Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Duke- Corn Ethanol bad

Recommended Posts

Guest

Even if-

 

Even if, corn ethanol creates jobs,  a tremendous benefit to trade, and a nice stop gap to cellulosic......they appear to abondon the solution. Even if corn ethanol is better than petro environmentally.

 

Duke has published a GHG study saying corn ethanol is bad, taking cropland out of farm reserves a horrible development. You see the taxpayers have historically paid farmers not to plant as oversupply of cropland. Seeing how there will always be an oversupply since taxpayers are paying to subsidize what they don't want. So, you would think with extra demand and profits available since corn ethanol....you know,  improving economy, creating jobs, and trade balance a good thing, especially since the tax burden lifted upon paying farmers to do nothing with land?

 

You would be wrong. You see dormant land staying to native plant kingdom is good for environment. So, no need to go any farther. Tax subsidized un-farming a good thing end of discussion. Lol, this reminds me of discussion I had some years back of young investor. This guy purchased a big chunk of land in an area he thought would appreciate. His motive was the "PICK" program of Virgina paying farmers not to plant corn. Guess, he needed to subcontract planting the field with corn the first year to qualify. Ya, after that pretty much free lunch upon land investment....thank you Mr. Taxpayer.

 

Also, the dormant land if tilled will release GHG, up till then held captive in soil. This the main problem. So, since the rules have been changed, never upon government will their again be regulations allowing allow any economic ativity to increase actual farming of land....that is bad. Do the math less farms more native plants. End of story.

 

Now the problem with cellulose. How can they regulate that stuff away to allow native plant and international jungles to retake the earth? They will have to think about that one. Meantime if we spend fortunes upon solar, wind mills, and electric cars the momentum will grow to such a large mass no one would dare talk of throwing that monsterous investment away. This huge snowball will just run over cellulosic ethanol happenings. May just strangling the ethanol development through regulations, permitting, air quality studies, and an ever increasing research upon environment be the ticker to destroy? Get the word out to the Green party to dis ethanol. Urge politicians to pull the plug on the easy money support. This the next target.

 

Also, there is lots of eagerness to do away with vehicles entirely. To lower the standard of living enough and to make the auto expensive enough via ever increasing regulations. If your of the Green progressive mentality not a bad development. These the folks who think the rural folks are a bane of environment as they have way to much freedom and independence. They go about upon their desires not being overseen by elites of Washington. Heck, they may make an inferior decision such as smoke a cigarette. These folks full of NYC warm fussies of living in small stacked boxes, a small environmental foot print as you walk or take public transportation. Doesn't get any better than that if your desire to flip the country to absolute smallest footprint. Quality of life and personal freedoms over rated. Better to get intoxicated and watch the wild kingdom show from afar. Let the elites travel about in country side filming wildlife and setting up camp to temporally enjoy what they have done. 

 

This is sarcastic writing, but may their be much truth in this senario?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

""These folks full of NYC warm fussies of living in small stacked boxes, a small environmental foot print as you walk or take public transportation. Doesn't get any better than that if your desire to flip the country to absolute smallest footprint. Quality of life and personal freedoms over rated. Better to get intoxicated and watch the wild kingdom show from afar. Let the elites travel about in country side filming wildlife and setting up camp to temporally enjoy what they have done.""

 

Have mercy on on us when they cram us into the cities so because the think our carbon footprint would be less living in a concrete jungle instead of our carbon sequestered wooden house in WI. Meanwhile the bison take back over the plains and start eating prairie grass and converting it to methane at even greater amounts than the former beef lots and dairy cows generated. As far as the former farmland and the subsidies not to plant- well they took care of that tax drain by nationalizing all the land or by merely regulating it into submission. What? You mean there is still problems? I thought we took care of all this with new laws ! Now we new a new study and new funding to look at the bison problem :D 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you have uncovered the true goal of at least some of the environmental movement. If converting reserves to crops for biofuels is bad then converting reserves to food production would be also. So the problem isn't ethanol, it is industrial agriculture. But of course we need industrial agriculture to feed the growing population of the world. So the problem is really the number of people in the world. So just eliminate most of the people and the problem is solved.

 

With most of the solutions put forward by the environmental movement the logical endpoint of their policies is a vastly smaller world population enjoying a lifestyle similar to that of the Amish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bingo mus302 !

 

Beware of the population control element- who should decide who lives and who is "in the way". Kind of goes like "there is no food around- who should we eat next". If they are talking birth control maybe that is one thing, but if they are talking of funding "_____" then we are on a very slippery slope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the birth control issue mention earlier, it's already here and we don't even know it. It comes with commercial farming, between oil based pesticides and herbicides which produces estrogen based chemicals for these products. these products were used in experiments to chemically castrate animals ( each person consumes 17 lbs a year).  Corporate farming is the main contributor to the 50% drop in sperm count ( which medically is considered medically sterile) for males since they have really cranked up production, along with that it is also responsible for the increase breast and prostrate cancer since it is in relatively small doses and the body treats them as normal hormones and doesn't send out the defenses against them and if you have one of these conditions it accelerates them. The other large contributor is detergent soaps which were made estrogen based during WWII to save money and has stayed the same. That is the reason most of the world has banned U.S. detergents and third world countries will not purchase our roundup ready corn for consumption. So as I see it corporate farms are good for ethanol corn and fructose corn syrup if one would like to call it a food source. This is a fact that is never talked about.

 

Thus the reason the wife chooses to made all our soap and detergents as well as eating organically grown meats and vegetables from local sources and use heirloom seeds for our gardens. Later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing they just assume is that farmers will put the land currently fallow back into production.  In Nebraska, most of the land they get paid not to plant is too steep on hillsides, yes Nebraska has hills that you dont see from I-80, or it already has trees on it and its used for pasture. The idea behind it wasn't to sequester CO2, its a topsoil loss prevention thing, to keep our dirt in Nebraska and not in the Gulf of Mexico. It just happens to fit the idea of CO2 being a pollutant.

 

Prime cropland is not in this program, neither is crop land, it is marginal farmland that doesnt have a city or suburb  already on it. How much grain could it produce if it were disced under is difficult to say, but it would be much less value in grain than the effect it has upon erosion. Few farmers I know have plans to make pastures, river bottoms and steep hills into corn fields, there are better things to do with that land.

 

The PIK program hasnt been utilized in corn country in decades. That was a result of something Carter did. When the Russians invaded Afghanistan, he placed a grain embargo on them that created an enormous glut in corn and wheat. Prior to that they were our biggest customer. Since we had so much extra grain rotting in fields, and in huge piles near the coops, they paid people not to plant until the overage was absorbed.

 

People in cities are always complaining about these things, yet if they had a huge factory that they were paying taxes on, and they were asked to shut down part of it by the government due to overproduction or environmental concerns, they would want some money for it as well. They point at PIK and it hasn't been utilized on a large scale since I was a kid on the farm more than 20 years ago.

 

As for farm subsidies, does anyone know where the biggest subsidy for the farm comes from? Usually the job the the farm wife has, jobs the kids have in town when they arent working the fields, and any winter employment the farmer himself can find to help pay things off. Farming is not a 9-5 like city people enjoy, it is a 24/7/365 adventure and a vacation is a once a decade or once in 15 years thing. Cattle wont feed themselves, they wont repair the fence or just stay in the pasture when the alfalfa is so close. Corn does not water itself, nor does it till the soil to get the weeds under control. Sure if you farm less than 200 acres with no livestock you get time off, but those people are more along the lines of a hobbyist. Our garden was bigger than some New England "farms" yeah it was a big one.

 

As for letting the buffalo back on the plains, well I like bison and wildlife like wolves, cougars, coyotes, raptors like eagles and hawks, but making the world starve so nobody lives in rural areas so the animals can live as they did 400 years ago? That is rather elitist thinking that comes from no understanding of agriculture or that type of work. Its based upon the assumption that farm families are not in tune with nature, that farmers are living like the ones who created the dustbowl of the 30s. Its a way of thinking only relevant to those who do not live there.

 

Besides all of this is little more than a way to distract people and sway their opinion away from ethanol as a fuel. A switch to ethanol would mean that farmers hold the cards now, not large corporations who sell energy or information. The people wealthy now would become middle class and farm workers would see the benefits. Some will never let that happen, and the reason why oil is against it is obvious.

 

Also there is interesting things happening in the cattail to ethanol groups. Like the good researchers they are, they have been working on cellulosic ethanol to use the top half of the plant as well as the lower portion, and there are plans for only the tops. The push to find enzymes that take cellulose and convert it to sugar or straight to ethanol is on, and one thing the enzyme manufacturers are saying, is "if cattails can make 1000 gallons per acre, why are we even bothering with cellulose?" Its a paraphrase but that is the gist of it. With a minimum of 1000 gallons and a high that is hard to comprehend with the waste filled water flowed through them, cattails can dwarf oil relatively easily and not harm any current farmland. 10,000 gallons per acre is a very real possibility with current technology, and it would be very difficult for cellulose to compete financially with that type of yield.

 

Of course its a very smart move to continue with cellulose, because we should use what is available rather than waste it, and the amount of cellulose available is astronomical when you consider the lowly grass clippings, sawdust, and woodchips collected by urban landscapers each year.

 

The point is, don't let the red herrings they throw at us lead you off in another direction. They are attempting the same things used by car salesmen and magicians, bait and switch, and the old trusty misdirection. Get you thinking about something else entirely and you wont notice the elephant walking off the stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey DW, I crawled out of the gene pool on my own! I dont need no stinkin estrogen! I went to my VA doc and said, "I want out of the gene pool!" and he said "Ok".  I have two kids already, I have no urge to be like a certain family that has 19 and gets lots of press for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

455 good post, lol, your dating me with that pik program. Ya, I did hear it was long gone. The environmentalist still upset as lots of land coming out of the land bank for corn plantings. Not the farm swamp or rocky cliff farmland. But farmers are saving taxpayers a fortune by violating gov't agreements and rush to plant. That's a good thing in bad economic times. Seems honorable to me.  Your point of farmers being conservations of land is spot on. Same with hunters and wildlife or loggers with forests. The city dwellers watch way to much PBS junk turning them to outrage and alter voting.  I proved it to myself and brothers, that living in a metro area if not getting out to enjoy nature will turn your viewpoint. I don't know the psychology, but believe it is a hard fact. These city folks will change to hate country folks as assume all are exploiting environment. It happen to me and my brother caught it. I thinks its viewership of TV bias at work.

 

Also, what so many post.......and even today listen about big business of which big government just as bad. Meaning they both need each other. You take gov't down 10 notches and big business will follow. Number one priority of politicians should be empowering small businesses and breaking up big business. And to award more valuable capital to small business. Empowered with modern computers, education, communications and project coordination....small businesses can do a lot. For instance an Phd of Chemistry with much experience opened up a one room company in Dowagiac, MI. Ya, made state news as talked the city into letting him utilize the cities wast treatment plant for experimenting for algae ethanol or was it bio oil? I would say this guy pretty cost effective and competitive.

 

What DragonWhip referring to is currently in full swing revolution mode. Yes, the whole health community mostly a mass change in thinking cross the board has realized we could be improving health more by better selection of healthier foods. Foods that historically produced for convenience of manufacturing or sales instead of good health. This something Huckabee talked about, a better priority for health care.

 

302's post put a chill up my back. Brought back memories of required class "Man and the Environment" this was long ago, but we all eagerly went to this class hoping to learn how to live respectful less polluting ways. Maybe to uncover problems and cures. Every person upon planet thinks likewise, we were no different. Anyways this instructor would depect a total bleak insurmountable destruction of earth, man unable to control his dark side, war, famine, pestilence, corruption of business, corruption and greed mans only motivation, just depressing.

 

His only solution or answer was a serious decrease in human population. You could invent and persuade solutions, but this guy always made them hopeless. Man is evil and greedy so, less man less problem.  The guy I realize now was a raging atheist. His biggest solution, birth control, decreasing marriage, family planning clinics, and euthanasia. Quite the sweetheart, hey? Oh, oil was to run out by 1992 and absolute you can take it to the bank fact. Less people, the world is happy. Go ahead and party, have recreational sex, enjoy, enjoy.....but don't follow your parents footsteps upon morals or to create a family. Shame on you for that.  That was forty years ago and I bet you anything this thinking continues or even worse.

 

Oh, the part below about how ethanol even cellulosic ethanol will be bypassed as less environmental......cap and trade of carbon credits. In the news already, some politician proposing a carbon tax on each mile traveled by your internal combustion truck or car. You pay and the electric car gets your money so magically the electric car very economical.

 

You notice how these folks don't mention CO2 as much. You see, CO2 didn't get any traction as a bad boy as even humans expel CO2. Folks are smart enough to know this gas pretty benign. But coal, for instance, is carbon and always dirty and disgusting. So folks think of carbon as coal and see benefits to tax carbon as how can carbon be clean it looks rather dirty. So, just about all fuels will suffer with such marketing or depictions.

 

Lol, nuclear energy has been marketed to atom bomb death....that can't be safe....you can't fool me. Besides I don't want those B'Africians going hungry. My conscious not greedy enough to burn their food supply upon my carbon fueled car.  I like the Planet and intend to make sure others can enjoy it in the future, by not burning ethanol and encouraging investing in green energy even if I have to give up some things. The planet is worth it to me.  You folks all want to destroy the planet, not me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...