Corn Ethanol (And Soy BioDiesel maybe), get to bypass that section of the law, and are automatically assumed to qualify.

Logically, though, it should be, "Not all that glisters [glistens, glitters] is gold," even as the Amtrak announcement at stops in New Jersey should say, not "All doors will not open," but rather, "Not all doors will open."

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Sugar cane is a good alcohol fuel, ethanol, quit trying to bash it. Brazil got it right.

It won't solve 1/10 or our fuel problem needs but would be far better all around than corn.

Sugar is not a food stock its an additive, a condiment. Who cares if we run the price of it up and make it expensive, might solve half of our obesity problem.

Don't knock a green fuel that actually works, Brazil has switched 4,000,000 cars over on straight ethanol.

I would rater have electric and I believe that is where the Fed and private money should be spent. However, if you still want to help the farmer, use sugar cane also.

The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.

Sugar cane is a good alcohol fuel, ethanol, quit trying to bash it. Brazil got it right.

Aside from that fact that

1. Brazil gets almost all their fuel from petroleum
http://greyfalcon.net/brazil
http://greyfalcon.net/brazil3

2. Brazil uses 7x less oil per capita than America
http://greyfalcon.net/brazil2

3. Brazilian Sugarcane is destroying the most biodiverse sannana on earth
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-corn-ethanol- ...

4. And causing displaced soy/cattle farmers to move into the Amazon Rainforrest
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-corn-ethanol- ...

5. 1000-to-1 times less effective at capturing sunlight into motive energy than solar thermal dishes.
http://greyfalcon.net/sugarsolar

6. And large parts of the industry rely on near or actual slave labor
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/30/12325/3158#com ...
http://www.sucre-ethique.org/Report-on-sugarcane-social

And this is one of the letter's strongest points, vamping on the FAO message, seems like:

The implication that biofuel production is responsible for the destruction of the Amazon rain forest ignores the reality that ever increasing worldwide demand for food and fiber is the primary cause of land use change in this and other regions. Simply eliminating biofuels will not stop land use changes from occurring

Anyhoo, here's the whole thing for your interest:

25x'25 Responds to Time Magazine Biofuels Article with Letter to the Editor  
4/3/08

Responding to widespread inaccuracies in this week's Time magazine cover story, the 25x'25 National Steering Committee is responding with a letter to the editors of Time expressing disappointment with the questionable characterization of biofuels and their role in the issue of greenhouse gas emissions in "The Clean Energy Scam," by Michael Grunwald. The letter was authored by steering committee member and former Congressman Thomas W. Ewing, who is also the Immediate Past Chairman of the USDA and DOE Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee. The entire letter follows:

--

As a former Member of Congress and a leader in a diverse alliance of agricultural, environmental and conservation organizations working together to advance clean energy solutions, I am greatly disturbed with Time magazine's April 7th feature story on biofuels. In this article, Michael Grunwald criticizes biofuels yet offers no alternative to using petroleum to meet our energy needs - much of which comes from the Middle East.

Members of our alliance share the author's anxiety for the continued health of the Amazon rain forest and other "carbon sinks" that nature has provided around the globe. As champions of many forms of land-based renewable energy (biomass, wind energy, solar power, geothermal energy and hydropower, in addition to biofuels), we agree that environmentally sensitive lands should not be exploited in pursuit of renewable fuels.

Unfortunately, the story's message of concern is undermined by misinformation about biofuels and an over-simplified analysis of complex systems. The implication that biofuel production is responsible for the destruction of the Amazon rain forest ignores the reality that ever increasing worldwide demand for food and fiber is the primary cause of land use change in this and other regions. Simply eliminating biofuels will not stop land use changes from occurring, and in countries like Haiti that have already lost their forests, biofuels could help reestablish forests and offer more affordable and sustainable energy options. Similarly, information in the story about a recent study, which claims land-use changes brought about by increased biofuel production are producing more greenhouse gas emissions (Searchinger et al.), only tells half the story. What is missing is that Searchinger's methodologies have been widely questioned by respected biofuel life-cycle analysis researchers such as Michael Wang, with the Center for Transportation Research at the Argonne National Laboratory, who counter that Searchinger et al. used outdated, if not incorrect, data to reach their conclusions.

The story's reference to a UN food expert's dramatic condemnation of biofuel production fails to mention that the UN Food and Agriculture Organization almost immediately distanced itself from the remarks. The head of the UN Food Program recently noted that higher energy costs, erratic weather and low stocks are big factors contributing to the high cost of food around the globe.

Of particular concern is the ready dismissal of emerging technologies that will allow us to produce next generation biofuels from non-food feedstocks sustainably grown on underutilized and marginal lands not suited for food production. Conservation tillage and other agriculture and forestry residue management practices used to produce biomass energy feedstocks can also provide a constant buildup of soil organic carbon. Researchers at Ohio State have concluded that the total potential of carbon sequestration in U.S. soils, counting croplands, grazing lands and woodlands, is nearly 600 million metric tons of carbon, or the equivalent of more than 2,200 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions - about 33 percent of total U.S. emissions.

We encourage the editors of Time to contribute to a much-needed discussion of the role renewable resources will play in improving national security and the environment while moving us closer to energy independence. We simply ask that they demand a basic level of accuracy and balance from the stories that they run.

For a full list of talking points relative to the Time article,

http://25x25.nonprofitsoapbox.com/storage/25x25/documents ...  

--

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more

This debate is getting ridiculous. The biofuel lobby can't have it both ways -- claim in one breath that maintaining growth in biofuels is vital to hold up commodity prices, and then at the same time play down the effect of biofuel policies on prices whenever somebody else raises an objection.

It is of course that true rising general demand for agricultural products, and bad harvests in places like Australia have been contributing factors. (At the same time, let's not forget the record harvests in the United States.) But biofuel support policies are certainly fanning the flames. Moreover, thanks to mandates, a legal preference is given, effectively, to fuel over food, which means that, up to a point, biofuel producers can out-bid other users of those same commodities.

Naturally, the 25 x 25 folks dismiss Tim Searchinger's research, noting that "researchers such as Michael Wang, with the Center for Transportation Research at the Argonne National Laboratory" have claimed that Searchinger et al. used outdated, if not incorrect, data to reach their conclusions. Of course, the 25 x 25 folks equally fail to mention that Searching has responded to Wang et al.'s allegations, point by point.


These are only my personal opinions.

Of course, the 25 x 25 folks equally fail to mention that Searching has responded to Wang et al.'s allegations, point by point.

Bear in mind, it is not biofuels, per se that they are defending, but government subsidies, mandates and border protection that they are defending. If none of that existed, they would not have to defend their business (nor would there be much of a business to defend). We may be concerned about what soy production is doing to tropical forests but nobody is telling people not to eat soy.

But trying to cut off debate about the effects of biofuel demand on prices -- because other factors are contributing to the price rises -- is like downplaying the effects of war because most people die of disease.

These are only my personal opinions.

1. Critics always hold up Michael Wang.
   
2. Always say "old and outdated information".
   
3. And then create strawman arguments about what the author supposedly said, even though he didn't actual say those things.

Like your war analogy.

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more

With expected corn acreage in the USA down by 6% this year, new biofuel plants coming on-line in Canada, and the spreading of the Ug99 fungus, which kills wheat, hold onto your seat.

Meanwhile, the biofuel-food-price deniers are out in full force. It's all a disinformation campaign orchestrated by the oil companies, you see.

Special message to GreyFlcn: Here's a nice round-up of world biofuel news ("Biofuels: a three-ring circus"), rich in links to other articles. To quote its conclusions:

All of the above merely draws attention to one thing: while some kind of biofuel not yet in commercial development may one day significantly reduce -- gallon for gallon -- the lifecycle carbon cost of vehicle fuel, that day is not here. In the interim, the biofuels debate has become a three-ring circus diverting attention away from the challenge of reducing CO2 emissions right now.

The head of the UN Food Program recently noted that higher energy costs, erratic weather and low stocks are big factors contributing to the high cost of food around the globe." ie, not biofuels.

Note that nobody in the referenced link said that biofuels are not one of the "big factors contributing to the high cost of food." The "ie, not biofuels" Erik stuck on the end, telling us that biofuels are not contributing to the high prices was, ah, inaccruate.

Biofuels are exacerbating the high prices. They are contributing to them. Everybody knows that now. You can't put 20-25% of America's corn crop into cars and not expect to see the price of corn go up.

Biofuels are a major reason why there are low stocks and of course weather is always erratic, by its very nature, which is why it is important to have stocks.

Time is getting a taste of the hate fest that Monbiot and I saw when we first started critiquing these fuels a couple years ago. I have participated in several local biofuel protests and invariably biodiesel drivers will blow their horn and give us the finger.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

As we have described, the food market [in the middle part of this decade] was at the critical point of a cyclical re-adjustment. Food stocks were falling, demand was rising, and prices were trending upwards. Farmers got busier and supply started to react, trending upwards. Then came the rogue element. It entered the arena right at the critical moment. This rogue element dislocated the food market, moving what would have been a normal (and gradual) market adjustment of demand, supply, and price to a situation of severe dislocation, which can only be described as a global food shock --- as far as we know, the first in human history.

In the past, severe dislocations to the world food markets have occurred due to extreme weather --- and they have been relatively short lived. Not this time. Western governments, particularly the EU, the US and Canada have now adopted the view that the world was getting warmer primarily because fossil fuels were being burnt. The world, if it were to be saved, had to move radically and quickly to renewable fuel sources. The age of biofuel had come.

The effect of this has been to turn vast swathes of grain producing land into production hubs for the raw material to produce ethanol. The most commonly used raw material is corn. Consequently, a huge amount of grain has been suddenly removed from the world's food supply. So the world food aid people are right: more food crops are being produced than ever before--and there is theoretically no shortage. That is only half right. Yes, food crops are being grown, but it is being diverted away into ethanol production. Food is no longer food; it is fuel.

At a time when global food supply and demand were tightly stretched anyway, suddenly the world food market has been distorted by a giant politician-cum-green monkey wrench. The result: huge market dislocation and a global food shock.

They then quote Lester Brown: "Since the budgets of international food agencies are set well in advance, a rise in food price shrinks food assistance. The UN World Food Programme (WFP), which is now supplying emergency food aid to 37 countries, is cutting shipments as prices soar. The WFP reports that 18,000 children are dying each day from hunger and related illnesses."

For a more up-to-date report on the WFP's problems, see this article in the Los Angeles Times, "Food aid costlier as need soars."

These are only my personal opinions.

Anyhow, I was just paraphrasing 25x25's position, one not often heard in this blog. I found it interesting, FWIW.

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more

But then again, I figure the actual arguments themselves are fair game.

Dear [ids]:

Thank you for writing to share your thoughts about the Iraq War and global hunger.  I appreciate hearing from you, and believe that we can do better in seeking an end to both of these problems.

On November 20th, I gave a speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs detailing my views on the changes that need to be made in our Iraq policy. I have enclosed a copy of that speech for your review.  I hope you will continue to share your thoughts with me as developments occur.

I also share your concerns about hunger globally and nationally, and hope that my role as a Senator will allow me to contribute to the search for solutions to this terrible human problem.  As you know, hunger and malnutrition are particularly devastating for children, and we must do all we can to give our youth a head start.

From food aid programs to disaster relief programs to the Dole-McGovern international school lunch program, I support a wide range of U.S. assistance efforts that attempt to alleviate the suffering caused by hunger and malnutrition.  As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I will continue to push for additional resources as well as innovative approaches  to deal with this critical issue.

You mentioned a concern that ethanol production is taking food out of people's mouths. Generally speaking, scarcity of food is not the cause of global hunger. The world produces enough food to feed itself, but economic failures and other localized problems such as war cause hunger and famine in different places and at different times.

Thank you again for writing.
Sincerely,

Barack Obama
United States Senator

On another subject:
"Consider our large investment in carbon capture and sequestration for "clean coal" combustion, another subsidy backed by the lobbying power of big industries."

According to the Center for American Progress
"While the technologies are complex, the overall value of introducing [CCS] into the U.S. and global economies is undeniable." http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/03/ccs_101.ht ... March 31, 2008.  So it is not just big industry, unless you're saying . . .

Anyway, I like the good news part of this post.