Honorable Forum: Please see, patched in below, a 2007 March 31 post by Matthew Warren that popped up when I sorted by subject (it was the only one that did; perhaps that is a fortunate artifact of the fact that so few elect to follow any sort of logical and consistent subject-line discipline rather than unfortunate, as I have heretofore argued).
The NY Times editorial is a step in the right direction, but ecologists, economists, and others should, and I hope do, realize that steady pressure, unrelenting pressure, by increasing numbers of people in all kinds of media, from the 11 o'clock news to the barber shops and back fences will be needed to shift the direction of the Great Biofuels Deception toward truth. Naive biologists and outright biostitutes, not to mention showbiz surrogate-heroes, are not helping with their self-righteous, self-aggrandizing, self-enrichening rhetoric and pro-corporate-welfare, cynical use of "environment" and "ecology" and "sustainable" hooks to delude so many of us. Labels require skepticism--the soul of scientific evaluation. The "switch to switchgrass" movement, favored so much by the president himself, is a particularly egregious flim-flam. I have not yet found a "study" that actually calculates the input-output balance with all significant factors included, and virtually all seem to leave out the essential fourth dimension, time. But even intuition and "common sense" should be enough to make a reasoned argument against the irrationality of using petro-energy for farming, harvesting, processing, ad infinitum to "produce" less energy, not more. The steady pressure for reason will require a lot more than an ecolog discussion, a few blogs, even a few NY Times pieces to stem the momentum that the biofuels BS job that has, largely at taxpayer expense, been foisted upon US. And some means of organizing the oceans of "information" that drown us all will be essential. Hand-wringingly yours, WT "Neoconservatives" fight "liberals," liberals fight among themselves. A fragment of truth is the first refuge of the demagogue. If we are truly to rise above chickens, we will somehow have to give up threat displays. Here are a few links of interest: http://www.energybulletin.net/index.php http://www.energypulse.net/centers/front.cfm http://www.eere.energy.gov/ Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:11:49 -0700 Reply-To: Matthew Warren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sender: "Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news" <[email protected]> From: Matthew Warren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: NY Times: Farmers Head to Fields to Plant Corn, Lots of It To: [email protected] List-Help: <http://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=ECOLOG-L>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ECOLOG-L> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Owner: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=ECOLOG-L> X-NAS-Language: English X-NAS-Classification: 0 X-NAS-MessageID: 19308 X-NAS-Validation: {F71B5959-30EB-4602-8572-F92EE25554BB} In light of recent discussion, I just thought that some of you would be interested in this NY Times article about the upcoming growing season. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/31/business/31corn.html?th&emc=th I found it interesting that the corn-ethanol system is considered a "renewable fuel" despite the high-input nature of the system, not to mention adverse effects of N fertilizer runoff, soil degradation, and increased N2O flux from soil. Are there any good analyses that conclude corn based ethanol is indeed a renewable fuel? Are there any studies that review N2O production in different cropping systems (ie if acreage of soybean declines due to corn increase)? In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, is there a net decline? -Matthew Warren At 05:50 PM 9/21/2007, Palmer, Mike wrote: >Thanks, Linda and Bill. >=20 >Of course, the issues raised in the editorial only scratch the = >complexities of the biofuels issue, particularly from the ecological = >side. >Many of you will remember that a few months ago, largely at the = >prompting of contributors to this ECOLOG-L listserv, I established a = >blog on LIHD biofuels: >http://testone.okstate.edu/debo/blogs/index.php >The list is still going strong, with (sometimes) hundreds of hits per = >day. However, it would be great to get more commentary (particularly = >from ecologists) and I hereby invite you to visit the blog and react to = >my postings. Sometimes I try to be provocative, so I am sure ecologists = >will have reactions. I do review the comments prior to publishing them, = >but that is only to avoid spam. I intend to 'pass' all comments that = >were not obviously spam. >=20 >--Mike > >________________________________ > >From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of = >Wallace, Linda L. >Sent: Fri 9/21/2007 1:22 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] NY Times editorial on biofuels > > > >Dear Bill, >Unfortunately there are aspects of that final paragraph with which I = >cannot agree. Cellulosic ethanol is also a potential landmine in terms = >of environmental harm and an even lower yield of ethanol for more = >expenditure than we see for grain feedstocks. The land that is proposed = >for use in cellulosic feedstock production is high diversity grasslands = >which would be plowed up and replaced with monocultures. We don't know = >what effect this will have on carbon uptake and release, we do know that = >plowing enhances soil respiration substantially. I really do agree that = >sound science and careful study are needed before we leap headfirst into = >any of these. I hope that can happen quickly. The second to the last = >paragraph is the one with which I am most heartily in agreement. Thanks = >for bring this to all of our attentions! >Best wishes, >Linda > >Linda L. Wallace, Ph.D. >Director, Kessler Farm Field Laboratory >Professor of Botany >Department of Botany/Microbiology >770 Van Vleet Oval >University of Oklahoma >Norman, OK 73019 >phone: 405 325-6685 >fax: 405 325-7619 >________________________________________ >From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news = >[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Silvert = >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 10:56 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: NY Times editorial on biofuels > >I was pleased to see this in the NY Times, but whatever your views are = >on >biofuels I think you will agree with the last paragraph. > >Bill Silvert > > >September 19, 2007, Editorial > >The High Costs of Ethanol > > >Backed by the White House, corn-state governors and solid blocks on both >sides of Congress's partisan divide, the politics of biofuels could = >hardly >look sunnier. The economics of the American drive to increase ethanol in = >the >energy supply are more discouraging. > > > >American corn-based ethanol is expensive. And while it can help cut oil >imports and provide modest reductions in greenhouse gases compared to >conventional gasoline, corn ethanol also carries considerable risks. = >Even >now as Europe and China join the United States in ramping up production, >world food prices are rising, threatening misery for the poorest = >countries. > > > >The European Union has announced that it wants to replace 10 percent of = >its >transport fuel with biofuels by 2020. China is aiming for a 15 percent >share. The United States is already on track to exceed Congress's 2005 = >goal >of doubling the amount of ethanol used in motor fuels to 7.5 billion = >gallons >by 2012. In his State of the Union speech in January, President Bush set = >a >new goal of 35 billion gallons of biofuels by 2017. In June, the Senate >raised it to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Of that, Congress said that 15 >billion gallons should come from corn and 21 billion from advanced = >biofuels >that are nowhere near commercial production. > > > >The distortions in agricultural production are startling. Corn prices = >are up >about 50 percent from last year, while soybean prices are projected to = >rise >up to 30 percent in the coming year, as farmers have replaced soy with = >corn >in their fields. The increasing cost of animal feed is raising the = >prices of >dairy and poultry products. > > > >The news from the rest of the world is little better. Ethanol production = >in >the United States and other countries, combined with bad weather and = >rising >demand for animal feed in China, has helped push global grain prices to >their highest levels in at least a decade. Earlier this year, rising = >prices >of corn imports from the United States triggered mass protests in = >Mexico. >The chief of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization has = >warned >that rising food prices around the world have threatened social unrest = >in >developing countries. > > > >A recent report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and >Development, an economic forum of rich nations, called on the United = >States >and other industrialized nations to eliminate subsidies for the = >production >of ethanol which, the report said, is driving up food costs, threatening >natural habitats and imposing other environmental costs. "The overall >environmental impacts of ethanol and biodiesel can very easily exceed = >those >of petrol and mineral diesel," it said. > > > >The economics of corn ethanol have never made much sense. Rather than >importing cheap Brazilian ethanol made from sugar cane, the United = >States >slaps a tariff of 54 cents a gallon on ethanol from Brazil. Then the >government provides a tax break of 51 cents a gallon to American ethanol >producers - on top of the generous subsidies that corn growers already >receive under the farm program. > > > >Corn-based ethanol also requires a lot of land. An O.E.C.D. report two = >years >ago suggested that replacing 10 percent of America's motor fuel with >biofuels would require about a third of the total cropland devoted to >cereals, oilseeds and sugar crops. > > > >Meanwhile, the environmental benefits are modest. A study published last >year by scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, estimated = >that >after accounting for the energy used to grow the corn and turn it into >ethanol, corn ethanol lowers emissions of greenhouse gases by only 13 >percent. > > > >The United States will not meet the dual challenges of reducing global >warming and its dependence on foreign suppliers of energy until it = >manages >to reduce energy consumption. That should be its main goal. > > > >There is nothing wrong with developing alternative fuels, and there is = >high >hope among environmentalists and even venture capitalists that more = >advanced >biofuels - like cellulosic ethanol - can eventually play a constructive = >role >in reducing oil dependency and greenhouse gases. What's wrong is letting >politics - the kind that leads to unnecessary subsidies, the invasion of >natural landscapes best left alone and soaring food prices that hurt the >poor - rather than sound science and sound economics drive America's = >energy >policy. > > > >Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
