Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

WWIIIFollow

#1 Oct 23 2007 at 11:18 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,374 posts
#2 Oct 23 2007 at 11:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

He's not the only one that thinks that.
http://www.slate.com/id/2169867/

Not that it makes him right or wrong, but he's not totally loony about it.

#3 Oct 23 2007 at 11:29 PM Rating: Decent
article wrote:
[...]a day before the White House was to announce new plans to draw Cuba away from communism.


LOL, give it up already American idiots. Accept that Cuba has a different system, do away with the embargo, open trade, and stfu with your Cold War remnant ********* Hypocritical China MFN *****.
#4 Oct 24 2007 at 2:03 AM Rating: Good
tricky wrote:
but he's not totally loony about it.


He's not, but he is being a bit simplistic, or short sighted. These kinds of Malthusian debates seem to pop up every few years or so.

There is no doubt that using food as fuel is, in a way, a big revolution. That we'll need to adapt to those new circumstances, and that if we go about it recklessly, some people will suffer.

But that's the case with every single new technology. The "worst case scenario" is always scary, by definition. It doesn't mean anything, though.

The Castro/Economist side of the debate seems to forget we are at the very beggining of biofuel techonology. Couple that with GM technology, and the fact that biofuel can be made from a wide variety of crops, and it's really not that scary.

Not only that, but compared to the problems that oil causes, the one brought about by biofuel are minuscule.

As for the moral dilemna, it doesn't exist. Using crops to feed cows to make leather belts is arguably much worse than using crops to create fuel to drive our cars.

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#5 Oct 24 2007 at 5:33 AM Rating: Decent
Castro is just pissed we can grow more corn then he can.
#6 Oct 24 2007 at 6:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Using food to make fuel is only a step away from using people to make food! We need to invade and enslave China to feed the rest of the world.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#7 Oct 24 2007 at 6:34 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,162 posts
Quote:
There is no doubt that using food as fuel is, in a way, a big revolution. That we'll need to adapt to those new circumstances, and that if we go about it recklessly, some people will suffer.


And you trust Bush to do it the right way?
#8 Oct 24 2007 at 7:31 AM Rating: Decent
feelz wrote:
And you trust Bush to do it the right way?


No, but unless you guys are stupid enough to elect members of the Bush family for the next 40 years, I wouldn't worry about it.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#9 Oct 24 2007 at 7:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Monsieur RedPhoenixxx wrote:
The Castro/Economist side of the debate seems to forget we are at the very beggining of biofuel techonology. Couple that with GM technology, and the fact that biofuel can be made from a wide variety of crops, and it's really not that scary.
Agreed. Part of why we're so into corn-based ethanol is because we have a lot of corn. And farmers are willing to grow corn because, if it's not used in biofuels, it'll be used in food production and either way they make a sale. You can't say the same about switchgrass. Also, it's easily storable in relatively raw form which you can't say about sugar beets or Jeruslem artichokes.

As the technology increases and it becomes a more stable market, you'll probably see some farmers switching to crops which yield a better energy return and other farmers sticking with the corn market.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#10 Oct 24 2007 at 7:39 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,162 posts
Quote:
No, but unless you guys are stupid enough to elect members of the Bush family for the next 40 years, I wouldn't worry about it.


Hey! Don't look at me,I'm not American.

On a side note they elected 2 of them in a span of a decade... Jena in 2012?
#11 Oct 24 2007 at 8:43 AM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
As the technology increases and it becomes a more stable market, you'll probably see some farmers switching to crops which yield a better energy return and other farmers sticking with the corn market.


Definately. Cutting the incredible subsidies that corn enjoys will probably help, too.

But it's a safe bet that corn-based biofuel is the equivalent of the square wheel. Better than nothing, but a long way from the finished article.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#12 Oct 24 2007 at 10:30 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Monsieur RedPhoenixxx wrote:
The Castro/Economist side of the debate seems to forget we are at the very beggining of biofuel techonology. Couple that with GM technology, and the fact that biofuel can be made from a wide variety of crops, and it's really not that scary.
Agreed. Part of why we're so into corn-based ethanol is because we have a lot of corn. And farmers are willing to grow corn because, if it's not used in biofuels, it'll be used in food production and either way they make a sale. You can't say the same about switchgrass. Also, it's easily storable in relatively raw form which you can't say about sugar beets or Jeruslem artichokes.

As the technology increases and it becomes a more stable market, you'll probably see some farmers switching to crops which yield a better energy return and other farmers sticking with the corn market.
Yeah, if technology is allowed free finincial and regulatory reign, I can imagine a corn fuel that really isn't even food, but a GE'd energy plant. Stuff chickens may not even want to eat.

At any rate, I've never looked, but I can't imagine there would be any kind of reliable ecomonic research that could lead to the conclusion that kids are starving in Africa (or anywhere else) because we're producing and using bio-fuels. At least not at the current rate.

STFU Castro!!

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#13 Oct 24 2007 at 11:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I've seen articles linking the biofuel based rising price of field corn (used in tortillas) to hardships in poverty-stricken areas of Mexico where tortillas are a dietary staple among the poor. I can't speak for the data behind it though, if any.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#14 Oct 24 2007 at 11:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
Of course the fact that Castro is buddy buddy with a certain Hugo Chavez, of massive oil producing and us buying it at extorionate rates fame, has nothing to do with that at all.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#15 Oct 24 2007 at 11:25 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,162 posts
Quote:
Yeah, if technology is allowed free finincial and regulatory reign, I can imagine a corn fuel that really isn't even food, but a GE'd energy plant. Stuff chickens may not even want to eat.


But see that's the problem. If all the corn producers turns to new GE'd energy plant instead of human consumption grade corn cause the former is more profitable, you'll end up with shortage of regular corn.

Can we do this the smart way and get ethanol while maintaining food stocks at
an acceptable level? Yes

Is is possible that in a capitalist society with a market economy, we put our financial interest before the needs of 3rd world country dependant on our corn for subsistance? Unfortunately yes.

#16 Oct 24 2007 at 11:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
feelz wrote:
But see that's the problem. If all the corn producers turns to new GE'd energy plant instead of human consumption grade corn cause the former is more profitable, you'll end up with shortage of regular corn.
Well, corn will just sell for more and be "equally" valuable to plant. There's a massive market for corn, after all. They don't use sweet corn (i.e. the corn on the cob stuff) for biofuels but they do use the same stuff that we use for corn meal, animal feed, corn syrup, etc. Hey, maybe corn syrup will become expensive enough that soft drink companies will switch back to cane sugar! Smiley: grin
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#17 Oct 24 2007 at 11:58 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
feelz wrote:
[quote]

Is is possible that in a capitalist society with a market economy, we put our financial interest before the needs of 3rd world country dependant on our corn for subsistance? Unfortunately yes.

Meh, let them eat rice.

World starvation is not a product of our corn market. It's social more than anything. A 3rd world country being dependent on our corn is a problem in and of itself. In the big picture, how efficient is it to ship corn across the world?

It takes a lot of corn to make Ethanol. I haven't a clue what the market prices are right now but it's not necessarily going to be more cost effective to make fuel-corn than food-corn. For some it may be, for others not.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#18 Oct 24 2007 at 12:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The Elinda of Doom wrote:
World starvation is not a product of our corn market. It's social more than anything.
That's a good point. By in large, modern famines are generally caused by the mismanagement of the available food production due to government or military interference. Not that regions don't suffer drought, plagues of locusts or whatever but all the grain shipments in the world don't help when some rebel junta is looting the trains, farmers are pressed into armies or troops are tromping over the fields.

Edited, Oct 24th 2007 3:09pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#19 Oct 24 2007 at 1:12 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
I thought this would be about Skylab. Smiley: glare
#20 Oct 24 2007 at 4:03 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,162 posts
Found that reading through Tricky's link


Quote:
The push for ethanol and other biofuels has spawned an industry that depends on billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies, and not only in the United States. In 2005, global ethanol production was 9.66 billion gallons, of which Brazil produced 45.2 percent (from sugar cane) and the United States 44.5 percent (from corn). Global production of biodiesel (most of it in Europe), made from oilseeds, was almost one billion gallons.

The industry's growth has meant that a larger and larger share of corn production is being used to feed the huge mills that produce ethanol. According to some estimates, ethanol plants will burn up to half of U.S. domestic corn supplies within a few years. Ethanol demand will bring 2007 inventories of corn to their lowest levels since 1995 (a drought year), even though 2006 yielded the third-largest corn crop on record. Iowa may soon become a net corn importer

The enormous volume of corn required by the ethanol industry is sending shock waves through the food system. (The United States accounts for some 40 percent of the world's total corn production and over half of all corn exports.) In March 2007, corn futures rose to over $4.38 a bushel, the highest level in ten years. Wheat and rice prices have also surged to decade highs, because even as those grains are increasingly being used as substitutes for corn, farmers are planting more acres with corn and fewer acres with other crops.


Quote:
The World Bank has estimated that in 2001, 2.7 billion people in the world were living on the equivalent of less than $2 a day; to them, even marginal increases in the cost of staple grains could be devastating. Filling the 25-gallon tank of an SUV with pure ethanol requires over 450 pounds of corn -- which contains enough calories to feed one person for a year.



Is it just me or the solution is not to turn our food into fuel but to stop driving fucking SUVs

#21 Oct 24 2007 at 4:14 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
feelz wrote:
Quote:
The World Bank has estimated that in 2001, 2.7 billion people in the world were living on the equivalent of less than $2 a day; to them, even marginal increases in the cost of staple grains could be devastating. Filling the 25-gallon tank of an SUV with pure ethanol requires over 450 pounds of corn -- which contains enough calories to feed one person for a year.


Is it just me or the solution is not to turn our food into fuel but to stop driving fucking SUVs

Why do you hate capitalism consumerism? :(
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#22 Oct 24 2007 at 4:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
feelz wrote:
Quote:
The World Bank has estimated that in 2001, 2.7 billion people in the world were living on the equivalent of less than $2 a day; to them, even marginal increases in the cost of staple grains could be devastating. Filling the 25-gallon tank of an SUV with pure ethanol requires over 450 pounds of corn -- which contains enough calories to feed one person for a year.
Is it just me or the solution is not to turn our food into fuel but to stop driving fucking SUVs
Not driving SUVs is generally a good idea but right now we're not filling consumer gastanks with pure ethanol anyway. Even an E85 mixture is helpful for using fewer fossil fuels.

To return to one of the original points, corn for ethanol is a stopgap solution and I don't think anyone seriously plans to use corn indefinately. However, corn is immediately available while we get the production off the ground and wean ourselves off of the oil well.

Incidentally, corn starts off at approx. 490 calories per pound in raw form. 490*450=220,5000 calories. That's only 110 days for a 2,000 calorie diet or only 604 calories per day if you need to make it last a year. C. Ford Runge needs to either learn basic math or else stop making up scare statements. I'll admit that "enough calories to feed a person for 15 weeks" is still a pretty hefty amount but there's no reason to dress it up worse than it is.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 241 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (241)