent upon imports for their survival. A customer that starves if they say no is a more reliable customer than a customer with the option of saying no and living.

    •  I never said we are providing food to others (0+ / 0-)

      we are not, on average.  In fact, we are now a (net) food importer.

      The example I cited, from Swaziland, is one where farmers in poor countries (agribusiness, probably) found it more profitable to sell fuel to us instead of food to their own poor.  That is a direct result of biofuels.

      •  They are not selling it to us. (0+ / 0-)

        They are selling it to the EU, who does not have an import tariff on biofuels ... and ditto for rain forests being burned down in Southeast Asia for oil palms for biodiesel.

        Its the export market in a hard currency market in the context of the current system driving low income nations to prioritize hard currency export earnings that is driving that phenomena ... and the answer is no more blind adherence to a "biofuels bad" mantra than the original answer was blind adherence to a "biofuels good" mantra.

        A quantitative biofuels target with no restriction on imported biofuels is, clearly, no on the path to sustainable renewable energy, so that policy is a mistake.

        That is not the US policy, however, so the US biofuel policy mistakes lie somewhere other than the destruction of tropical ecosystems.

        •  tariffs are not relevant (0+ / 0-)

          The EU and US have fairly similar biofuels policies at the moment (tariffs aside, they are not relevant for this).  Both are large consumers of biofuels.

          This increase in demand for biofuels raises the price, which is why these third world countries have the ability to export or hard currency.

          If either the US or EU used less biofuels, there would be less demand for biofuels.  This would lead to fewer tropical forests leveled, and less starvation.

          I'm not saying that biofuels are always bad.  They may have a small role to play to supply low-energy communities if grown locally.

          But their large-scale use (which is what both the US and EU are doing) is proving disastrous.

          •  Since we do import ethanol far less .... (0+ / 0-)

            ... ethanol than the EU does, because of the tariff, I find it impossible to understand how your argument that "tariffs are not relevant".

            Certainly the tariff should be higher ... it should be high enough to eliminate most ethanol imports. Indeed, three years ago, it was high enough to eliminate most ethanol imports, but we made the mistake of failing to increase the tariff in line with increase in incentives for the sale of ethanol.

            However, the argument that biofuels are evil because the production of biofuels in lower income countries for export to high income countries have malign effects, and therefore tariffs or other restrictions of trade in biofuels should be ignored ... I don't see how that argument hangs together.

            Especially when it is thrown in a heap with the self-serving arguments from the international aid establishment, complaining that the reduction in subsidized grain exports from the US and EU is interfering with the process of undermining food self-sufficiency in low income tropical nations.

            •  Specifically, the example of Swaziland ... (0+ / 0-)

              ... producing Ethanol for export from cassava is exports to the EU under the ACP (the Cotonou Agreement). 64% of ethanol imports into Europe are under preferential trade provisions: the Generalised System of Preferences, the ACP, and the Everything but Arms initiatives, in particular.

              Under MFN EU tariffs on ethanol imports, cassava does not get turned into ethanol for import into the EU.

            •  I didn't mention tariffs (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Ignacio Magaloni

              Regardless of whether tarrifs in place, more demand for biofuels will raise the price of food.  Period.  Raising the price of food leads to all sorts of nasty effects.

              If tarrifs are in place, it will happen via one mechanism, if they are not it will happen via another.   (We don't import much ethanol from Brazil because of tariffs.  But ethanol has caused soy producers to switch to corn, which has raised the price of soy, and caused Brazillians to level the Amazon to plant soy.) The end result is the same regardless of whether tarrifs are in place.  Its simple supply and demand.

              The solution isn't to add (or remove) tariffs.  The solution is to avoid large-scale use of biofuels.

        •  IMO, biofuels that qualify for tax breaks (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Ignacio Magaloni

          exemption from tariffs, and other kinds of subsidy should only biofuels certified to be carbon neutral and grown under sustainable conditions.

          I'm sure an organization can be found or created to do an objective review of biofuels.

          Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

          by alizard on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:10:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  people like (0+ / 0-)

    Rush (I know, I know) and his normal fill in (Jason Lewis) have have been preaching these problems with corn based ethanol for a long time.  I assume nobody cared to listen because of whose mouth it was coming from.

    The problem with all of these well intentioned programs is that nobody considers the unintended consiquenses.

  •  Credit where credit is due: Fidel Castro (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Geenius at Wrok, chapter1

    One of the first world figures to call attention to this problem, a little less than a year ago, was Fidel Castro.

    Here's the cartoon that appeared in Granma at the time:


    The caption reads, "Give me two tons of special corn"

    Eli Stephens
    Left I on the News

    by elishastephens on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:08:10 PM PDT

    •  ironically (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      chapter1

      Cuba, like Brazil are countries where ethanol from sugar cane actually makes economic sense and probably can be grown without impacting the food supply.

      Ethanol from corn is an entirely different issue, and the critiques of the concept are generally accurate.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:12:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're not taking into account the water issue (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        chapter1

        Because water is also in current/future short supply, and one of the problems Castro highlighted in that article is the water usage implicit in growing any biofuel.

        Also, since when isn't sugar cane part of the food supply?

        Eli Stephens
        Left I on the News

        by elishastephens on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:56:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  sugar cane (0+ / 0-)

          in places like Brazil and Cuba is so easy to grow that they generally grow far more than they can sell as sugar on the world market. And it's easier to turn sugar into ethanol than it is to turn corn into ethanol.

          That's why they can afford to turn sugar into ethanol motor fuel.

          Unfortunately, we can't do this (other than in Hawaii) because our climate and geography don't favor it.

          Water isn't usually a problem in more or less tropical regions.

          Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

          by alizard on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:20:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Sorry to Blow Your Fantasies... (0+ / 0-)

    I make a weekly visit to the elevator to pick up corn, and there's no shortage of it. In fact, at many elevators they couldn't fit it all in and they've piled it in several stories high heaps on the ground. Prices are rising because speculators are feeding the market and driving them up. None the less, it's good to see farmers able to afford to eat decent and maybe even replace their 20 year old tractors. Without ethanol, corn prices would be well below cost of production again and we'd have farmers leaving the business to the point of threatening our food security. $5 a bushel corn works out to about a dime a pound, and I don't eat anywhere near a pound a day... I'll gladly pay a few cents more a day for food to keep our farmers on the land and feeding us.

    •  if google is your friend (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Geenius at Wrok, chapter1

      you can research for yourself and discover that even if all the farmland in the US including marginal were devoted to corn ethanol, we still won't get to a replacement for the 400 million gallons a day required to replace oil burned in the USA.

      The only fantasy on this diary is yours.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:33:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Permalink | 35 comments