The Case Against Ethanol

This view likely reinforces the opinion of many investors. Ethanol and many other grain-based biofuels are an unmitigated folly as both a means of fuel and as an investment.

A fresh comprehensive study of ethanol and other grain biofuels done by an apparent supporter of the global warming supposition, Tim Searchinger of Princeton University, has appeared to shock the global warming community by accusing most biofuels, in certain terms, of actually being worse for the environment than standard fuels.

The ripple effects of the grain biofuels industry are mammoth. Searchinger comments, "The simplest explanation is that when we divert our (grains) to fuel, if people around the world are going to continue to eat the same amount that they're already eating, you have to replace that food somewhere else." The answer to this statement is that grain biofuel production is driving agriculture to expand in other parts of the world. "That's done in a significant part by burning down forests, plowing up grasslands and thus releasing a great deal of carbon dioxide. Right now, there's little doubt that ethanol...is making global warming worse."

Alex Farrell at the University of California, Berkeley, agrees. "I think this paper will have major implications for the use of biofuels around the world. If you care about greenhouse gasses then .... the biofuel industry is going in the wrong direction."

This is not just an academic matter. Federal law states that future biofuel sources will eventually need to be certified as benefiting the climate. If this latest study holds up to scrutiny, the biofuel industry that is plant-based would flunk that test.

This new study concludes that even vast efficiency improvements in ethanol production won't change the equation. As long as the starting material is grown on farmland, Searchinger says, biofuels will be bad for the planet. And, say I, bad for investors.

One solution would be to replace all farmland-based biofuel with other wastes. Animal byproducts, garbage, etc. appear to by a possible solution. Nova Biofuels (NBF) comes to mind as a play on this theme. As a practical matter, we cannot produce enough roadkill and trash to replace standard fuels. To paraphrase, would you want an animal or garbage rendering biofuel factory near your home?

Not only is an increasingly informed scientific community voting (reluctantly) against alternative grain biofuels in their present form. Companies such as Pacific Ethanol (PEIX), based in Sacramento, California, illustrate the coming fiasco of plant-based biofuel efforts. Profit margins are vanishing, new ethanol plants are being second-guessed or canceled and many existing facilities are struggling.

Investment analyst Eitan Bernstein who follows Pacific Ethanol and other producers, said demand may be increasing but not quickly enough to justify new facilities. Larger producers such as Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) "all say they have their antennae up," states Neil Hart, economics professor emeritus at Iowa State University.

The spike in corn prices which has made the price of ethanol even less competitive with fossil fuels and has been a disaster which has only been partially relieved by increasing government subsidies. Our Congress, of course, cannot subsidize the biofuel crops such as corn elsewhere in the world whose price spikes have caused riots and near starvation to the poor in Latin America.

"We now have $6.00 corn and $2.00 ethanol", says Rick Eastman who built one of the first big ethanol plants and is now a consultant for Pacific Ethanol.

I'll bet Bill Gates never thought of the unintended harm from the cool $84m he dropped into Pacific Ethanol during construction of their first ethanol plant in Madera, CA in 2006. Another liberal feel-good program gone haywire? Big surprise.

The only way for grain biofuels to make money is through government subsidies by the wealthy, liberal-leaning nations around the globe. And the higher cost of grain because of its use as a subsidized fuel will push those least able to afford the progressive global warming agenda powering the biofuel engine further into the economic hell which will justifiably spawn more starvation and anti-American angst.

Let's face facts. Ethanol is 20% less efficient than gasoline. It takes 450 pounds of corn, for instance, to produce the ethanol to fill a seventeen gallon fuel tank.

That's enough corn to feed one person for a year or more. And it takes more than one gallon of fossil fuel - coal, oil and natural gas- to produce one gallon of ethanol. Corn and other biofuel grains must be grown, fertilized, harvested and piped (problematic) or trucked (still considered a risky ride for truckers) to ethanol producers - all of which are fuel intensive activities.

Ethanol would not survive in the free market. That is why Congress enacted ethanol subsidies of between $1.05-$1.38/gallon. One more tax on the U.S. consumer. Incredibly, we charge a 54 cent tariff against Brazilian ethanol made from sugar cane - a much more efficient bio-feed for fuel. Perhaps burning away chunks of the Amazon rain forest to plant the sugar cane for ethanol may have played a hand in this.

Grain-based ethanol mania has driven up the price of livestock, poultry and dairy products. Your breakfast cereal, too.

The grain-based ethanol hoax is a sterling example of a program economists refer to as narrow, well-defined benefits versus widely dispersed costs. It pays the ethanol lobby to organize and collect money to grease the palms of politicians willing to do their bidding because there's a large benefit for them - higher wages and profits. The millions of fuel consumers, who fund the benefits through higher fuel costs and food prices, as well as taxes, are relatively uniformed and have little clout. - Dr. Walter Williams, distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University.

Eventually, the grain-based ethanol charade will have to come to a conclusion. My bet is that non-grain biofuels will benefit. But so will coal, oil and natural gas companies presently on the global warming hit list. As P.T. Barnum said,"You can't fool all the people all the time."

Thanks to sources such as NPR, Townhall.com and Sacbee.com for providing material for researching this post.

The author does not own any of the securities mentioned in this article.

Comments

[TM]

Ethanol production will continue putting upward pricing pressure on the world's food supply as global demand rises. On top of that, it seems it is not the most efficient means of alternative energy. There is some potential in switch grass, but it doesn't seem like it will be immediate.

I recently did a piece on food energy prices:
fiateconomics.blogspot...

[ItsJustMe]

I do agree that the current grain-based ethanol is not the solution, but I suspect you're jumping the gun on announcing the demise of the ethanol industry. Scientists are working hard on more promising farm-grown solutions such as switchgrass and other woody plants.

Another factor driving ethanol investment is the simple fact that we have likely reached peak oil and the US and the developed countries do NOT want to continue sending billions and billions of dollars of wealth to dictators in the Middle East and South America.

Your analysis ignores that huge dilemma that our grandchildren will have to deal with. Yes, ethanol is driving up food prices and grain-based ethanol is not an optimal solution. However, neither is transferring our wealth to dictators who hate us and therein lies the paradox...

[DougM]

This article is spot on. I just hope our present and future leaders are reading.

[EricJ]

What you didn't mention that algae based bio-diesel is a viable option. Look at a firm like PetroSun who is in process of creating using saltwater ponds. In this case the growth of algae matches if not exceeds the co2 created when burnt and no change is necessary for diesel vehicles.

[emily x]

"Ethanol is 20% less efficient than gasoline. It takes 450 pounds of corn, for instance, to produce the ethanol to fill a seventeen gallon fuel tank. ... And it takes more than one gallon of fossil fuel - coal, oil and natural gas- to produce one gallon of ethanol."

Not to mention the amount of water it takes to grow the corn -- a very water-intensive crop. I agree w/ your premise that the whole ethanol thing is a charade. Your idea that it's a "liberal feel-good program," however, is plainly contradicted by the full-blast, and as usual unconsidered, support it has gotten from this president.

[TAS]

There is no paradox. Ethanol dependence starves the poor. Our Democratic Congress (and Republican Governors in Florida and California) prevent drilling for oil off almost all the coasts and inland (while China and Venezuala drill off our shore at the bequest of Cuba). We have coal supplies for an estimated six hundred years within U.S. boundaries with carbon dioxide recapture capabilities on the horizon and natural gas, solid and liquid in quantities out the ying yang. Nuclear power? Politically incorrect. We can mitigate $$ to the dictators in many ways.

So there is little need for ethanol. No need to raise world grain prices, no need to tax working people for a fashionable energy agenda and no need to wring our hands over our poor grandchildren dealing with the issue.

They should do a much better job of it than we will, learning from our environmental lobby mistakes.

[bar310]

Please include in the alternative energy legislation or proposals the biofuels and not corn ethanol. Corn ethanol only increases the grocery bills without adequately diminishing the use of foreign oil dependency. We must explore the oil in this country such as drilling in both the east coast and west coast as well as in Alaska. The use of switch grass and other techniques plus Coal gasification and carbon sequestration are ways to explore as well as hydrogen use. In Sweden they have machines that look like side by side refrigerators the convert regular water into hydrogen thereby reducing the need to deliver the hydrogen from place to place. In this way one could have a hydrogen car, which would travel the equivalent of 200 miles and still be able to refuel. The car would be gutted of the internal combustion and would have an electric motor in its place. This idea has been knocked down by General Motors and other American Automobile manufacturers, not because it was impractical, but because it would do away with the part suppliers and would seriously hurt the automobile dealers who rely on these part suppliers.

[Itsonlymoney]

Ethanol production is hardly a "liberal feel good" project. It is an invention by the same mega farm folks who brought us high fructose corn syrup and its related consequences." Liberal feel good" would encourage conservation, higher density living close to public transportation, packaging reduction, wind and solar energy, and an overall approach that has us doing more with less. Ethanol, as you point out, is a misguided attempt to keep the same failing US transportation system from imploding. You can blame the liberals for lots of folly, buy this joke rests cleanly in the laps of Mr Bush and his ilk.

[wheels14]

Bashing liberals and fainting sympethy for the worlds poor and hungry all in the same article, Wow. I do not feel it is my duty as a US tax payer to feed the worlds poor. The $3 billion dollars the US spent last year developing a new industry, Ethanol saved the tax payer $8 billon in farm subsidies. Twice the World Trade Organization ruled that the US farm subsidies undercut agriculture around the world. Farmers in Mexico cannot grow corn for $1.80/bushel. Now they are getting their way, I hope they like it. In the US we spend a smaller percentage of our income on food than almost any country in the world. And more Americans than ever are obese. And good luck feeding the worlds poor, that has more to do with political corruption than the price of corn in Iowa. Do you think the poeple in bangledesh can afford to buy corn from Iowa and have it shipped to them?

[ChristopherCalder]

When you combine global warming with biofuel production, you have an out of control food supply disaster. Biofuel production accelerates global warming, creates water shortages, and erodes topsoil.

A new study says biofuels from switchgrass (cellulose) will never be cost effective.

www.card.iastate.edu/p...

See biofuel facts at:

home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-...

[Cheap]

So you want to go from being a slave of the Gas pump to being a slave to the Biofuel pump? Why when electricity is already pumped to your home? Also, if you wanted you could make some of that electricity at home.

Think about it. We need oil and all the important things we build with it. We just don't need it to burn in our cars and throw in the air for all of us to breathe in our lungs. Burning biofuel also will end up in our lungs. We have electric cars on the road that work right now. They could be built to be any size, speed, or power.

What about hydrogen? Again that is bad for us. Who is going to pay for all those hydrogen stations to be built? That is right…our tax dollars will go to make yet another small group of people very rich.

Look you already know how to plug in your TV set, so why not ask the auto makers to put a plug on your car, truck, or SUV so you can get 100 or even 200mpg. Some people will even go most weeks without using any gas.

Plug-In cars will not work for everyone, but they will work for enough people so that fuel prices will come down. For those who will be able to drive plug-in cars, they will save lots of money. For those not willing to plug-in or can’t, I can only say…It sucks to be you.
Plug-In cars can be built to be any size, speed, or power. They are good for our environment, our economy, our wallets, and our national security. 100mpg cars are real and on the road now. If Auto makers won’t make them, too bad, because guys like me are going to keep building them. Americans are meant to be free, and we are not going to stay slaves to foreign oil any longer.
video.google.com/video...

[GeorgeMo]

bar310 > I think you're misuing the phrase "coal gassification". You're talking about "coal liquification" (where coal is turned into synthetic gasoline). Gassification is a process where superheated steam is injected into the burn cycle at coal power plants in an effort to increase efficiency. It's a common mistake though.

About the article, I'd like to see some citations for the numbers. "Ethanol is 20% less efficient than gasoline"? What does that even mean? If the author is referring to the lower energy density of ethanol, then Mr. Smicklas needs to be more clear and get his numbers right. A gallon of Ethanol has only 66% of the BTUs of a gallon of 88 octane gasoline in the lab environment, but the reduction of knock can yield better real world performance.

A study by the University of North Dakota Energy and Environmental Research Center and the Minnesota Center for Automotive Research suggests that ethanol can actually improve performance. In limited trials, they found that a mix of 20% or 30% ethanol boosted mileage on some E85 test vehicles.

[AlexS]

You don't have to fool all of the people all of the time. You just have to fool enough people to get a majority in Congress.

[ED K]

ETHANOL IS A MYTH AS A REPLACEMENT FOR PETROLEUM BASED FUELS AND ANIMAL FAT AND WASTE FUELS AT PRESENT ONLY PERTAIN TO DIESEL,ALTHOUGH THESE HELP SOMEWHAT THEY CAN NOT REPLACE PETROLEUM.THE SOLUTION HAS TO COME FROM A COMBINATIOS OF THESE.NATURAL GAS,AND TECHNOLOGY.I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE WE CAN SEND MEN TO THE MOON BUT CAN NOT DEVELOPE AUTOMOTIVE ENGINES THAT CAN GET 50 MPG OR MORE.THE WORST THING THAT CAN HAPPEN IN THIS SITUATION IS FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO GET INVOLVED.THERE NEEDS TO BE A DISCONNECT BETWEEN THE OIL COMPANIES,AUTOMAKERS,A... THE GOVERNMENT.

[VirtualOptics]

This article is insightful but misses another point where the US Government is overlooking the obvious. They have outlawed the use of methanol as the additive to gasoline to improve emissions and reduce consumption. That is made by an established company Methanex (MEOH) symbol who already makes this in South America. There are some good white papers on their web site (www.methanex.com) which also shows that gasoline could be synthesized from methanol. Methanol is a product that can come from coal or natural gas. It could be used in a fuel cell to produce electricity for vehicles. There are no effective lobbyists for methanol production.

[SimeonLiebman]

I am a "Green" thinking sort of individual and investor...and my direct question to this author and the individuals quoted within the article is "Then What?" What are the alternatives? If anything, we must all face the reality that the fossil fuels will be drained. At least the "re-newable" crop/biowaste/organic materials option is cyclical. And if our own country's history is in fact accurate, agriculture is the backbone of the economy. How about all the taxpayer money spent on Farm subsidies? Just about all of the individuals quoted represent Earth friendly agendas, and I am all about that. Brazil's primary agricultural keystone is sugar cane - and they are making it work for them. Now New Zealand, a country with excessive dead forests and organic debris is looking to Verenium's enzymes for BioFuel independence. Ironically enough, WE organically thinking individuals must recognize the fact that all the green-stuff eventually dies. Now whether we burn, bury, or bundle it, we might as well Benefit from it. Not a single mention in this article mentions the off-setting Oxygen emmisions from the growth of crops or even forests grown specifically for the BioFuel markets. We all can admit that neither coal, oil, natural gas or even the Industries, refineries, trucks, tankers, pipelines...none of these can create oxygen!!

And the troubles in the world have an awful lot more to do with Oil, Coal & "Natural" Gas, than crop prices...The world's poorest and warring countries are suffering a terrible drought!!!

[lcs]

It was Abe Lincoln who said you can't fool all of the people all the time. P.T. Barnum said "There is a sucker born every minute" which is even more appropriate for the Ethanol story.

[mixter]

The "greenie-weenie&q... idiots that promote "plug in" electric cars conveniently overlook the fact that there has to be an energy source to generate the electricity. Coal is the cheapest of the abundant sources, then natural gas is the cleanest. Hydopower requires water and damns, whereas wind turbines are not generating electricity when the wind subsides, normally during during peak electrical usage periods. Then there is geo-thermal, but it is limited to areas of geo-thermal activity. And of course, the anti-nukers would object to the most feasible way to generate electricity for the foreseeable future.

Of all the best possible solutions, we can bet the fools in "Big" government will promote the most expensive and least effective way
to try to solve our energy needs. Only the free market can do this if it is given the chance to do so without stupid regulations.

[Dr. No]

Two thirds of Americans are overweight, one third is obese, worse than any other country. 70% of grain is used to generate animal protein at a 8:1 ratio. There is huge savings potential for grain in a better diet (ie avoiding cardivascular and metabolic diseases) by cutting meat intake. Also, Americans eat twice as much as they need per day - again huge savings potential right on your plate.
Finally, America is the biggest consumer of everything: energy, food.

Make the connection fatzo: eat less - drive more!

[BobbyFontaine]

I have seen consistent complaints from consumers for mileage loss between a 10 to 15% loss. I go through a tank of gas much faster. If I was losing what the government claims because ethanol has a lower energy value of 30 percent which with ethanol added to gasoline at 10% would be a 3 percent mileage loss, I would never notice it. What I’m wondering is if anyone is reaching the conclusion I am which is that if we're adding 10 percent ethanol to gasoline and losing between 10 and 15 percent mileage, well do the math. If this country has been throwing away 10 and 15% mileage while also paying for the ethanol industry to pretend it's producing fuel, well it is no wonder the economy is falling apart.

bobbyfontaine@verizon....

[Is thisRight]

You know that there is a bit on bashing when the easiest number to verify is wrong "Ethanol is at $2.00 when corn is at $6.00".
Ethanol ( as of 3/26 noon) is at $2.47 while corn is at $5.48.
A price difference of $3 versus $4 is a LOT.

Now for the other facts:
1/ "The corn used for ethanol could be used for feeding the poor" Question is : would the corn be grown at all if there is no ethanol sales to supplement oil-based gas?

2/ "Ethanol uses as much energy as the coal, oil and natural gas that it takes to make the ethanol".
Question is : why is it we do not turn coal or natural gas into gas?
So taking coal or natural gas energy and CONVERTING it to fuel to put in a car is ingenious!
3/ "The cost of subsidies pf $1-$1.38...'
a) My understanding is that the CORN ethanol subsidy is 50c a gallon. It goes to the REFINERS to kick start their investments to build the infrastructure to store/mix/distribute ethanol. Now this infrastructure is partly USABLE for cellulosic ethanol in the future.
b) the $1-$1.38 is to have the ethanol industry do the research/development/b... new plants for ethanol which will not depend on corn.

So first the author of the article blames the use of corn, then votes again approach to develop ethanol with other than corn.
OK, let's hear your POSITIVE proposal on how to solve the energy challenge. I will start first : I am all for conservation=driving less, buy smaller cars. Any other ideas to burn LESS OIL BASED GAS?

[Shenandoah]

This is a case? What about looking at the actual 2007 results instead of imaginary ills with no numerical back up

In 2007, the ethanol industry alone provided the following benefits to the nation:
• U.S. Production and use of 6.5 billion gallons of ethanol in 2007 displaced the need for 228.2 million barrels of oil at an estimated value of $16.8 billion with the accompanying benefit to the United States trade balance.
• The Federal government received 4.6 billion in sales taxes against an expenditure of $3.4 billion in incentives. States received an additional $3.6 billion in taxes
• The rejuvenated agriculture community allowed the Government to reduce subsidy costs for farm programs by an estimated $8 billion
• Helped support the creation of 238,541 new jobs, more than 46,000 of which are in the manufacturing sector;
• Increased the Gross Domestic Product by $47.6 billion
• increased household incomes by $12.3 billion

This contrasts with the effects of continuing the existing status that is crippling the US economy through massive imports.

And what about the tremendous advances occurring because we are using two of the countries basic tecnological strengths? biotechnoloy and agriculture.

Please read Energy/Victory by Zubrin before you reach post again

[Bingo 2]

Mr. Smicklas is right on target. It is a pity that we have been sold a bill of goods regarding the biofuels . It only illustrates how incompetent our government is and has been for a number of years. We should have been working on a real energy substitute years ago. Oh well we all know big oil has the White House in their pocket.

[TAS]

It appears that many points made against ethanol are based upon facts and personal observation, while many points made for ethanol are based on imposing one's lifestyle on another and "big government is best" ideas. In any event, it is good that both sides are heard.

[Cousin A.]

"Cheap's" posts reek of common sense. At least people with his attitude DO something about our energy problems rather than just whine about what others try to do. No, I don't own a plug-in electric car, but I wish I did.

[Cheap]

Mixter,
I've been using Clean Domestic Wind Energy for about a year now to charge my Plug-in car and I do get over 100mpg. I know others who have solar panels that have long since paid for themselves, and they now plug their cars in at home too so their transportation fuel is free.

Let me concede this fact: “You can’t predict when the wind will blow or the sun will shine.”

Now I hope you can concede this fact: “The wind will blow, and the sun will shine, eventually”

That being said we need Coal and Natural Gas, but that does not mean we should not use natural resources.

As far as being a “greenie-weenie idiot”…
Well, I might be a weenie, but as far as Greenie, or and idiot, you have me all wrong.
I’m a conservative who has found a way to invest a little in a car so I can get over 100mpg, saving me money to help make my stock portfolio even bigger. I can take my family to more places and on more trips now that I save over $600 per month in overall energy savings. I am all for our free market and I am against regulations that limit a company’s ability to make money. However I have seen lots of companies improve their bottom line by embracing clean technologies and crushing their competition who try to save a nickel at the cost of our health.

So Mixter, if you don’t mind I’m going to take myself out of the “Oil sold to a SUCKER” equation as much as possible. Look at it this way; it saves more Oil for you to buy. Don’t worry about your finances though, I’ll be sure to leave you a big tip when you’re waiting tables at your second job. Then again, you could try to do something good for your family and for our economy by conserving and spending more of your hard earned money in your local community instead of giving it to foreign oil.
I never said we don’t need oil, I just don’t think burning it and throwing it in the air for all of us to breathe into our lungs is the best use of our resources.
Now if you will excuse me, I’m going to go cook some weenies for my family on my solar oven, not because it is Green, but because it will save me even more money to invest!

[User 168594]

"The only way for grain biofuels to make money is through government subsidies by the wealthy, liberal-leaning nations around the globe."

Umm...explain to me again how ethanol somehow became a liberal/progressive agenda, when clearly Bush was the one pushing so hard for corn ethanol to help solidify the Republican's political backing in the farm belt?

If anything, liberals have been among the staunchest opponents of biofuels as the least effective alternative energy source to combat global warming. This sounds a lot like the way Fox News likes to spin all bad news towards the Democrats, how convenient.

[live_long_and_prosper_sTock]

Geez. What interest! IF ethanol is produced efficiently, plenty of studies have shown a GAIN of 30 to 35 %. That's all BTU in = 100, and all VALUE out (ethanol plus byproducts -- cattle can still eat the heck out of the "distiller's grain" that remains) = 130+
The point is that Eth is "drive around" energy !! The coal isn't. The Nat'l gas sure isn't very. And the "green energy" from the Nuke plant also doesn't use any petro products. I can drive to our local Nuke plant, and right adjacent to it is the power company's biggest customer -- a Cargill corn processing plant. Some studies say the gain from ethanol is up to SEVEN times in "drive around" energy consumed. That said, in no way are bio-fuels THE answer!! But they are a PART of the many answers. Invest in / or work for / even better batteries -- then you can put the output of the wind, the Nuke, or the solar power "in your tank" directly.

[ErichRiesenberg]

It is pitiful that your political bias is so strong that you label ethanol a liberal program. It is simply crony capitalism, and dollar for dollar the majority flows to large corporations. If people would stick to the facts instead of name calling and political rhetoric the country would be better for it. I live in Iowa and when I have spoken with small family farmers, they generally recongize it as a wasteful form of corporate welfare.

[jagdaddy]

Wow! It has been a long time since I've seen an article this riddled with inaccuracy, mis-direction and bad research. I would guess that Mr. Smicklas is employed by an oil company based in the middle east. The article contains almost every argument I've ever heard against ethanol, all of wich have been shown to not be backed up by the evidence. The biggest myth is that.. producing ethanol from corn will reduce, or increse the price of, the nation's (and world's) food supply. This argument is totally unsupported by the facts. The amount of corn processed into edible food products is far less than 10% of current production levels, and the comodity price is less than 5% of the final associated food cost. Also ignored is the fact that farmers are producing more corn per acre than ever before, and, due to advances in sience, will be increasing production even further. In fact, future increases in production will even outstrip any increased demand from the ethanol industry. All without adding more land to the production base. Despite these gains, there has actually been a reduction in cropland acrage due to govermental purchasing.

I would urge people to look at the numbers for themselves instead of taking one side or annothers view for granted. You never know the motivation of an author.

[feldman]

What?!?! We dont eat corn!!!! Food prices are not going up because of high corn prices. They are going up because of higher transportation costs. Cost of fuel has doubled in the last couple years. What do you think one of the biggest expenses for food distributors is? Transportation!! duh! The amount of corn syrup etc... in foods is extremely minimal. Even if corn prices double, which they have, that would raise food with corn product in it like 5 cents. Bad for global warming???? No way!!! ARe you kidding me??!?!!!

[feldman]

PS The corn we do actually eat is sweet corn. Not the same stuff that is harvested for ethanol.

[dottowbird1]

I do not know what is wrong with people, You don't see the problem this country is in ;to debate this matter, the planet is already polluted, and us with less money and Terror Countries with more money the situation is worse than ever, this demagogs of OPEC, are blocking the posibilities of getting out of terror oil.

[david hill]

Biofuels (and carbon capture) are a 'catastrophe' for future humankind.

The decisions being taken by governments around the world in the quest for sustainability are a catastrophe for humankind in the long-term. Two of these decisions at the forefront of news are biofuels, and carbon capture and storage.

Biofuels -- the fuel revolution that will supposedly help us:
(1) Growing crops in the United States for biofuels requires around the same energy input for fertilisers and processing the crops as that saved by replacing petrol on the forecourt (Biofuels - A solution worse than the problem, Daily Telegraph).
(2) By harvesting the peat bogs for biofuels, we release 30 times more carbon dioxide than will be recouped by burning the biofuel produced (Prof. Jack Riley, University of Nottingham).
(3) Growing biofuels takes a lot of land and huge amounts of water -- neither of which the world has to spare.
(4) China and India risk famine if they proceed with their biofuels plans, because they don't have enough water to grow both fuel and food (International Water Management Institute).
(5) Biofuels are killing forests and leading to more global warming, besides taking land away from food crops (Global Forest Coalition).
(6) The diversion of land meant for food crops to agrofuel production is a "crime against humanity" (Jean Ziegler, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food).

Carbon Capture -- putting off today what others will have to solve tomorrow:

(1) Carbon sequestration and storage (under our oceans and land) is an untried method of locking up carbon dioxide forever, but there is not a 100 per cent assurance that it will not escape. Possible escape routes include earthquakes, land shifts, terrorism (holding the world to ransom) or human disasters/accidents.
(2) Sequestration and storage of carbon dioxide is not a solution, but a problem that humankind will have to face in the future -- one that might eventually threaten the existence of human life itself on Earth, for nothing ever designed has lasted forever.
(3) Governments, as usual, are only looking at solving problems today without any understanding of what this will bring in the future. They are attempting to lock up gases that are toxic to humans -- leaving any problems for future generations to solve.
(4) If there was a rupture in the storage vessel, the ramifications for the world would be immense, to say the very least. Therefore, carbon capture is a method of putting off today what others will have to fix tomorrow (if they can).

Dr David Hill
World Innovation Foundation Charity
Bern, Switzerland

[dottowbird1]

The world is 80% water, and this is a good solution to bankrupt the terrorist, until the Fuel cell, and electric vehicles take over.