Comments on: The Weekly Carboholic http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/02/13/the-weekly-carboholic-9/ Think - it ain't illegal yet... Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:32:11 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: jackpine savage http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/02/13/the-weekly-carboholic-9/comment-page-1/#comment-16506 jackpine savage Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:47:39 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/02/13/the-weekly-carboholic-9/#comment-16506 Brian, Without a doubt, corn ethanol is one of the worst scams in the world. I should have been more clear, my apologies, because i do agree that devoting more land to cultivating corn (in particular) for producing ethanol is one of the worst ideas in the world. The actual motivating factor behind it has nothing to do with reducing dependence on oil and everything to do with the profit margins of companies like Monsanto. We've known that you can distill plant matter into fuel for a very long time, but its current popularity stems from political developments that get very little press. GMO crops became usable in roughly 1996. At that time we exported 3.15 M metric tons of corn to Europe. (82% of their corn) Less than a decade later, our exports to Europe totaled 33,000 metric tons. No one wants our GMO agricultural products. Obviously, farmers will factor the market into their planting decisions, and the bottom was dropping out of corn prices. Monsanto makes their money on the sale of seed and peripheral chemical products. Non GMO seed is actually free to the farmer. Corn ethanol programs have driven market prices up, which puts pressure on food supply...it also pressures farmers to cultivate more land in an attempt to make more money. But the people who make the real money on ethanol are the companies like Monsanto who own the plant patents (note: the US government is a patent partner on some of these plants). I certainly wasn't trying to debate your point; i agree with it. My original post was meant as further explanation of how the process works. And i would add that corn is not only an inefficient fuel crop, it is also a terribly inefficient food crop as well...for the same reasons: the carbon debt. We've done very little research on which plants would be the best producers for ethanol because the people who fund the research are set against the crops that would almost certainly be the best crops, i.e. crops that require little cultivation and few inputs in the way of fertilizers and pesticides. There is no profit in those crops for the agribusiness giants. It is simply another story of corporate profit made on public debt. Brian,

Without a doubt, corn ethanol is one of the worst scams in the world. I should have been more clear, my apologies, because i do agree that devoting more land to cultivating corn (in particular) for producing ethanol is one of the worst ideas in the world.

The actual motivating factor behind it has nothing to do with reducing dependence on oil and everything to do with the profit margins of companies like Monsanto. We’ve known that you can distill plant matter into fuel for a very long time, but its current popularity stems from political developments that get very little press.

GMO crops became usable in roughly 1996. At that time we exported 3.15 M metric tons of corn to Europe. (82% of their corn) Less than a decade later, our exports to Europe totaled 33,000 metric tons. No one wants our GMO agricultural products. Obviously, farmers will factor the market into their planting decisions, and the bottom was dropping out of corn prices. Monsanto makes their money on the sale of seed and peripheral chemical products. Non GMO seed is actually free to the farmer.

Corn ethanol programs have driven market prices up, which puts pressure on food supply…it also pressures farmers to cultivate more land in an attempt to make more money. But the people who make the real money on ethanol are the companies like Monsanto who own the plant patents (note: the US government is a patent partner on some of these plants).

I certainly wasn’t trying to debate your point; i agree with it. My original post was meant as further explanation of how the process works. And i would add that corn is not only an inefficient fuel crop, it is also a terribly inefficient food crop as well…for the same reasons: the carbon debt.

We’ve done very little research on which plants would be the best producers for ethanol because the people who fund the research are set against the crops that would almost certainly be the best crops, i.e. crops that require little cultivation and few inputs in the way of fertilizers and pesticides. There is no profit in those crops for the agribusiness giants. It is simply another story of corporate profit made on public debt.

]]> By: Brian Angliss http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/02/13/the-weekly-carboholic-9/comment-page-1/#comment-16457 Brian Angliss Sat, 16 Feb 2008 08:16:08 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/02/13/the-weekly-carboholic-9/#comment-16457 The point isn't that the crops disturb the land more or less depending on the crop, but rather that the carbon savings you get from one crop or another takes a long time to overwhelm the carbon debt caused by cultivation - corn ethanol is so inefficient (and may in fact be negatively efficient) that it takes 93 years to pay off a carbon debt that would take sugarcane only 17 years to pay off. Switching to cellulosic ethanol would change the equation some, but I'm not sure that anyone really knows by how much. At least, not yet. The point isn’t that the crops disturb the land more or less depending on the crop, but rather that the carbon savings you get from one crop or another takes a long time to overwhelm the carbon debt caused by cultivation – corn ethanol is so inefficient (and may in fact be negatively efficient) that it takes 93 years to pay off a carbon debt that would take sugarcane only 17 years to pay off. Switching to cellulosic ethanol would change the equation some, but I’m not sure that anyone really knows by how much.

At least, not yet.

]]> By: jackpine savage http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/02/13/the-weekly-carboholic-9/comment-page-1/#comment-16441 jackpine savage Sat, 16 Feb 2008 05:15:28 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/02/13/the-weekly-carboholic-9/#comment-16441 The carbon debt of crops as opposed to land in its "natural state" has no relation to the type of plant being grown. It stems from the process of cultivation. And it is wholly possible in a good many cases to use land as a food source without the cultivation. For example, grass fed livestock...where the animals feed on perennial grasses. Even on the small scale, tillage is less, and fields are not generally left totally fallow...for example, cover crops like vetch. Industrialized agriculture, however, is incredibly tillage intensive. Over tillage disturbs the soil ecosystem, and this disturbance has significant, negative effects on crop yields over the long term. Damned if you do, and damned for doing it. The carbon debt of crops as opposed to land in its “natural state” has no relation to the type of plant being grown. It stems from the process of cultivation. And it is wholly possible in a good many cases to use land as a food source without the cultivation. For example, grass fed livestock…where the animals feed on perennial grasses. Even on the small scale, tillage is less, and fields are not generally left totally fallow…for example, cover crops like vetch. Industrialized agriculture, however, is incredibly tillage intensive. Over tillage disturbs the soil ecosystem, and this disturbance has significant, negative effects on crop yields over the long term.

Damned if you do, and damned for doing it.

]]> By: whythawk http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/02/13/the-weekly-carboholic-9/comment-page-1/#comment-16160 whythawk Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:31:53 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/02/13/the-weekly-carboholic-9/#comment-16160 I was travelling through Germany yesterday. It's vastly amusing how this nation of cold, rain and cloud-covered skies has latched onto solar power. German subsidies to consumers of solar energy has set off a world shortage of solar panels in this, a country with a terribly low payback on such technology use. As I've said before, to fuck things up completely frequently takes an act of government. I was travelling through Germany yesterday. It’s vastly amusing how this nation of cold, rain and cloud-covered skies has latched onto solar power. German subsidies to consumers of solar energy has set off a world shortage of solar panels in this, a country with a terribly low payback on such technology use.

As I’ve said before, to fuck things up completely frequently takes an act of government.

]]>