Pages: 1

 

2008-06-02 13:15:32
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,081|7249|PNW

Increased price of a food commodity has been one attack I've seen against ethanol, but I found an odd article in a NG mag I picked up along with two sandwiches after work the other day:

Chris Carroll, National Geographic Magazine wrote:

Dead in the Water

It forms each spring and hits its lethal peak in summer--a blighted, oxygen-starved patch of the Gulf of Mexico. "Dead zones" occur around the world, from the Chesapeake Bay to the Baltic Sea. The biggest culprit? Agricultural runoff. In this case, fertilizer from upstream fields runs down the Mississippi River to the Gulf, where it spurs algae blooms. When the algae die (or are eaten and egested by zooplankton), they decompose on the bottom, depleting the oxygen, suffocating sea life--and hurting livelihoods. Clint Guidry, a Louisiana shrimper, says, "People can't imagine how much marine life this is killing." Last year's dead zone was the third largest since monitoring began in the 1980s, but 2008's could top it: The push for ethanol fuel means farmers are planting more corn, a crop often heavily fertilized.
Ethanol, working to save the planet one lobster at a time?

[edited to removed a ) typo]
[edit 2: I know runoff isn't anything new, but was brought back to my attention]

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-06-02 15:08:03)

2008-06-02 13:37:53
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,081|7249|PNW

I am offering up an article [edit: that I did not write, in case you didn't see the credit] for commentary. The last comment, for the sarcastically-challenged, was a joke, not an opinion. I find it best to withhold strong opinions from OP's if you don't want your thread overrun by flame.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-06-02 13:43:25)

2008-06-02 14:47:16
liquix
Member
+51|6931|Peoples Republic of Portland
every farm family i knew when I grew up used 2x the amount of suggested nitrogen fertilizer..."just in case"

I'm sure that doesn't help. Yay destroying the oceans to make good old HFC syrup and shitty ethanol.
2008-06-02 14:51:50
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6968|Northern California
GMO corn FTW!
2008-06-02 15:03:03
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|7047|Portland, OR, USA
This isn't a recent problem.  Due to the incredible amount of agricultural production in middle America, we're loosing something like 7% of our topsoil every decade... which is huge, because without topsoil you can't grow anything -- at least not the tremendous amounts that we do (Dust Bowl).
2008-06-02 16:28:31
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6882|North Carolina
Why not just raise environmental standards?  We could mandate that agribusinesses clean up their acts far more, so that far less runoff would occur.

These days, most agriculture is corporate, and they aren't exactly hurting for money.  They can afford to clean up their production, and if we don't force them to do so, it will cost the rest of us far more in ecological damage.
2008-06-02 17:05:16
Commie Killer
Member
+192|6864

Turquoise wrote:

Why not just raise environmental standards?  We could mandate that agribusinesses clean up their acts far more, so that far less runoff would occur.

These days, most agriculture is corporate, and they aren't exactly hurting for money.  They can afford to clean up their production, and if we don't force them to do so, it will cost the rest of us far more in ecological damage.
Sure, maybe the majority of stuff produced might be from corporations, but what about the majority of people who owns farms? They are your average family. Hell, my state is covered in them. What happens to them with this "clean up their production" idea? They get fucked over and thrown out of business which causes corporations to buy their land for farming/houses/warehouses/etc.
2008-06-02 17:58:00
ATG
Banned
+5,233|7006|Global Command
The sky is a-falling.
2008-06-02 18:07:33
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6882|North Carolina

Commie Killer wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Why not just raise environmental standards?  We could mandate that agribusinesses clean up their acts far more, so that far less runoff would occur.

These days, most agriculture is corporate, and they aren't exactly hurting for money.  They can afford to clean up their production, and if we don't force them to do so, it will cost the rest of us far more in ecological damage.
Sure, maybe the majority of stuff produced might be from corporations, but what about the majority of people who owns farms? They are your average family. Hell, my state is covered in them. What happens to them with this "clean up their production" idea? They get fucked over and thrown out of business which causes corporations to buy their land for farming/houses/warehouses/etc.
The vast majority of farming is corporate.  The laws could be written to be more forgiving of small farms.
2008-06-02 18:28:53
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,081|7249|PNW

Turquoise wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Why not just raise environmental standards?  We could mandate that agribusinesses clean up their acts far more, so that far less runoff would occur.

These days, most agriculture is corporate, and they aren't exactly hurting for money.  They can afford to clean up their production, and if we don't force them to do so, it will cost the rest of us far more in ecological damage.
Sure, maybe the majority of stuff produced might be from corporations, but what about the majority of people who owns farms? They are your average family. Hell, my state is covered in them. What happens to them with this "clean up their production" idea? They get fucked over and thrown out of business which causes corporations to buy their land for farming/houses/warehouses/etc.
The vast majority of farming is corporate.  The laws could be written to be more forgiving of small farms.
Then the corporate farms get to advertise their stuff as more closely adhering to "environmentally responsible legislation."
2008-06-02 21:03:06
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6882|North Carolina

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:


Sure, maybe the majority of stuff produced might be from corporations, but what about the majority of people who owns farms? They are your average family. Hell, my state is covered in them. What happens to them with this "clean up their production" idea? They get fucked over and thrown out of business which causes corporations to buy their land for farming/houses/warehouses/etc.
The vast majority of farming is corporate.  The laws could be written to be more forgiving of small farms.
Then the corporate farms get to advertise their stuff as more closely adhering to "environmentally responsible legislation."
Indeed they would, which is why it would be best for small farmers to do what they can to also clean things up.  Inevitably, small farmers will eventually become a thing of the past for various reasons -- environmental regulation is a very small factor in the grand scheme of things.
2008-06-02 22:40:50
Fred[OZ75]
Jihad Jeep Driver
+19|7237|Perth, Western Australia
If you want efficient farmers which do not overuse fertiliser and plant for the future?

STOP SUBSIDISING THEM!!!!

Subsidies just keep inefficient practices in place and cause cropping based solely on the highest subsidity.
2008-06-03 03:16:01
BVC
Member
+325|7173
Electric cars.

End.
2008-06-03 13:52:54
Fred[OZ75]
Jihad Jeep Driver
+19|7237|Perth, Western Australia
Ethanol does work when the right inputs are used for its production.

Brazil has mandated that all new cars sold must be able to run on either 100% ethanol or 100% petrol or any combination of both, they have used sugar cane to produce their ethanol and with the current over production of sugar on the world market it makes perfect sense. IF a mid sized country like Brazil can do it then any country could, in fact they currently are massively expanding their cane crops and soon will be exporting ethanol to the US.

The massive advantage of ethanol of all other new fuel sources is it can fit into existing fuel supply chains with no real change (unlike say hydrogen).

Ethanol does have a couple of problems;
1) It does take up farm land which may have been use for food production 
2) the actually produce ethanol does take up a bit of electricity

Considering we will have to find alternative energy sources anyway I don't see that it is a little less energy efficient makes much difference.

Combine this with bio diesel which basically made from waste products (ie used cooking oils) you could replace your entire fuel sources. (except maybe for aviation)

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard