The ethanol conspiracy

[BenBurch]

This is one I actually believe in, and is exemplified by recent radio ads from this bunch of liars; http://www.renewablefuelsnow.org/

They lie about every major point about corn ethanol and its impact upon global hunger.

They are well funded, have supplied substantial donations to those in power, have favorable tax breaks and subsidies, and are 100% wrong.

This is just a means of putting money in the hands of people who are NOT farmers by taking it out of our pockets.

And it does not do ANYTHING except increase the price of gasoline.

Yes, SOME ethanol, up to 10% as an additive to reduce emissions might be an OK idea in some seasons in some places where hydrocarbon smog is an issue, but E85? - A Pure "greenwash."

[Redtail]

Yeah I hear a lot of their commercials on the radio here. Do you have any links to the counter arguments? I'm fairly ignorant on this subject.

[DGM]

I'd like to see more on the counter arguments myself. I know fuel economy is not as good on E85 as compared with regular gas. We really don't have E85 (or M85 for that matter) where I live (northeast US) so the point is moot for us.

[Tweeter]

[edited] Do you have any evidence of this charge?
Who are "those" in power?
We here in America are trying to become energy independent by any means possible. [edited].

Violation of Rule 12: “Attack the argument, not the arguer." Having your opinion, claim or argument challenged, doubted or dismissed is not attacking the arguer.

[Profanz]

This is one I actually believe in, and is exemplified by recent radio ads from this bunch of liars; http://www.renewablefuelsnow.org/

They lie about every major point about corn ethanol and its impact upon global hunger.

They are well funded, have supplied substantial donations to those in power, have favorable tax breaks and subsidies, and are 100% wrong.

This is just a means of putting money in the hands of people who are NOT farmers by taking it out of our pockets.

And it does not do ANYTHING except increase the price of gasoline.

Yes, SOME ethanol, up to 10% as an additive to reduce emissions might be an OK idea in some seasons in some places where hydrocarbon smog is an issue, but E85? - A Pure "greenwash."


The fact of the matter is someday we will run out of fossil fuel no matter what. There is not an unlimited supply. Therefore any and all competition to fossil fuel needs to be discouraged and stalled so that some can earn top dollar on that oil until the last drop is sucked from the earth. And they have the money to stall and discourage and have been for years. Bush came into office wanting to drill in Alaska and other protected areas. This week now that gasoline is over four dollars a gallon in the states he pushed through this…

http://www.adn.com/front/story/436545.html
Incidental' harm allowed to polar bears in oil exploration WASHINGTON - Less than a month after declaring polar bears a threatened species because of global warming, the Bush administration is allowing oil companies to affect them in small ways while exploring for oil and natural gas in the Chukchi Sea over the next five years.

If anyone questions this they will asked if they want to be paying ten dollars a gallon next year.

[DGM]

The fact of the matter is someday we will run out of fossil fuel no matter what. There is not an unlimited supply. Therefore any and all competition to fossil fuel needs to be discouraged and stalled so that some can earn top dollar on that oil until the last drop is sucked from the earth. And they have the money to stall and discourage and have been for years. Bush came into office wanting to drill in Alaska and other protected areas. This week now that gasoline is over four dollars a gallon in the states he pushed through this…

http://www.adn.com/front/story/436545.html
Incidental' harm allowed to polar bears in oil exploration WASHINGTON - Less than a month after declaring polar bears a threatened species because of global warming, the Bush administration is allowing oil companies to affect them in small ways while exploring for oil and natural gas in the Chukchi Sea over the next five years.

If anyone questions this they will asked if they want to be paying ten dollars a gallon next year.
Um......The same people (companies) distribute the E85. Do you understand supply and demand? (Obviously you don't if your against exploration)

[fuelair]

Are you out of your MIND? Do you have any evidence of this charge?
Who are "those" in power?
We here in America are trying to become energy independent by any means possible. Take your money making conspiracy crap and shove it up your azz.You really need to study up on this. This kind of yelling makes you sound more a shill for the appropriate interests. No one with a smattering of chemical/physics knowledge is taken in by the claims for ethanol - and no one with very much knowledge of economics has much difficulty following the misleading statements from a large number of supposed specialists on that side of the problem. Ethanol FROM CORN is a very bad idea both chemically/physically and economically. Now, if we get the tech for making ethanol efficiently from grasses and related natural materials it may be some different.

[BenBurch]

Yeah I hear a lot of their commercials on the radio here. Do you have any links to the counter arguments? I'm fairly ignorant on this subject.

Good summaries here;

http://www.logicalscience.com/technology/bad/Ethanol.html
http://www.igreens.org.uk/ethanol_from_corn_.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2004-02-20-kantor_x.htm

Google will find you much, much more.

[Spud1k]

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a conspiracy. People are trying to move away from oil and in principle, biofuels are a truly sustainable resource. Trouble is, I don't think people thought it through properly; there just isn't enough farmland on the planet for biofuels to be used as a serious replacement. As the knock-on effects on food prices and deforestation begin to bite, I can see them becoming very unpopular over the next few years.

[BenBurch]

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a conspiracy. People are trying to move away from oil and in principle, biofuels are a truly sustainable resource. Trouble is, I don't think people thought it through properly; there just isn't enough farmland on the planet for biofuels to be used as a serious replacement. As the knock-on effects on food prices and deforestation begin to bite, I can see them becoming very unpopular over the next few years.

In the case of corn ethanol, though, it takes about 20% MORE oil energy than it produces in fuel ethanol.

Now, the department of agriculture says that it is a slight net gain, but only if you count using the byproduct of the mash as animal feed. And as was pointed out in a couple of the articles I linked in, that minor gain goes away if you have to transport either the corn or the feed byproduct very far.

Moreover, it appears that the byproduct feed is actually really toxic to the animals!

So, we;

1. Lose energy (oil companies have a win-win as they sell both the oil and the ethanol)

2. Poison cattle.

3. Starve the third world.

4. Increase the price of every product in the grocery from meat to bread because of corn diverted to this use and land moved from wheat and produce to corn for this use.

[Redtail]

Good summaries here;

http://www.logicalscience.com/technology/bad/Ethanol.html
http://www.igreens.org.uk/ethanol_from_corn_.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2004-02-20-kantor_x.htm

Google will find you much, much more.

Thanks.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Actually down Here I have plenty of oil, hope the price rises, although I am working on a bio fuel, using waste to grow earth worms and turning them into bio gas and bio diesel.
I am thinking about Huff and Puffing my oil soon, so that it will produce a good source of income, tons of Oil leases in Kentucky with 70 percent of he oil still in the ground.

Only 30 percent of an oil resource can be produced at the present time, Huff and Puff raises that to 60 percent total production, still leaving 40% that is unreachable.

Corn will never work sorghum cane is however a very efficient fuel, high sugar content.

PS. the reason I am experimenting with earth worms is they eat waste, do not need sunlight of fertilizers, and the resulting castings make good fertilizers. It is a win win situation.

[PhantomWolf]

While I am a big supporter of Ethanol as a future fuel, I really am against the use of food crops to produce it. Richard Branson was looking into the ability to make cellulose based Ethanol, a technique that would allow ethanol to be made from the waste from crops greenwaste and woodpulp. This is a far better idea and far better for the enviroment.

[BenBurch]

While I am a big supporter of Ethanol as a future fuel, I really am against the use of food crops to produce it. Richard Branson was looking into the ability to make cellulose based Ethanol, a technique that would allow ethanol to be made from the waste from crops greenwaste and woodpulp. This is a far better idea and far better for the enviroment.

Yes, my only gripe is CORN ethanol.

If we can make it from garbage, or if we can make biodiesel from pond scum, then the equations are much, much different - though attention still needs to be paid to transport costs and how those effect the ratio of fuel used to usable fuel delivered to end use.

My sense is that we need to move away from liquid fuels entirely in all applications where that is possible.

I believe that we can achieve a better energy density for vehicles with a flywheel storage device than with a battery, and much more cleanly, and I really wish we would investigate that in a serious fashion. (And if anybody WANTS to investigate that and has money; HIRE ME!)

-Ben

[DGM]

I believe that we can achieve a better energy density for vehicles with a flywheel storage device than with a battery, and much more cleanly, and I really wish we would investigate that in a serious fashion. (And if anybody WANTS to investigate that and has money; HIRE ME!)

-Ben

Nah, I'd put my money on diesel/hy-bred running on bio-diesel. The new (and improving) diesels are clean and they give great economy in a package we are accustom to.

Just my $.02

[GT/CS]

Would sugar beets be a better source?

[Profanz]

Um......The same people (companies) distribute the E85. Do you understand supply and demand? (Obviously you don't if your against exploration)


Oh yeah and they're all psyched about Ethanol for the future right? That's why they keep pushing for more exploration. They think they can find some untapped corn fields up in the Arctic. And is there not any gasoline in E85? And what kind of fuel is used to cook up the E85 or produce the electricity needed? How about all electric cars running on solar/wind produced electricity? Carter knew that oil was a dead end 35 years ago. But he was an idiot right? Fossil fuel is just what it sounds like. Older then the Stone Age. We could have should have moved on years ago.

[DGM]

Oh yeah and they're all psyched about Ethanol for the future right? That's why they keep pushing for more exploration. They think they can find some untapped corn fields up in the Arctic. And is there not any gasoline in E85? And what kind of fuel is used to cook up the E85 or produce the electricity needed? How about all electric cars running on solar/wind produced electricity? Carter knew that oil was a dead end 35 years ago. But he was an idiot right? Fossil fuel is just what it sounds like. Older then the Stone Age. We could have should have moved on years ago.
You don't drive a car right? Who do think is going to distribute what ever fuel we use? Who has the infrastructure needed.

Electric would be nice but it's a long way off as far as feasibility for a society that likes to be spread out.

Did you read my $.02 above?

What's wrong with oil companies making money. You can invest in them and share the wealth.

[PhantomWolf]

A couple of guys in Australia have develped a hybrid engine petrol/hydrogen engine where the water is split into hydrogen by the car's own electrical system and then is mixed with the fuel in the combusion chamber resulting in more bang and between 20 and 40% better fuel economy. It'd be interesting to see if it would convert to a hybid Ethanol/hydrogen engine or even better a hybrid-hybrid using both an electric motor and a hybid Ethanol/hydrogen engine.

[BenBurch]

Would sugar beets be a better source?

Possibly, except for the objection that human food from arable land is being diverted to fuel. We are on the verge of a world-wide food shortage owing to the complete lack of political will to enforce population control.

[Slayhamlet]

Possibly, except for the objection that human food from arable land is being diverted to fuel. We are on the verge of a world-wide food shortage owing to the complete lack of political will to enforce population control.

How exactly does one enforce world-wide population control?

[DGM]

How exactly does one enforce world-wide population control?
[NWO mode] No problem, let us at the little buggers [/NWO mode]

[PhantomWolf]

Possibly, except for the objection that human food from arable land is being diverted to fuel. We are on the verge of a world-wide food shortage owing to the complete lack of political will to enforce population control.

Actually it's nothing to do with population control, it's got more to do with idiots being in charge. There is plenty of food to go around if it could get to where where it needs to and at reasonable prices. Add in countries that are more interested in going to war with each other or internally reducing their production, and then we have issues. Zimbawe used to be the foodbowl of Africa, but over the last 10 years it has been turned into a dustbowl through politics. In Jamacia the people starve while food rots in the markets because it is priced out of reach of the poeople that desperately need it. Get the speculators out of the market, direct the food where it needs to go and remove those that stand in the way of it's production, and then we'll all be far better off.

[BenBurch]

How exactly does one enforce world-wide population control?

If families with more than two children pay double the tax of families with only two or less, that would work for most of the planet.

A huge one-time payment for completion of sterilization surgery would work pretty good in the rest of the world where incomes are too low for tax rates to matter.

And I live what I preach; I had a vasectomy one month after my second child was born because I believe it is immoral to have more than two children.

[BenBurch]

A... There is plenty of food to go around if it could get to where where it needs to and at reasonable prices. ...

Nope.

We are very near the carrying capacity of the planet.

Here is a ballpark calculation, might be too optimistic, might be too pessimistic, but not by much;

There are 148,940,000 km^2 of surface area on the planet.

Arable land is 13.13% is 19,809,020 km^2.

Permanent agriculture is 4.71% or 7,015,074 km^2

The amount of land required to feed an adult human is 2395 m^2 assuming average yields and vegetable or cereal crops.

7 million km^2 is about 7x10^12 m^2 divide by 2395 is 3,000,000,000.

Three billion.

We are at twice that now, ergo, many are malnourished. (This ignores fishing and hunting, though.)

Now, if we used 100% of all arable land at the same efficiency, the number is 8 billion.

We are almost there.

We are almost at the carrying capacity now.

And as any agronomist will tell you, you cannot farm a field continuously and still keep the yield up.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Possibly, except for the objection that human food from arable land is being diverted to fuel. We are on the verge of a world-wide food shortage owing to the complete lack of political will to enforce population control.

It's statements like these that fuel Alex Jones's apocalyptic fantasies of mass extermination.

You should know better, Ben.

[BenBurch]

It's statements like these that fuel Alex Jones's apocalyptic fantasies of mass extermination.

You should know better, Ben.

What makes you think I'm not sadistic enough to WANT to manipulate that fool?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

What makes you think I'm not sadistic enough to WANT to manipulate that fool?

Damn... did I blow the gag for you? ;)

[BenBurch]

Damn... did I blow the gag for you? ;)

No. But I realize the side-effects and welcome them.

If we do not get people to limit fertility we will have a malthusian crisis with food that will limit population via famine.

Which is preferable?

Because its gonna happen one way or the other.

And if we allow it to be famine, Soylent Green won't seem to be such a bad option to many.

[beachnut]

. And they have the money to stall and discourage and have been for years. Bush came into office wanting to drill in Alaska and other protected areas. This week now that gasoline is over four dollars a gallon in the states he pushed through this…

If anyone questions this they will asked if they want to be paying ten dollars a gallon next year.
If there was a better fuel, we would use it. Please name a better fuel than gasoline, besides chocolate chip cookies, that you can market now?

Name a fuel denser in energy than gasoline. Name a system for transportation better than gasoline.

Have you ever taken a engineering study of why we use gasoline and not batteries to power our cars! Gee, electric cars are not new! If electric cars were a better system we would have electric cars! Do non be fooled by your own woo based ideas on why gasoline is locked in; the boring fact is it works better than any ideas you have not proposed yet!

Most you posts seem steeped in political woo and misinformation; why?

[DavidS]

I am thinking about Huff and Puffing my oil soon, so that it will produce a good source of income, tons of Oil leases in Kentucky with 70 percent of he oil still in the ground.
Curiosity, not challenge: What KY fields are producing by "huff & puff"? (by which I presume you mean alternating between producing from and injecting into the same wellbore), and what makes you think it would be feasible for your reservoirs? What injection fluid? My KY RE experience is extremely limited (one field, and that was a real "dog"), but my expectation (based on even less G&G expertise) is that most of the reservoirs will be light-ish oil and probably tight-ish rock, neither of which bode well for steam H&P.

Only 30 percent of an oil resource can be produced at the present time, Huff and Puff raises that to 60 percent total production, still leaving 40% that is unreachable.
For the lay audience:

While those numbers may be more-or-less reasonably typical for mid-continent reservoirs without aquifers, especially those developed under $2/bbl, I feel compelled to point out that the range of recovery factors is quite broad. Still, I concur with your main point that a sizeable fraction of a reservoir's oil can't be produced by simple primary recovery (i.e. producing wells only) or even ordinary secondary recovery (i.e. supplementing reservoir energy and displacement with water or gas injection) methods.

The "classic" huff-n-puff examples are cyclic steam injection in the heavy oil reservoirs in central California, where the oil is so heavy, dead, and thick (~8-15 API [yep, some is heavier than water], nearly negligible gas/oil ratio, viscosities in thousands of centipoise) that it barely flows at original reservoir temperatures. Steam is injected into the well for some period (days to weeks) to literally heat the oil to reduce its viscosity and provide some displacement energy to drive it back to the well when it's returned to production (often after a more-or-less brief "soak" period).

In those reservoirs (high porosity and permeability, very low initial water saturations) H&P recovery can approach 100% locally and 90% overall -- if you don't discount for the oil you burn to make the steam, and if you're cool with drilling wells as close as every half-acre (not a pretty sight IMO). With the thick, dead (read: little dissolved gas) oil, primary recovery would only be the very few percent that could be driven by rock and liquid compressibility (and possibly establishment of the small "critical" gas saturation that's too disconnected to flow).

Sure, you gotta burn something to make the steam, but if you burn part of the oil you wouldn't get without the steam you still come out ahead (carbon emissions notwithstanding). More recently it's become fashionable and economically feasible to burn natural gas in a co-generation facility to produce the steam needed to produce that nasty gunky tar-like oil. While such cogen facilities do also produce electricity that's needed in the area, I fail to understand how burning nice, clean, portable gas to produce steam to produce that oil is a good idea in the broader sense.

[defaultdotxbe]

I fail to understand how burning nice, clean, portable gas to produce steam to produce that oil is a good idea in the broader sense.
everything translates back into money, if you burn 10 dollars of gasoline to recover 20 dollars of oil you come out on top, even if you arent getting 10 dollars of gasoline back from that oil

if the world economy worked on a barter system it might be different, lol

[applecorped]

Possibly, except for the objection that human food from arable land is being diverted to fuel. We are on the verge of a world-wide food shortage owing to the complete lack of political will to enforce population control.

What exactly are you advocating here? Who exactly would do the enforcing? and how?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Curiosity, not challenge: What KY fields are producing by "huff & puff"? (by which I presume you mean alternating between producing from and injecting into the same wellbore), and what makes you think it would be feasible for your reservoirs? What injection fluid? My KY RE experience is extremely limited (one field, and that was a real "dog"), but my expectation (based on even less G&G expertise) is that most of the reservoirs will be light-ish oil and probably tight-ish rock, neither of which bode well for steam H&P.


For the lay audience:

While those numbers may be more-or-less reasonably typical for mid-continent reservoirs without aquifers, especially those developed under $2/bbl, I feel compelled to point out that the range of recovery factors is quite broad. Still, I concur with your main point that a sizeable fraction of a reservoir's oil can't be produced by simple primary recovery (i.e. producing wells only) or even ordinary secondary recovery (i.e. supplementing reservoir energy and displacement with water or gas injection) methods.

The "classic" huff-n-puff examples are cyclic steam injection in the heavy oil reservoirs in central California, where the oil is so heavy, dead, and thick (~8-15 API [yep, some is heavier than water], nearly negligible gas/oil ratio, viscosities in thousands of centipoise) that it barely flows at original reservoir temperatures. Steam is injected into the well for some period (days to weeks) to literally heat the oil to reduce its viscosity and provide some displacement energy to drive it back to the well when it's returned to production (often after a more-or-less brief "soak" period).

In those reservoirs (high porosity and permeability, very low initial water saturations) H&P recovery can approach 100% locally and 90% overall -- if you don't discount for the oil you burn to make the steam, and if you're cool with drilling wells as close as every half-acre (not a pretty sight IMO). With the thick, dead (read: little dissolved gas) oil, primary recovery would only be the very few percent that could be driven by rock and liquid compressibility (and possibly establishment of the small "critical" gas saturation that's too disconnected to flow).

Sure, you gotta burn something to make the steam, but if you burn part of the oil you wouldn't get without the steam you still come out ahead (carbon emissions notwithstanding). More recently it's become fashionable and economically feasible to burn natural gas in a co-generation facility to produce the steam needed to produce that nasty gunky tar-like oil. While such cogen facilities do also produce electricity that's needed in the area, I fail to understand how burning nice, clean, portable gas to produce steam to produce that oil is a good idea in the broader sense.

The fields around here are simular to the big sinking field, in eastern Kentucky,only smaller, they are simple water floods that have never had any advanced recovery methods applied.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=6216345

If all goes well massive amounts of low cost carbon dioxide will soon be availiable here.

A new cyclic method of steam, water with sulfactants, and gas, injection shows great promise in these fields, I am working on a portable unit, (truck mounted) portable steam and gas injection unit, for such small water floods.

I am also looking at heating the reservoir directly to cause a chemical reaction freeing the light oil from the heavy oil that clogs the sandstone formations.
However since I have not patented that process or know if it is ecconomically productive I do not wish to comment further upon it.

Carbon Dioxide may soon become very cheap in the local area.
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080524/BUSINESS/805240448

[BenBurch]

What exactly are you advocating here? Who exactly would do the enforcing? and how?

Answered already above; I'd make it economically difficult to have more than two and economically beneficial to get sterilized.

Do you have a better plan to avery global famine?

[DavidS]

The fields around here are simular to the big sinking field, in eastern Kentucky,only smaller, they are simple water floods that have never had any advanced recovery methods applied.
Small world -- guess the name of the one Kentucky field I referenced above. I ate quite a few lunches at the "Standing Rock Petroleum Club". Beautiful country.

Lest I be taken to have publicly insulted your assets and efforts, I should clarify my "dog" reference above. By that I mean production rates, reserves per well, and operating margins are too low to be of significant value to a semi-major or large independent oil producing company, especially considering their greater bureaucratic burden and capital investment opportunities. My expectation that such fields could noticeably alter the American petroleum supply or pricing picture is somewhat less than my fear of personal spontaneous combustion.

That doesn't mean they're worthless, however, especially to a small independent operator. With careful attention to expenses they can make a little money even against soft oil prices, and those expenses needn't go up much just because prices and production do. Also, every barrel you make from there is as good as one from under a mile of Gulf of Mexico water.

Good luck with your EOR efforts! You won't be keeping OPEC awake nights, but you very well might enhance your reserves and value.

Thanks for the field trial reference, I'll give it a read. (from the abstract it's clear that my Big Sinking work was unrelated and some years earlier)

<end derail>

[BenBurch]

... avery ...

Read "avert"

[Disbelief]

... avery ...

Read "avert"

Freudian slip? :D

[BenBurch]

Freudian slip? :D

LOL

IPod.

[applecorped]

Answered already above; I'd make it economically difficult to have more than two and economically beneficial to get sterilized.

Do you have a better plan to avery global famine?

Who would levy the economic sanctions against those who did not follow and how would it be collected?

Who would pay for the economic benefits?

China has a similar sounding policy but I do not know if it has worked out very well. I would think Catholics would take issue with any plan that encouraged sterilization and punished procreation.

[Billdave2]

Actually down Here I have plenty of oil, hope the price rises, although I am working on a bio fuel, using waste to grow earth worms and turning them into bio gas and bio diesel.
I am thinking about Huff and Puffing my oil soon, so that it will produce a good source of income, tons of Oil leases in Kentucky with 70 percent of he oil still in the ground.

Only 30 percent of an oil resource can be produced at the present time, Huff and Puff raises that to 60 percent total production, still leaving 40% that is unreachable.

Corn will never work sorghum cane is however a very efficient fuel, high sugar content.

PS. the reason I am experimenting with earth worms is they eat waste, do not need sunlight of fertilizers, and the resulting castings make good fertilizers. It is a win win situation.

My grandfather in Kentucky used to make some really efficient "fuel" from sorghum (if you know what I mean).

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Answered already above; I'd make it economically difficult to have more than two and economically beneficial to get sterilized.

Do you have a better plan to avery global famine?

Yes remove 2/3ths of the population of the planet. Global Famine averted.

Remember you did not ask for a Better Humane plan, you asked for a better plan to avert famine.

Eventually it is going to come down to population control, or farming of space using robot farmers to both build farms and raise the food.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

My grandfather in Kentucky used to make some really efficient "fuel" from sorghum (if you know what I mean).

My uncle made several different fuels from corn, sorghum and other grains, so yes I do know what you mean.

[BenBurch]

Who would levy the economic sanctions against those who did not follow and how would it be collected?

Who would pay for the economic benefits?

China has a similar sounding policy but I do not know if it has worked out very well. I would think Catholics would take issue with any plan that encouraged sterilization and punished procreation.

As I already said. Taxation. Specifically income taxation. Proceeds of which (Catholics are welcome to have has many as they like if they pay) pays for the Sterilization program.

Again, if you don't like it, propose a better way to avoid global famine?

[Jimbo07]

No one with a smattering of chemical/physics knowledge is taken in by the claims for ethanol - ... Ethanol FROM CORN is a very bad idea both chemically/physically

No. It may not be great, but it's not very bad.


and economically.

These arguments I've seen be a little more subtle, so I'm willing to give a little on this.

In the case of corn ethanol, though, it takes about 20% MORE oil energy than it produces in fuel ethanol.


Oh come on! How many threads have we been running around on this? Ethanol is not a net-energy-negative. There has to be a lot of numbers-cooking to show it to be so. One Pimentel paper included the construction numbers for an ethanol plant, but that's never accounted for in any other study, nor is it in refineries and upgraders! :rolleyes:


Moreover, it appears that the byproduct feed is actually really toxic to the animals!

Now, that's interesting, and a new one on me... I'll have to google it... ah... just did.

DDGS (http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1067&context=animalscinbcr)

It seems there was a problem with sulfur content in 50DDGS, but the conclusion was, "Results showed DDGS can be fed in finishing diets to improve ADG and F:G with optimum level at 20% dietary inclusion."

I must admit, I haven't followed the DDGS story fully...
So, we;


1. Lose energy

False

(oil companies have a win-win as they sell both the oil and the ethanol)

True in Canada. I thought it was ADM making out like a bandit in the States? Or is ADM owned by the oil companies?


2. Poison cattle.

Provisionally false.


3. Starve the third world.


To a much greater extent than current fuel prices... :rolleyes:

...

In Canada, there is no conspiracy. Whether or not any individual has made bad choices is a different matter... we're too disorganized! :D

[Max Photon]

Remember, it's not nice to fool Yo' Mama Nature!

[applecorped]

As I already said. Taxation. Specifically income taxation. Proceeds of which (Catholics are welcome to have has many as they like if they pay) pays for the Sterilization program.

Again, if you don't like it, propose a better way to avoid global famine?

It's not a matter of liking it. Your proposal will most likely never happen in this country. This has as much chance of happening as Black Reparations. A better way might not involve any government.

[PhantomWolf]

Nope.

We are very near the carrying capacity of the planet.

Here is a ballpark calculation, might be too optimistic, might be too pessimistic, but not by much;

There are 148,940,000 km^2 of surface area on the planet.

Arable land is 13.13% is 19,809,020 km^2.

Permanent agriculture is 4.71% or 7,015,074 km^2

The amount of land required to feed an adult human is 2395 m^2 assuming average yields and vegetable or cereal crops.

7 million km^2 is about 7x10^12 m^2 divide by 2395 is 3,000,000,000.

Three billion.

We are at twice that now, ergo, many are malnourished. (This ignores fishing and hunting, though.)

Now, if we used 100% of all arable land at the same efficiency, the number is 8 billion.

We are almost there.

We are almost at the carrying capacity now.

And as any agronomist will tell you, you cannot farm a field continuously and still keep the yield up.

Well first off I have no way to check your figures, however since I was just talking to my grandmother about gardening two days ago and she was pointing out that my grandfather was able to provide all the fruit and vegetables for a family of six and that she hadn't had to buy any fruit or vegetables until quite late in their married life when he became too sick to work his garden, and I know that the area his gardens used to take up were nowhere near the size you claim is required to feed an adult, I'd take issue with your numbers. I'd also point out that meat farming does not require arable land, but can be done in areas where crop production is not possible, this adds to the overall amount of food, as does fishing which you noted you missed, but is often the major source of food in some areas. With those added to home gardening, which as proven by my grandfather certainly helps to provide vast amounts of food for people, again on land that would be considered as non-arable as far as farming is concerned, and further adding in things such as hydroponics and green house produce which again can be done on non-farmable land and at higher production rates, and your figures start looking extremely shaky to me.

Looking about the world, the issues of malnourishment are not through the lack of available food. The food is there to be consumed, the issues are poverty and political. There is plenty of food aid going to countries with food shortages (often created by their political environments, but some are through natural disaster) to feed their people; the issue is getting the food to them. In places like Zimbabwe, Somalia and Burma the politicians are blocking food shipments to those that don't support them. In other parts of the world, poverty means that though there is plenty of food available, high prices being charged due to international pricing, the people simply can't afford to buy it in some cases (such as the Caribbean) this means that the food rots in the markets while the people starve.

According to the UN the main issues today are "increased energy costs, rising demand from economic growth in emerging economies, the growth of biofuels, and increasing climatic shocks such as droughts and flood." Combine this with "a weak US dollar, and speculation in the commodity markets" and prices have gone up a staggering 52% in the last 12 months, 92% for cereals. These factors are what are pushing the price of food up causing some producer nations to stop or restrict export of food in an attempt to try and keep their own internal food prices down (which ironically pushes up the international prices and forces more people towards starvation.) There is plenty of food out there, but people are struggling to afford it. Add to that the political instability of some countries, and a disproportionate distribution of food across the world, and these are the reasons for malnourishment, not an overall shortage of food itself. This is coming right from the UNWFP.

[MIKILLINI]

Here in Illinois, a reporter asked an expert of the fuel industry why the ethanol prices were similar to gasoline. His response was "The delivery system is the problem'. Oil has a pipeline, ethanol has limited rail and truck capacity transport".
Another much needed resource for the production of ethanol is water. There are drawbacks to ethanol, but technology will eventually alleviate the current problems. How long it takes for the new measures to become efficient in producing this fuel is certainly the key.

[defaultdotxbe]

Nope.

We are very near the carrying capacity of the planet.

Here is a ballpark calculation, might be too optimistic, might be too pessimistic, but not by much;

There are 148,940,000 km^2 of surface area on the planet.

Arable land is 13.13% is 19,809,020 km^2.

Permanent agriculture is 4.71% or 7,015,074 km^2

The amount of land required to feed an adult human is 2395 m^2 assuming average yields and vegetable or cereal crops.

7 million km^2 is about 7x10^12 m^2 divide by 2395 is 3,000,000,000.

Three billion.

We are at twice that now, ergo, many are malnourished. (This ignores fishing and hunting, though.)

Now, if we used 100% of all arable land at the same efficiency, the number is 8 billion.

We are almost there.

We are almost at the carrying capacity now.

And as any agronomist will tell you, you cannot farm a field continuously and still keep the yield up.

do you have a source for those figures? according to wikipedia arable land makes up 21% of the land area on earth

[BenBurch]

do you have a source for those figures? according to wikipedia arable land makes up 21% of the land area on earth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

Natural resources and land use
Main article: Natural resource
The Earth provides resources that are exploitable by humans for useful purposes. Some of these are non-renewable resources, such as mineral fuels, that are difficult to replenish on a short time scale.
Large deposits of fossil fuels are obtained from the Earth's crust, consisting of coal, petroleum, natural gas and methane clathrate. These deposits are used by humans both for energy production and as feedstock for chemical production. Mineral ore bodies have also been formed in Earth's crust through a process of Ore genesis, resulting from actions of erosion and plate tectonics.[100] These bodies form concentrated sources for many metals and other useful elements.
The Earth's biosphere produces many useful biological products for humans, including (but far from limited to) food, wood, pharmaceuticals, oxygen, and the recycling of many organic wastes. The land-based ecosystem depends upon topsoil and fresh water, and the oceanic ecosystem depends upon dissolved nutrients washed down from the land.[101] Humans also live on the land by using building materials to construct shelters. In 1993, human use of land is approximately:
Land use Percentage
Arable land: 13.13%[58]
Permanent crops: 4.71%[58]
Permanent pastures: 26%
Forests and woodland: 32%
Urban areas: 1.5%
Other: 30%
The estimated amount of irrigated land in 1993 was 2,481,250 km².[58]

[AZCat]

Here in Illinois, a reporter asked an expert of the fuel industry why the ethanol prices were similar to gasoline. His response was "The delivery system is the problem'. Oil has a pipeline, ethanol has limited rail and truck capacity transport".
Another much needed resource for the production of ethanol is water. There are drawbacks to ethanol, but technology will eventually alleviate the current problems. How long it takes for the new measures to become efficient in producing this fuel is certainly the key.

I was back home in the midwest a month or so ago. My parents and I talked about this, since it is a topic of interest to us all. The drive to produce ethanol has apparently brought a lot of acreage back into production that had been laying fallow. Every farmer in Western Kansas is using his water rights to their maximum in order to produce corn, since the price per bushel has skyrocketed (corn is approximately $6 per bushel, and was ~$2 per bushel a few years ago). Unfortunately this is not a sustainable practice, as they are drawing down the aquifers (like the Ogallala, which provides something like 30% of the water used for irrigation in the U.S.) quite quickly (or at least more quickly than they were).

[Max Photon]

BenBurch, you are a marvel.

You see the distortion around ethanol.

You see the marketing deception.

You see that it represents a special interest being subsidized by the general interest.

You see the welfare.

You even go so far as to call it a conspiracy - (a possibly vast conspiracy).

Yet...somehow...you can't see that deficit spending - which is nothing more that a scheme for the confiscation of wealth - feeds this abominable wealth transfer.

You can't see that deficit spending is facilitated by irredeemable currency.

You can't see that irredeemable currency is engineered by an unconstitutional check-kiting scheme between the Treasury and the Fed.

And you can't see that this check-kiting scheme is a conspiracy.

How Ben? How?


(Are you looking through two toilet-paper tubes again?)


Max

P.S. Do I have poppy seeds in my teeth? :D

[defaultdotxbe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
the wording there is land use, so its possible more could be used as farmland that isnt

also note 26% are permanent pastures, you suppose any of that land might be supporting livestock that is used for food?

[BenBurch]

I'll compute for you the contribution of range land to the food supply in the next day or so. Not as large as you might imagine as such a huge amount of it is very, very marginal range.

This from Reuters; http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/080613/ethanol_profits_closures.html

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Record corn prices pushed up by flooding in the Midwest have forced five small to mid-sized U.S. ethanol plants to shut and output of the biofuel could be slowed for months, a Citi research note said on Friday.

<SNIP>

[BenBurch]

Rough numbers;

1 kg of meat feeds one person for one day.

Most range land is very poor, so we will assume a global average yield of 100 kg/acre/year. (Optimal range land, fertilized and irrigated is about 450 kg/acre/year, but I think you'll agree that cannot be applied globally.)

So, one acre feeds one person for 100 days.

Total range land is 8,096,852,610 acres.

That is 800,096,852,610 person-days or 2,1920,461,700 person years.

All range land does is add 2.1 billion to the numbers previously computed.

[defaultdotxbe]

Rough numbers;

1 kg of meat feeds one person for one day.

Most range land is very poor, so we will assume a global average yield of 100 kg/acre/year. (Optimal range land, fertilized and irrigated is about 450 kg/acre/year, but I think you'll agree that cannot be applied globally.)

So, one acre feeds one person for 100 days.

Total range land is 8,096,852,610 acres.

That is 800,096,852,610 person-days or 2,1920,461,700 person years.

All range land does is add 2.1 billion to the numbers previously computed.
so all it does is nearly double what you claimed before?

yeah, thats not significant at all...

[BenBurch]

No, goes from 8 billion to 10 billion.

[defaultdotxbe]

No, goes from 8 billion to 10 billion.
i was going with your 3 billion figure as thats what you calculated as actual utilization, not potential utilization

im sure there is more land that could be used as pasture that isnt, so the 8 billion would likely go higher than 10 billion

[BenBurch]

i was going with your 3 billion figure as thats what you calculated as actual utilization, not potential utilization

im sure there is more land that could be used as pasture that isnt, so the 8 billion would likely go higher than 10 billion

No, the range land just makes up the deficit between my calculated yield at present acreage and the current population, which I mistakenly attributed to hunting and fishing - though range land is a sort of systematized hunting...

We can add 4-5 billion more total to the system.

http://server2.whiterosesociety.org/world_population_growth.jpg

The effect I am referring to is why this projection levels off...

"This is all the time you have. And it isn't long."

http://usera.imagecave.com.nyud.net/JRR4/Misc/Hourglass1.jpg

[RedIbis]

Actually down Here I have plenty of oil, hope the price rises, although I am working on a bio fuel, using waste to grow earth worms and turning them into bio gas and bio diesel.
I am thinking about Huff and Puffing my oil soon, so that it will produce a good source of income, tons of Oil leases in Kentucky with 70 percent of he oil still in the ground.

Only 30 percent of an oil resource can be produced at the present time, Huff and Puff raises that to 60 percent total production, still leaving 40% that is unreachable.

Corn will never work sorghum cane is however a very efficient fuel, high sugar content.

PS. the reason I am experimenting with earth worms is they eat waste, do not need sunlight of fertilizers, and the resulting castings make good fertilizers. It is a win win situation.

Have you looked into algae? The yields as I understand it go like this:

soy 40 gallons of oil/acre
canola 140/acre
algae 10,000/acre

I am also making biodiesel, the old fashioned way, transesterification, courtesy of some of the better restaurants in town.

[bonkey]

At the risk of getting slapped silly here....

If there was a better fuel, we would use it. Please name a better fuel than gasoline, besides chocolate chip cookies, that you can market now?
Diesel.

Name a fuel denser in energy than gasoline.
Diesel.


Name a system for transportation better than gasoline.

I can't, but diesel is, to the best of my knowledge, equally good.

And when it comes to so-called renewable energies, I'd put my backing behind bio-diesel long before I'd back bio-ethanol.



How exactly does one enforce world-wide population control?

I'm sure this will rub someone up the wrong way...

Poverty and starvation.

[BenBurch]

...
I'm sure this will rub someone up the wrong way...

Poverty and starvation.

That's the *automatic* method. No way to stop that unless you find a more humane method and implement it FIRST.

[Alferd_Packer]

We here in America are trying to become energy independent by any means possible.

Energy independence is a Chimera. a false concept.

Energy markets are global.

[BenBurch]

Corn is at all-time highs today, BTW.

As are Soybeans.

[soylent]

Corn is at all-time highs today, BTW.

As are Soybeans.

Reckon it's time to stop feeding a large fraction of that corn and soy to cattle and start feeding it to people yet?

[defaultdotxbe]

Reckon it's time to stop feeding a large fraction of that corn and soy to cattle and start feeding it to people yet?
i think thats BB's point

personally i like steak with my corn

[BenBurch]

i think thats BB's point

personally i like steak with my corn

You're putting words in my mouth again.

Don't do that.

Meat is fine.

Its putting food into gas tanks I am objecting to.

[PhantomWolf]

Reckon it's time to stop feeding a large fraction of that corn and soy to cattle and start feeding it to people yet?

well, growing up in a country and feeds its sheep and cattle exclusively on grass (or grass products such as Hay) I'd say it's well past time.

[bonkey]

Meat is fine.

Its putting food into gas tanks I am objecting to.

I'm curious as to how you make that distinction, as its an issue that I've been mulling over recently.

Take an area of arable land. Grow some non-edible crop on it which can be turned into bio-fuel. Arguably, you're not putting food into gas tanks, so that should be fine.

Replace the non-edible crop with an edible crop, and its not fine? Why? You're using the land to the same effect, so surely the base objection is that against arable land-usage which is not going towards feeding people.

Taking that reasoning a bit further...lets say I use my arable land to grow grain, which I then feed to my cattle. You say this is fine. But, I could stop feeding cattle, and use the same amount of land to grow enough grain to feed the same mouths as the cattle, and use the rest for bio-fuels. Now, although I'm feeding the same number of mouths, things are apparently not fine any more, because I'm using arable land for a purpose other than feeding people.

Strange, eh?

It would seem that inefficient usage of arable land to produce calories is fine, but efficient use is only acceptable as long as we don't convert from inefficient-to-efficient and put the reaminder to an alternate use!

Of course, someone will take this reasoning to its conclusion, and determine that I would appear to be suggesting that the only acceptable use of land is the most efficient production of food possible. Of course, I don't accept that for a second. Sure, it would allow today's population to be fed, which in turn would allow it to grow, until we reach the point where the population hits a ceiling in terms of the numbers we can feed...at which point it will grow some more and attrition will come back into play. With a greater base population, the numbers affected by attrition will be larger.

By such a line of reasoning, it would seem that the whole "arable land for efficient food production" is only leading us to a situation where more people will ultimately suffer.

I would suggest that rather than arguing against the use of land for this purpose or that purpose, because it doesn't stave off the inevitable for a short period of time, we argue against the conditions that lead to the inevitable regardless of how the land is being used.

[BenBurch]

Because, ultimately, meat is self-limiting. It will become SO expensive that it just stops being a major sink of grain OR arable land. And do not forget that most range land is just not arable.

[bonkey]

Because, ultimately, meat is self-limiting.
Ultimately food is self-limiting, as indeed are bio-fuels.

And do not forget that most range land is just not arable.

You commented that corn and soybeans were at an all time high.
Soylent commented that this means its time to stop putting a large proportion of that corn and soy into meat production.
defaultdotxbe suggested that this was your point - and you disagreed, saying that meat is fine.

Lets be clear - you objected to someone suggesting that you are against corn and soy being used to feed animals. Turning the argument now to range-fed meat is disingenuous.

From your objection to "words being put in your mouth" and your rejoinder that "meat is fine", the only logical conclusions are that you either didn't understand that when they were talking about the use of corn and grain they were talking about the use of corn and grain or you have no issue with that use.

I find the former option hard to credit, but I'm open to correction on that. Assuming, for now, that you meant your defence of meat in relation to the point it was posted in response to...then my argument still holds.

If you have no issue with this use of corn and grain, then you have no issue with land being used for purposes other than feeding as many people as possible. No matter how spin it, you are justifying the use of land to supply luxuries to those who can afford it, rather than food to those who need it. At the same time, you object to that luxury being bio-fuel, apparently because its supplying luxuries to those who can afford it, rather than food to those who need it.

Thats hardly a balanced view. It would suggest that you have a seperate reason for disliking bio-fuel, and/or a seperate reason for liking the use of corn and soy as animal-feed.

[WildCat]

Thats hardly a balanced view. It would suggest that you have a seperate reason for disliking bio-fuel, and/or a seperate reason for liking the use of corn and soy as animal-feed.
Not to put words in Ben's mouth, but for me it's the fact that I like meat and ethanol from corn hasn't been proven to be worthwhile from an energy in-energy out analysis. So no, I have no intention of giving up meat solely so farmers can rake in more agricultural pork subsidies in the guise of energy policy.

[defaultdotxbe]

Not to put words in Ben's mouth, but for me it's the fact that I like meat and ethanol from corn hasn't been proven to be worthwhile from an energy in-energy out analysis. So no, I have no intention of giving up meat solely so farmers can rake in more agricultural pork subsidies in the guise of energy policy.
so as not to put words in bens mouth im going to quote him directly

Possibly, except for the objection that human food from arable land is being diverted to fuel. We are on the verge of a world-wide food shortage owing to the complete lack of political will to enforce population control.
(bolding mine)

Nope.

We are very near the carrying capacity of the planet.

<snip>


if this is the case i dont see how he can support feeding animals with food that can be given to people (of course referring to the corn and soy fed livestock soylent brought up, not the range fed animals ben chose to mention)

[Panhead56]

Ethanol from sugar cane is a very viable and live concept in some parts in the world. At present approximate 40% of fuel for light vehicles in Brazil (20% for the transport sector as whole) is made from homegrown sugarcane. Sugarcane beeing way more efficient as source for ethanol as the none usable parts of the plant are used as fuel supplying heat for the production process. I couldn't find the percentage of arrable land used, but I believe it is a minor part compared to whats left for food production.
Here were I live, in Norway, there is a move to use "waste" from the forrest industry for ethanol production. Meaning twigs and cut-of that at present is left rotting in the forrest.
So there exsists several methods for making ethanol that does not threathen food-production.

[WildCat]

Ethanol from sugar cane is a very viable and live concept in some parts in the world. At present approximate 40% of fuel for light vehicles in Brazil (20% for the transport sector as whole) is made from homegrown sugarcane.
How long can Brazil sustain their sugarcane production? The soil in Brazil is generally poor, and lasts only a few years before either large amounts of fertilizers are necessary or more rain forest has to be burned away to make more farmland.

And the number of automobiles in Brazil, both in raw numbers and per capita, is miniscule compared to the US.

[BenBurch]

... if this is the case i dont see how he can support feeding animals with food that can be given to people (of course referring to the corn and soy fed livestock soylent brought up, not the range fed animals ben chose to mention)

Because I think the cost will push all meat production to range land very soon, with corn being fed only on the trip to the slaughterhouse.

[notheist]

I am amazed no one mentions the "N" word.

Electric cars plugged in the grid powered by modern nuclear power. This country has been paying for a pop culture "No Nukes" fad of the late 70s.

[WildCat]

I am amazed no one mentions the "N" word.

Electric cars plugged in the grid powered by modern nuclear power. This country has been paying for a pop culture "No Nukes" fad of the late 70s.
I'm for nukes from sea to shining sea.

[bonkey]

Not to put words in Ben's mouth, but for me it's the fact that I like meat and ethanol from corn hasn't been proven to be worthwhile from an energy in-energy out analysis. So no, I have no intention of giving up meat solely so farmers can rake in more agricultural pork subsidies in the guise of energy policy.

I agree that ethanol from corn isn't particularly worthwhile, which is why I've tried to refer to the usage of arable land to produce bio-fuel, rather than specifically the use of corn to produce bio-ethanol.

That aside, I would point out that farmers are businessmen. If someone is willing to pay them more hard, cold cash to turn their corn into ethanol then to turn it into beef...then they would - quite frankly - be stupid to turn that down.

Its not a case that you or I should give up beef so that they can produce ethanol. Its a case that you and I should realise that neither of these options are the "optimal" use of land from a humanitarian point of view, and have to decide which we're williing to pay for.

Where I live (Switzerland), beef is horrific in price in comparison to (say) the US. If everyone were paying what I pay for beef, I can pretty-much assure you that no sane farmer anywhere would even think about producing ethanol from corn.

I'm the first to agree that the government should be subsidising the use of arable of land to produce bio-fuels, but equally, I don't believe they shoudl be subsidising the feeding of livestock.

If you're willing to pay enough for your beef to make it more worthwhiloe for enough farmers to continue to use their land to provide foodstuff for beef (or chicken, or whatever), then you shouldn't have to give up anything.

The point I was - and am - making is that I believe it is hypocritical to argue that land is better used to provide the privileged with one luxury over another based on an argument about the needs of the less privileged, which is effectively what Ben was arguing....that we shouldn't grow biofuel because of the starving millions, but corn-for-beef-for-the-wealthy was ok.

[BenBurch]

I'm for nukes from sea to shining sea.

Ditto, We need 3000-ish 500 MW plants.

[BenBurch]

...
The point I was - and am - making is that I believe it is hypocritical to argue that land is better used to provide the privileged with one luxury over another based on an argument about the needs of the less privileged, which is effectively what Ben was arguing....that we shouldn't grow biofuel because of the starving millions, but corn-for-beef-for-the-wealthy was ok.

But range land has no other use. Grazing is all you can do with it to convert it into food. Hence, meat must be part of the solution.

[bonkey]

But range land has no other use. Grazing is all you can do with it to convert it into food.

And nowhere have I once suggested that we not use it for this use.

Look, BB, when someone suggested that your point is that we stop using corn/soy to feed cattle, you told them to stop putting words in your mouth.

You've since gone on to say that you believe we will stop using corn/soy to feed cattle.

If I misunderstood your point when you complained about someone putting words in your mouth, its because I took your objection to mean you disagreed with the point, rather than what appears to be the case - that you agreed with the point but apparently had some other, unknown objection.

The only other option is that you're saying we should feed corn/soy to cattle, but economics will cause us not to. If thats the case, then my argument applies to what you think should be done.

Where you think I'm questioning the use of range land is, quite frankly, beyond me. I have repeatedly made it clear that I'm referring to land which can be put to other food-production.

[BenBurch]

No, I don't want to prohibit it. I just think we need to stop it. HUGE difference. Meat is OK. Soon it will become obvious that we cannot feed human food to cattle. But at least that is still food at the end. Alcohol fuel from food is just immoral.

[bonkey]

when someone suggested that your point is that we stop using corn/soy to feed cattle, you told them to stop putting words in your mouth.

No, I don't want to prohibit it. I just think we need to stop it.

I think I can see now why you told them to stop putting words in your mouth, and indeed why you seemed to think I was talking about range land when I was clearly talking about choosing to feed crops to animals rather than use the land for other purposes.

But at least that is still food at the end. Alcohol fuel from food is just immoral.

I refer you back to my earlier argument, which effectively asks how it is immoral to feed X people from an area of land, and produce alcohol fuel it as well, but OK to feed the same number of people from the same area of land, using a different food-source / food-chain, because you're not producing alcohol fuel from it.

In other words, instead of feeding (say) a thousand people grain, its ok to feed 100 meat and let 900 starve, but its immoral to feed 100 grain, allow 900 starve and produce biofuel. From my perspective, if there's something immoral in there, its the 900 starving people common to both, not the biofuel production.

I would also point out that we currently use far more grain/soy to feed cattle than we do to create biofuel....so our meat production is causing far more starvation in the world than our biofuel.

[BenBurch]

No, we were OK with respect to food production until we started diverting to fuel. BUT we were very close. Fuel has moved the crisis from a decade from now to now. So feedlot meat was not taking food out of anybody's mouths and would not be still if we had not fed all of our margin to the SUVs. Prior to now, starvation was entirely political, with extreme poverty and wars preventing distribution to the starving, not due to lack of food you could get on the market if you went to buy it.

[bonkey]

No, we were OK with respect to food production until we started diverting to fuel.

You're still saying that it is okay to starve people to produce meat for the rich, but its not ok to starve them to produce fuel for the rich.

And incidentally, you're wrong. The figures don't support that conclusion.


So feedlot meat was not taking food out of anybody's mouths and would not be still if we had not fed all of our margin to the SUVs.

Ben, I don't know where you're getting your numbers from, but this is fiction.

As Monbiot wrote earlier this year (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/04/15/the-pleasures-of-the-flesh), of the 2.13 billion tons of grain produced in 2007, almost exactly 1 billion went to feeding people. Of the remaining 1.1 billion, 100 million went to producing bio-fuel, whilst in excess of 750 million tons went to feeding cattle. Interesting, the 2007 yield broke all records, being about 100 million tons over 2006. So, one can - for 2007 at least - say that we can offset the gain in production entirely against fuel.

If your argument is correct, then starvation began in 2007, when our denands exceeded previous usage. Did starvation begin in 2007 Ben?

You argue that 750m for cattle is fair use, but 100m is immoral....that its this 100m that's causing starvation, and not the 750m. The 750m is ok to divert, but that 100m on top of it...thats immoral.

I argue that this distinction is farcical. You see it as ok starve people to supply someone with a steak dinner, but immoral to put gas in their tank. I disagree. I think you either accept that the problem is that the developed world simply doesn't care enough to save them (and thus what we do with the grain is not relevant at all), or you accept that we should do something ( in which case, arguing that its ok to starve them for steak but not for gas is, honestly, unfathomable).

If it makes you feel better, you go on believing that corn-to-beef is moral. I side with Monbiot - you're part of the problem.

[BenBurch]

And ethanol is the reason. Take all biofuels out of the equation and we would have about ten more years. But, like I say, we are close.

[bonkey]

And ethanol is the reason.

Right. Forget about the other billion tons of grain we could feed to people...the 100 million is the problem.


Take all biofuels out of the equation and we would have about ten more years.
Take all meat-from-corn out of the equation, and how much would we have? - by Monbiot's figures, half that would buy us through to 2050....so I'm guessing it would get us around 65-70 years.

But thats not immoral...no...thats fine.

People were starving before we started food-to-fuel conversion, even though we had the food to feed them....but you argue that it is only this conversion which is immoral.

The direct implication of your position is that it wasn't immoral that people were starving before we were generating biofuels, even though we had the abillity to feed them.

The direct implication of that is that the decision to allow someone to starve when you have the wherewithal to feed them is not immoral in and of itself.

So please, Ben...what is the root of this immorality? As far as I can see, you're still just saying its okay to starve people so that the rich can have steak dinners, but not so that the rich can drive automobiles. If I'm wrong...please...put me out of my ignorance and make your position clear.

[BenBurch]

Meat from corn WILL come out of the equation. By necessity. But Meat will still be there. Has to be there. We cannot get by without range-grazed meat.

[defaultdotxbe]

Meat from corn WILL come out of the equation. By necessity.
so then wouldnt corn ethanol come out fo the equation by the same necessity?

[BenBurch]

so then wouldnt corn ethanol come out fo the equation by the same necessity?

You'd hope so, wouldn't you. My fear is that the money that can chase fuel is greater than the money that can chase food.

[bonkey]

Meat from corn WILL come out of the equation. By necessity.

What necessity, Ben? The necessity to feed the starving poor? We're letting plenty of them starve today, so why does it become a necessity to feed them once their numbers grow?

Are you suggesting that there's some critical mass, that once enough of them are dying from starvation, meat-from-corn will become immoral...but its fine today because...well...we can blame their starvation on something else?

Once our shortfall exceeds all the other non-food uses of grain, then grain-to-meat becomes immoral? Is that it, Ben? You've established some hierarchy of "grain use by the rich, for the rich" that defines immorality as "there's enough grain higher on my hierarchy to feed the starving, so this use is ok for now"?


But Meat will still be there. Has to be there. We cannot get by without range-grazed meat.

Why do I have to point out again that no-one other than you has brought range-grazed meat into this discussion? Its not relevant to the topic. Its not relevant to the points criticising use of grain...but again and again you feel the need to defend it as though it somehow relevant to your argument defending grain-to-meat.