Most Popular
Recent Blog Posts
National Features >
Cob SmackedFeature: "Ethanol Pushers,"September 21 and September 28
Published on October 12, 2006If Pitch editor C.J. Janovy doesn't like the military adventurism detailed in her anti-Iraq-incursion column ("Uncle Sam," September 21), why is she running a dubious slam on ethanol in the same issue? "Ethanol Pushers" incorrectly concludes that ethanol will be of no help in the search for energy independence. Biofuels are evolving into substantial and valuable contributors to our domestic fuel supply. We went into Iraq because we wanted a substantial military presence in the heart of the oil-producing Middle East. We also wanted to open up their oil reserves to Western market principles and investments in the hopes of undermining OPEC. Objectively, we're going to end up failing on both intentions. Before you bemoan government subsidies, consider the hundreds of billions that will be pissed away on this emerging Middle East oil war. Plug in all environmental costs of our status quo oil addiction. And when you get into "net energy," don't just rearview-mirror assess what's already happened. Net energy on biofuels is increasing every year, while oil and gasoline will continue to diminish as we go further, deeper, riskier and smaller for more sour oil deposits globally. Pending breakthroughs on cellulose-to-ethanol technologies will deliver multifold improvements in both carbon-dioxide output and net energy. Corn to ethanol is just a bridge a bridge that wouldn't have happened without the Garnett facility and investors and subsidies that pale by comparison with the decades of oil and oil-related military adventurism. Robert Anderson, One thing that gets a little bit lost is the true positive impact ethanol can have for farmers as an investment (not, as Carolyn Szczepanski correctly points out, as a way to increase corn prices). The story about Garnett, Kansas, handled this quite well, especially the part about the group of $1,000 investors earning back one-third of their money already. The analysis of the federal farm bill and its commodity programs is where things get increasingly hairy. Those subsidies are paid through a complicated program based on the farmland's historical production and current market prices. It doesn't mean that Farmer John is subsidized 55 cents for each bushel of corn he sells. As you correctly point out, those millions of dollars in subsidies are paying to maintain corn production itself, but not necessarily corn producers. Another problem is what to do with the leftover corn mash. Some agribusiness-corporate types are trying to use this stuff as a back-door method of increasing the number of feedlots: We've got all of this corn mash sitting around let's build a 50,000-head cattle-feeding yard to use it up! That feedlot would be an environmental disaster. Biodiesel is quite a different story, especially when it is created in small-scale production facilities owned by local people. Again, thanks for the stories. You all are doing great work. Bryce Oates, Susan Fischer, The New Theatre is the closest thing I have to a family! Now that Happy Days is over, Drew Carey is gone and That '70s Show, too! Plus, I love Kansas City and all its flavors! Love, Marion Ross, David Suddock,
write your comment
|