Ethanol: Feed a Person for a Year or Fill Up an SUV? (CounterPunch, via AlterNet)

[marmar]

Ethanol: Feed a Person for a Year or Fill Up an SUV?

By Robert Bryce, CounterPunch. Posted March 5, 2007.


While politicians and Big Agriculture insist on casting the need for ethanol in terms of national security, the larger issue is a moral one: are we going to use our precious farmland to grow food, or use it to make motor fuel?

The ethanol scam just keeps getting more and more absurd. In January, three U.S. senators -- two Democrats, Tom Harkin of Iowa and Barack Obama of Illinois, along with Indiana Republican Richard Lugar -- introduced a bill that would promote the use of ethanol. It also mandates the use of more biodiesel and creates tax credits for the production of cellulosic ethanol. They called their bill the "American Fuels Act of 2007."

The most amazing part of the press release trumpeting the legislation is its fourth paragraph, in which Lugar declares that "U.S. policies should be targeted to replace hydrocarbons with carbohydrates."

Let's consider that for a moment. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the U.S. economy was primarily based on carbohydrates. For most people, horses were the main mode of transportation. They were also a primary work source for plowing and planting. Aside from coal, which was used by the railroads and in some factories, the U.S. economy depended largely on the ability of draft animals to turn grass and forage into usable toil. America's farmers were solely focused on producing food and fiber. And while the U.S. was moderately prosperous, it was not a world leader.

Oil changed all that. After the discovery of vast quantities of oil in Texas, Oklahoma, and other locales, America was able to create a modern transportation system, with cars, buses, and airplanes. That oil helped the U.S. become a dominant military power. Humans were freed from the limitations of the carbohydrate economy, which was constrained by the amount of arable land.
....(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/48790/

[unpossibles]

1. this article makes a good point, BUT

as one of the comments points out, a HUGE amount of food and water is wasted because of our meat-heavy lifestyle, but this almost never gets mentioned.

Of course, the Beef people will tell you otherwise. I see no reason to doubt them; after all, the tobacco and oil companies are honest about their products too, right?

[enid602]

2. corn

Most ethanol in the US comes from corn, which feeds the cattle. A better question might be should we fill up our tanks or our stomachs with beef? We can live with less beef, but will be hard pressed to satisfy our transit dependency.

[XemaSab]

3. Beef doesn't NEED to be finished

But most Americans find grass-fed beef a bit gamy. :shrug:

[Shallah Kali]

8. Grass Fed Beef Contains CLA & Omega-3s

CLA is the stuff people are paying an arm and a leg for hoping it will help them loose weight.

Study Finds More Good Fats in Grass-fed Beef and Dairy
Pasture Production Better for the Environment, Higher in Omega-3 Fatty Acids than Conventional Beef and Milk
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/Grass-fed-Beef-and-Dairy-Study.html

[Shallah Kali]

4. Consume Mass Quantities! Anything less is UnAmerican!

I guess it is easy for me to agree since I gave up beef years ago when i found out about BSE aka Mad Cow and how the government refuses to test each cow for it unlike other countries. And I read of what they feed cattle and how they treat them. Later I read of how much food goes into cattle which gives such a small return. Somewhere here on DU someone started a thread on an article on how Vegan is the new hybrid car. I skimmed it when I saw how um, firm, some got when the ethics of consuming meat was questioned. Even if people did not go vegan reducing amounts by using meat as a condiment instead as the center of the meal would be helpful. We all need to make choices. Do we want food or fuel? Do we want smaller amounts of meat or risk having none at all unless you are among the wealthy? There might be a beer shortage soon as well since so many have given up growing barley for corn to reap the profits selling it for ethanol. see here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=85920&mesg_id=85920

[unpossibles]

5. uh oh! not beer!

yeah, honestly and realistically, I see our food and other environmental choices as trying to do the best we can. I don't expect anyone to eat only grass and berries, wear burlap, and walk everywhere (at least not until we have to...lol?), but to at least be conscious of what we eat and consume and how we live in general, and to try to be conscientious about those things as much as possible.

I think reduction is an obtainable goal and more realistic than expecting people to give up everything. I forget the link, but I read once that if people consumed just 10% less beef, our country's starving could be fed. Obviously, that would not happen right away, but the idea being how much more water and grain is needed to grow a pound of beef versus a pound of vegetables/grains.

Granted, there are figures ranging from small to huge with those ratios, but all of them show that the higher up on the food chain you go, the more resources it requires for the same amount of food, as well as higher concentrations of pesticides and more pollution.

[Shallah Kali]

6. We don't have to go back to subsistence living - unless the majority does fails reduce NOW

And I particularly mean the top tier of society who use the most resources. If the rest of humanity conserves and they continue at the current rate we are still in deep manure.

It would be awful nice if the powers that be hadn't ignored global warming 50+ years ago ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lgzz-L7GFg ). Or if they had stopped making fun of Jimmy Carter wearing sweaters around the White House long enough to support his efforts at conservation of energy and research into alternative energy. We wouldn't be so tightly squeezed between the devil and the deep blue sea just now. Maybe conservation would be considered a national virtue instead of massive consumption being the American way of life. Maybe everyone could have eased into the habit of frugality whereas now it is move it or loose it.

Did you see another shortage going on this one due to rising temps = Maple Syrup!
see here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x85792

[unpossibles]

7. I did see that. I also saw a story a while back about problems with bees

I love honey! Sure, I am allergic to bees, but I like them - we have a mutual non-aggression pact that seems to be working.