Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Biofuels, Food Prices and Global Warming Roundup
gas2.org — The current rate at which biofuels are falling out of favor is largely founded on biased ideologies, which have been shaped by widespread political and corporate agenda-pushing from all sides of the fence.
KevinFederline- 509 diggs
- digg it
- TheDooku, on 07/17/2008, -2/+14"Truth is, nobody knows what kind of effect the production of biofuels is having on food prices, global warming, and rising fuel costs. Does that mean we should stop moving forward? No."
OPEC would disagree....but any person with 2 brain cells to rub together can understand:
"It is clear that the world needs some sort of energy solution. Will it be electric derived from solar, wave, wind, or geothermal? Will it be hydrogen? Will it be second generation biofuels? .... More than likely it will be a complex combination of the above."- thethinktank, on 07/17/2008, -1/+6Quoting author of the book Energy Victory, Robert Zubrin:
"A few weeks ago, I saw a speech John McCain gave in Texas. He proclaimed we had to break free of foreign oil, and that is why we need nuclear power. The same day, I saw Barack Obama give a speech. he said we have to break free of foreign oil, and that is why we need solar and wind power. So we are about to be entertained with a dramatic right/left debate pitting nuclear power against solar and wind power. But in fact, the US gets only 3% of its electricity from oil, so neither nuclear, solar, or wind power have anything to do with the issue of breaking us free from foreign oil. It's all pure farce. Unless these people want to continue to fail to defend the vital interests of the nation as badly as George Bush has done, they need to get serious about this issue."
Take 10 minutes out of your day and read this, if you have an interest in Biofuels. It is VERY important that we diggers understand the distinction between an Energy Crisis and a Fuel crisis. We don't have an energy crisis.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/6/12235/7 ...- shagmin, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2You’re right, politicians like to blur lines like that a lot. But I do believe if enough vehicles become electric over the next several decades the extra burden would be significant enough to require action to upgrade the power grid. There’s already been enough talk about how outdated it is, maybe electric cars would be the last push needed to get the idea into motion. On the other hand, I’m not optimistic anything other than an energy crisis would get politicians to act (and then so in a half assed manner), forget about being pro-active.
- drmangrum, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1I would love to see both McCain's and Obama's answer if confronted with such information in a debate. The entire thing is a shell game and the American people fall for it every time.
- thethinktank, on 07/17/2008, -1/+6Quoting author of the book Energy Victory, Robert Zubrin:
- scotq, on 07/17/2008, -5/+9The implications could be disastrous though so we need to move forward in a smart way. As things stand now, existing biofuels use more water and emit more GHGs in their production than traditional fossil fuels. Seems like a false solution to me. And the implications for our forests if they crack cellulosic technology could be disastrous!
- thethinktank, on 07/17/2008, -0/+5re: cellulosic "implications for our forests"
We don't need to clear land to grow switchgrass or other materials to develop cellulosic ethanol. We can do so on current unused farmland, farmland that is unfit for food crops (of which there are countless acres already cleared), and even the grass you cut on your own lawn. When you dump your lawn clippings, they can be picked up by existing recycle trucks or waste management trucks. Your local ethanol refinery (there are 29 in my state) can then process this into biofuel.
How many lawns are there in the US? :)
Common lawn grass many not produce enough sugars/oil to be used for ethanol. If so, one option would be to genetically modify common lawn grass to produce more sugars.
The likelihood of collecting lawn clippings to produce ethanol is nearly nil (but a great idea, i might add). However, I use it here just to show that crops for cellulosic ethanol do NOT need to force us to clear more land. That land is already available. - macwac, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3Cellulosic technology is already cracked. Companies are starting major test plants around the world for mass production. The plan is to use bio-wastes for production of biofuels - meaning for every grain of rice you eat there is a whole straw that comes with it.. that straw is currently burnt, left to rot or buried in the ground by farmers - the goal is to use that waste in production of fuel - similar goes for grain production etc... Btw, in the newest technology the water and acid is recaptured and reused - 2nd generation biofuel plants.
- thethinktank, on 07/17/2008, -0/+5re: cellulosic "implications for our forests"
- thethinktank, on 07/17/2008, -5/+25Its important to note that the US does not have an energy crisis-- we have a FUEL crisis. Nuclear, wind and photovoltaic energy will not power the hundreds of millions of combustion engine cars that are on the road today. While electric cars should be the ultimate goal, we'll need smart fuel to get us through a transition that could take us 25 years...
The food vs. fuel myth, as perpetuated by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (see: Pilgrim's Pride, whose campaign contributions bought themselves Texas Governor Rick Perry) is disgusting. Corn Ethanol does increase food prices-- but not the food that goes into the mouths of the third world poor. It increases the price of livestock feed. So companies like Pilgrim's Pride sees their costs go up, and in turn Pilgrim's Pride founder contributes $216,500 to Rick Perry's gubernatorial campaign. So Governor Perry demands that the EPA repeal the ethanol mandate. Meanwhile, Texas Senator Kay Baily Hutchison is doing the same thing, all under the guise of "but they're taking food away from the world's poor!!" No they're not, they're increasing the price for livestock feed and threatening Big Oil. (it should also be noted that Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison received more campaign contributions from Big Oil than any other congressman in her 2006 campaign)
The food vs. fuel myth isn't so much a myth, its just that corn ethanol is being blamed for HUMAN food price increases, when it is mainly increasing LIVESTOCK feed prices. So steak and chicken prices increase, which I don't see us exporting to the world's poor.
The ethanol issue pales in comparison to the cost increases done by rising oil prices. Transportation costs have made food prices skyrocket. Yet tramps like Kay Bailey Hutchison blame biofuel...
Corn Ethanol is not a great fuel, it has much less potential than cellulose and algae biofuels. But to get us there, we need corn ethanol. The more corn ethanol we use, the more domestic auto manufacturers will produce flex fueled vehicles-- so in 5 years when Algae and Cellulosic biofuels are available, we'll have cars ready that can handle those fuels (because as of now, your engine can't handle them).
IN CLOSING: we need a TRANSPORTATION ENERGY policy in the US more than we need an "energy policy". We need to set a goal to convert the nations fleet to electric cars. In the 25+ years it'll take for a complete transition, we need biofuel to get us there. The more we send our fuel money to OPEC nations like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela, the more we finance a revolution against us. During our transition to electric cars, we need to send our fuel money to the Midwest, not the Middle East...- trejrco, on 07/18/2008, -1/+5Just a quick thought - "It increases the price of livestock feed" ... doesn't that directly imply an increase in the cost of all food derived from those livestock?
- drmangrum, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1Yes, but animal products typically aren't exported especially to the third world. The "Food Crisis" is on stables like wheat, rice, and corn. The entire thing is hype spun up by the oil and farm/food industry. The vast majority of corn grown in the use is Dent corn, not Sweet corn. Dent corn is the type of corn grown for animal feed and makes up 73% of the crop; it's also the corn that was being tapped to produce ethanol.
While ethanol is certainly not the best source of ethanol, it's also not the true reason for the spike in food costs. Blame Big Oil for that. Biofuel is just the scapegoat. - chemrat, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1I think you are missing the point that large numbers of farmers have stopped planting other crops like wheat so they can get in on the corn ethanol tax subsidy business. Also, many farmers have stopped crop rotation because they don't want to lose a season of corn (and subsidies). The results of these rapid changes in farming practice are to decrease the amount of other grains available, to increase dramatically the need for artificial fertilizer vs the natural fertilizer obtained from crop rotation, to increase the runoff of fertilizer into streams etc. because artificial fertilizer isn't retained as well in the soil as natural fertilizer, to introduce new diseases to some areas (people in the US South are now planting corn, and the climate isn't suitable, and indigenous pests are having a field day eating the new corn, all of which leads to increased pesticide use).
Also, the direct affect of the price of chicken feed on the price of eggs has been described by the Chicago Tribune.
However, the biggest effect on developing countries has nothing to do with what goes on in the US (directly, anyway): large farming companies are destroying indigenous crop land and building factory farms to make biofuel crops for Europe and the US. In addition, as documented by the New Scientist, peat bogs are being drained in Malaysia and similar areas, leading to massive CO2 release, for the purpose of growing biofuel crops; this is a truly hypocritical and ironic way of spinning poor environmental practices as "green".
All of this is documented, with sources, at my blog greenchemistry.wordpress.com/
- drmangrum, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1Yes, but animal products typically aren't exported especially to the third world. The "Food Crisis" is on stables like wheat, rice, and corn. The entire thing is hype spun up by the oil and farm/food industry. The vast majority of corn grown in the use is Dent corn, not Sweet corn. Dent corn is the type of corn grown for animal feed and makes up 73% of the crop; it's also the corn that was being tapped to produce ethanol.
- marx2k, on 07/18/2008, -0/+4I agree with what you said. However, this also gives livestock farmers the incentive to have their cows be grass-fed... which is healthier for the cows and for the people who eat the cow and drink its milk.
- jeffburton, on 07/18/2008, -1/+5wrong wrong wrong. There is a global market in agricultural products and the U.S. and Europe and major agricultural exporters. When you drive up the price of corn it has ripple effects on all agricultural commodities which does affect other countries. Ethanol mandates DO affect the third world poor.
- thethinktank, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1"Ethanol mandates DO affect the third world poor."
In many ways, they help the third world poor. Since the US has ran its corn subsidy, farmers in the 3rd world had gone out of business and been unable to compete with cheap imported corn from the US. Now that corn prices have risen (which isn't due to ethanol alone), third world farmers CAN compete. The international corn producers are no longer drowning under our subsidies.
- thethinktank, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1"Ethanol mandates DO affect the third world poor."
- cph1, on 07/18/2008, -1/+3While I would agree with some of your points, I wouldn't regard the "food for fuel" argument as a total myth.
It is true that the majority of American corn is used as livestock feed. There is a strong demand for American livestock driven by foreign demand from India and China. There is also strong demand for ethanol driven by high energy prices. Consequently, there is large demand for corn, which results in higher prices. Land is a limited resource and so farmers must choose which crop to grow. High corn prices give farmers incentive to grow more corn on their land and as a result the supply of other crops diminishes. The decrease in supply leads to higher prices of other crops.
While biofuels may have an affect on food prices, I believe that the underlying force that has driven food prices is the price of fuel. Agriculture is highly dependent on petroleum and natural gas for many processes. Energy is needed to plant and farm crops, fertilizers and pesticides are derived from natural gas, transportation relies heavily on fuel, and packaging often relies of plastics.
I do not see corn-based ethanol as the alternative energy solution of the future not because it raises food prices, but because it is not efficient. Corn is one of the most water-intensive crops to grown and as mentioned depends on natural gas and petroleum for production. Ethanol can not be transported by pipes and so it must be carried by rail and truck, which consume more oil. Further energy is required to process the corn and actually create ethanol. We simply do not have the land space needed to supply enough corn to create ethanol. Already about 1/3 of corn produced is used to create ethanol while ethanol only represents a small percentage of overall fuel. We also simply do not have the infrastructure in place to make ethanol an effective solution. There isn’t enough ethanol supplied to warrant the expansion of infrastructure, and there isn’t enough infrastructure in place to allow for the widespread use of ethanol.
Brazil has had success with its ethanol program because it is based on sugar-cane, which is much more efficient, rather than corn. Much of the push for corn-based ethanol is from corn farmers who would reap the benefits.- bjzq8, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1A few points:
1. "Corn is one of the most water-intensive crops to grown"
Where are you talking about? There are millions of acres of corn that get NO irrigation other than what comes from the sky. Yes, some people irrigate theirs...but it's not a necessity.
2. "Ethanol can not be transported by pipes so it must be carried by rail and truck"
Ethanol can't be put through a conventional pipeline because it absorbs water...and currently, they use water buffers on each end of the oil package send through a pipeline as a sort of "stop bit" and "stop bit"...this doesn't work with ethanol, because it mixes with water so readily. There are other ways of doing this that are being experimented with; it's not insurmountable.
3. "Already about 1/3 of corn produced is used to create ethanol"
That figure is about 20% for the last year. Also, the usage figure for animal feed is 52%. If we use that for ethanol FIRST, we can STILL get animal feed out of it. Think of that for a second. You can use it for ethanol THEN use it for animal feed.
Ethanol is NOT as bad as people are saying it is. - cph1, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2you are arguing the smaller points but thats fine.
According to the WWF and USDA irrigation is a major issue with respect to crop production and is thus a problem for ethanol
http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/June04/findings ...
http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/policy/a ...
Regarding transportation corn must be brought to the distilleries by train or truck. The vast majority of ethanol is then transported again by train and truck. We might develop the technology for pipelines someday, but this is how ethanol is transported today and it consumes more energy.
You are probably right about the 20%, I was looking at the statistic for general fuel alchol. I have no idea what you are trying to say about using corn for ethanol then feed... are you suggesting we feed animals ethanol?
You did not address my argument that ethanol fundamentally relies on petroleum and natural gas for its production and that it is an inefficient source of fuel. There are other better alternatives to fuel. - chemrat, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2The point about high water use by corn ethanol is absolutely correct. One of the reasons for this is that very large amounts of water are used in the actual fermentation and purification carried out to obtain clean ethanol. There is a significant chance that another dust bowl will be created if the rise in corn ethanol production continues at its current pace. Environmental Defense did a study on this problem, as have many other organizations. See greenchemistry.wordpress.com/ (search for environmental defense).
- bjzq8, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1A few points:
- sirroman, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1While you got most points there, specially the difference between energy x fuel, rising oil prices x food prices, there're some ideas I want to point out.
* Any fuel is just a different kind of energy storage, as you all know. I also believe electric cars are better. The problem with they is the electricity production, if we don't invest in solar, wind, wave, whatever, electric cars could do more harm than we think.
* American-corn-ethanol is harmful to food prices. It's not competitive and depends on subsidies. It's a expensive fuel, and expensive fuel means more transportation costs, which leads to rising food prices. I believe that some of those $95 billion (in five years - washingtonpost.com I believe) in subsidies would be more useful in technology.
More... I'm not into conspiracy theories like you seem to be. - Kupe, on 07/18/2008, -2/+2What about High Fructose Corn Syrup? That stuff is in every soda, most breads, hell, pretty much all cheap food and nearly all food you'll find at Wal-Mart. A shortage of HFCS coming from corn alone has a huge effect, I'm sure.
- cph1, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3No one uses HFCS outside of america. They have something better called sugar.
HFCS and obesity, brought to you by the american farm lobby. - Gemfinder, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1Amend to say, "The American CORPORATE farm lobby."
Even the inventor of HFCS, who died last year, wouldn't touch the stuff.
- cph1, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3No one uses HFCS outside of america. They have something better called sugar.
- jtbradley, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1Except in Mexico, where rising corn prices have made it nearly impossible for the lower class to buy corn?
- trejrco, on 07/18/2008, -1/+5Just a quick thought - "It increases the price of livestock feed" ... doesn't that directly imply an increase in the cost of all food derived from those livestock?
- WiseLittleOwl, on 07/17/2008, -1/+5And Texas is the first state to beg for a waiver of EPA ethanol mandates.... http://envirovore.com/content/view/191/1/.
- thethinktank, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3I mentioned that above:
"So Governor Perry demands that the EPA repeal the ethanol mandate." - Gemfinder, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1There are also more public-access biofuel stations in Texas than there are on the whole West Coast.
http://www.e85refueling.com/locations.php?state=CA ...
http://www.e85refueling.com/locations.php?state=or ...
http://www.e85refueling.com/locations.php?state=wa ...
http://www.e85refueling.com/locations.php?state=tx ...
- thethinktank, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3I mentioned that above:
- invoker, on 07/18/2008, -1/+8Switchgrass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchgrass
- borez, on 07/18/2008, -2/+6I said this month ago on Digg and got slaughtered in a Digg down fest, how opinions change eh.
- hiPpymIck, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1Digg can be erratic..
..a bit like economics - ha
- hiPpymIck, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1Digg can be erratic..
- macwac, on 07/18/2008, -0/+14Biofuels:
1 generation = not sustainable (sugarcane + corn etc..) Why not Sustainable? Harms food production and deforestation
2 generation = sustainable (biomass waste + jatropha - grown in waste land, possibly algae etc..) Why Sustainable? not harming/entering food production and deforestation.
Simple explanation. - JasonCox, on 07/18/2008, -1/+2Biofuels are falling out of favor? Really? I mean I figured it was because 99% of cars on the road cant run on E85 but whatever you're the description writer.
- marx2k, on 07/18/2008, -0/+4I see a hell of a lot of FlexFuel cars out there these days. Not sure what you're talking about.
- chadell, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3
"It's the high oil prices, producing food is pretty energy
intensive and therefore oil prices drive the cost of food and therefore
prices, secondly it's the demand of the emerging economies but fortunately
enough, enough people now become richer and richer and therefore can afford to
buy more food but then, thirdly, there is a growing demand for bio-fuels,
largely policy driven and that also adds to the further price pressure on the
international agricultural markets," - Stefan Tangermann, the OECD Director for Trade and Agriculture noting that there are at least three permanent factors contributing to the situation
http://mpelembe.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2008/5 ... - GoIgo13, on 07/18/2008, -1/+3Biofuels have the potential to make up a small little portion of world fuel consumption at best.
Unless we bite the bullet and start getting smart by implementing efficient methods of mass transit like passenger rail, then we'll continue to have problems with transit fuels regardless of what we use. If you switch from oil to biofuels, you're only shifting the burden from the petroleum to the agriculture sector. The stifling, crushing weight of inherent unsustainability still remains.
The only options for maintaining transit for the masses is mass transit. Not everyone needs to get in a personal vehicle and burn up precious limited energy resources to sit in an air conditioned office cubicle for 8 hours a day and go home.
As much as people say they hate mass transit, when gasoline price gets in the double digits, I'm sure they'll change their mind pretty quick and see that their entitlement mentality isn't economically viable.- espowari, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1Not everyone lives in an 'urban' area where mass transit is possible. Last time I checked, America was quite vast. The reason that MT works in Japan, Germany, etc is their relatively small size and density. That plus outrageous taxation to implement these projects.
- GoIgo13, on 09/03/2008, -0/+0And that's a consequence of our suburban sprawl and poor city planning which causes a huge amount of wasted energy, which is another realon on the list of why things are going down the tubes.
- espowari, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1Not everyone lives in an 'urban' area where mass transit is possible. Last time I checked, America was quite vast. The reason that MT works in Japan, Germany, etc is their relatively small size and density. That plus outrageous taxation to implement these projects.
- xDibblerx, on 07/18/2008, -4/+7Total ***** article. The price of everything coming out of farms has doubled. I have horses and finding hay for them to eat is almost impossible because all the fields are corn. Ranchers need corn to feed the cattle for your hamburgers but corn is expensive now and hard to get because a majority of the corn is going to the plants to make ethanol. I understand that the price of beef and pork will double soon because the ranchers sent the cows to slaughter early because of the feed problems so soon there will be a shortage of beef and super high prices. The story acts as if none of this is connected and that corn is just used to make corn meal and tostitos. Buried.
- drmangrum, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2You totally misunderstood the point of the article. The big thing today is that food prices are skyrocketing. But not the food you think, only the food the destitute eat in 3rd world countries: corn, rice, etc. However, only a VERY small portion of the corn crop is human edible, and it's not being used to generate ethanol.
We already know corn is a poor source for ethanol, which is why they are moving to Switchgrass and Algae ponds.
- drmangrum, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2You totally misunderstood the point of the article. The big thing today is that food prices are skyrocketing. But not the food you think, only the food the destitute eat in 3rd world countries: corn, rice, etc. However, only a VERY small portion of the corn crop is human edible, and it's not being used to generate ethanol.
- bluezombie, on 07/18/2008, -1/+2Welcome the next industrial revolution. It all began when Thog hit Trogg with a Big Stick (tm) and then kept the stick. Then it moved through stone, and bronze, and iron. Then there were machines to replace animal labor (why is this never touted as a bright spot by PETA?) And cars, and planes, and hovercraft, and spacecraft. But it all ran on wood, then coal, then oil, then nukes. And all along the way people were shouting "This is NOT IN GOD's PLAN" or "think of MY STARVING CHILDREN" or "if man had been meant to [insert new idea here] ...". And now we are on the verge of a new way of feeding the mouths of our starving machines. We have the chance to turn them from being carrion eaters feeding on the carcasses of dead dinosaurs, into herbivores feeding on the grasses of the plains. Or perhaps fish that eat algae. Or possibly into plants feeding directly off the sun. And of course the whole world is like "They didn't do it this way in my grand pappy's day!"
- Bulbospongiosus, on 07/18/2008, -2/+1To hell with food prices. The root of all environmental problems is human overpopulation. We will stop breeding like flies only when there is nothing for the maggots to eat.
- MrErr, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2I am sure food prices going up is a complex one. Simple answers like "it's because of corn" or "its because of high gas prices" do sufficiently explain everything. They are all interconnected. I do differ with the article that ethanol production does not cost high food prices. I live in Wisconsin among a lot of farmers and i have heard them too say that because of ethanol production their profits are dropping.
What would be good if we had an independent study into what really is happening, maybe the government for the people should be doing that independent study. But then our government is for the corporations. - drmangrum, on 07/18/2008, -1/+2It's about time someone wrote a clear, concise article that raises the flag on the ***** that gets shoveled to us for all sources.
- lasterisk, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1It should be buried in the field. It's not waste - it's nutrients for the next crop.
- Tomunist, on 07/18/2008, -1/+5This is simple economics: Ethanol demand increases / Government subsidies given to ethanol -> Ethanol price increases -> Producers, looking for profit, start making more ethanol -> Consumption of raw materials for ethanol increases, e.g. corn -> Corn demand increases -> Corn price increases
Since the same corn can't be used to make ethanol AND feed people at once (you can't have your cake and eat it too), there is less corn for consumption by either people or livestock. Seeing the price of corn rise, farmers will start growing more corn to earn larger profits. However, this means that they can't grow whatever else that field could have produced, like wheat or rice. The result is a rise in food prices across the board. It's all interconnected, and not hard to follow with a little economic sense. Rising fuel costs also contribute, but that doesn't mean ethanol doesn't add to prices too. Exactly how much is impossible to determine, and will vary depending who you ask, but the effect is real.
That said, I am against ethanol for the following reasons:
-Even if you use a non-corn crop, you're still using farmland that otherwise could have grown food.
-Ethanol, chemically speaking, has less energy per unit volume than gasoline--you have to burn more of it to get the same effective energy release. (This also means that, when you get a gasoline/ethanol blend that costs the same as regular gas, you're being ripped off.)
-Current ethanol production techniques use more energy than they create.
I'm all for saving the environment, but you've just got to stop for a second and see if you're really saving it or not. Ethanol wastes energy, isn't as effective as current fuels, and lowers supplies of food. So far, ethanol is looking like a "Not."- unitedatheism, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1So, you blame ethanol, but like everybody else who does that, doesn't provide a solution to world's weather, not to fuel issues, nor anything..... Yeah, ethanol uses food for other things than feeding, so let's just execrate it, right?
I'm trying to get as short sighted as you, but I'm still unable, damn :-/
But don't worry, you have your air conditioner, world's being heated up is not of your concern, let the other animals solve this by theirselves!
- unitedatheism, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1So, you blame ethanol, but like everybody else who does that, doesn't provide a solution to world's weather, not to fuel issues, nor anything..... Yeah, ethanol uses food for other things than feeding, so let's just execrate it, right?
- BigManOnCampus, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1Our nomenclature sucks.
Fossil fuels are not fossils any more than biofuels are alive. - solboldi, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2Obama is a big supporter of ethanol. He started his campaign in Iowa where much corn is grown talking about his love of ethanol.
- ironclyde, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Finally, someone commenting on these topics who isn't a political nutcase hopelessly to the left or right of the subject matter.
- beauley, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1Everything looks good, is on schedule and it looks like Ethanol fuel is well on its way to eventually replacing gasoline as a fuel source for our present automobile engines. What we must all consider is that under full-scale production, Ethanol will deplete our food supply.
http://www.socyberty.com/Economics/An-Abrupt-Reali ...
An Abrupt Reality, Fuel or Food
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by