> > dan, i disagree that listening to advocacy groups is not the same as > learning. did you see the film? these are well informed people who > happen to have an agenda. would you apply the same criticism to > someone who shares your agenda?
Absolutely. I found that I need to apply this criticism to my own work. There is no certain way to protect one from fooling oneself, but I've found scholarship to be helpful. Also, having a debate partner who is also a scholar, but with a different background and political leanings also helps. I tend to downgrade documentaries like this, even when they are on...say...cosmology, because I think they are not efficient ways of conveying information. They are a good way of conveying feeling....but I tend not to favor feelings as a basis for analysis. I didn't find a website with the data that underlies this documentary. Perhaps if you can point me to it, I can see the data. the fact that you have a relative that > has farmed is fine, but i did not imply the government subsidizes only > one crop. The tobacco industry rec'd almost 350 million dollars in > subsidies in 2000; can't make biofuel out of that!~) you mentioned the > highest risk of erosion from planting, tobacco is really destructive > to topsoil... OK, I don't favor tobacco subsidies. I thought the question was why plants other than corn weren't used. Actually, I'd be happy to do away with farm subsidies....although I'm not sure I want the market to run free in farming....because the natural outcome would be only a few companies owning all the farms. But, that's another topic for discussion....and I'd be happy to be involved in a thread on that topic. > > i understand sugar cane is best grown in warm humid climates, which is > why i mentioned switchgrass and hemp. does hemp require significant > amounts of energy to turn it into biofuel? No, but from http://www.rationallink.org/biodiesel.htm which seems to have the best data on hemp...it's in the same range as soybeans for energy yield/acre. Since I _know_ soybean farmers get subsidies....I don't see why preferring corn has to do with subsidies for farmers. But, we do subsidize ethanol at 1.25 billion/year....but I don't see ethanol or biodiesel as solutions. You're more than welcome to provide hard data to convince me otherwise, though. > i agree that bioengineering may change the picture, but are there > hazards? > > I wasn't suggesting we buy more expensive cars in the future. In fact > i assume anything we buy from china would be cut rate. There will be a labor cost savings over Japan, for example, but that doesn't undo the underlying unfavorable economics for electric cars. Now, I tend to disfavor theories that rely on vast conspiracies...that include nations and companies that have widely different interests...all toeing the secret party line. You may see that as a bias....but I don't know. Do you? >it's true china > relies on dirty tech with its coal fired plants, but just because they > are at the stage in economic development that we were 70 years ago > doesn't mean that dirty technology is cheaper. No, but the fact that, when the cost of dirty technology rises and cost conscious folks still rely on it (China's oil imports continue to grow after prices increased >3x) indicates that it is cheaper. Why would they spend extra money just to subsidize other countries? What's in it for them? It appears to me that you are arguing that no-one is making choices that are in their immediate interests all over the world because there is some secret plan of the car and oil companies that stops them from doing this. Is that your argument? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
