Full Tanks Empty Stomachs

[carbanonzo]

This article is not one of I myself have written, though credit has been given to it's author. I am new to the newgrounds political forum and am seeking to create a topic for discussion that is probably not a common one around here, or most places for that matter. The following article is pertaining to the ramifications of widespread ethanol production. Beyond the fact that it requires just as massive and infastructure to process and distribute as oil does, a massive move to ethanol would cause widespread starvation, as fields that once provided people with food are now put to the purpose of providing industrialized countries with a fuel source.

ethanol and Eco-Colonialism

By Skyler Simmons
Earth First! Journal
Beltane 2007

The buzz about ethanol has grown tremendously in the past few years as oil prices skyrocket, racist right-wingers look for a way to be independent of the Middle East, and lefties look for a quick fix to global warming that doesn't require them to reduce their level of consumption. This January, President Bush announced a plan to produce 35 billion gallons of biofuels (mostly ethanol) per year by 2017. Yet there has been little attention paid to the real social and environmental impacts of ethanol production.

In early March, Bush traveled to Brazil to secure massive imports of ethanol to the US. Bush's visit was met not with praise for supporting Brazilian agriculture but with militant protests decrying the environmental devastation and neo-colonialism perpetrated by Brazil's ethanol industry. In the region of Ribeirão Preto, 900 women took over an ethanol plant owned by the agribusiness cartel Cargill. They also decried the increased land consolidation that is occurring as wealthy landowners grab more and more land for monoculture sugarcane farms.

In São Paulo, demonstrators responded to Bush's visit by marching through the streets, carrying stalks of sugarcane and clashing with police. Protesters noted that increasing amounts of the Amazon rainforest are being cleared for monoculture farms to produce ethanol. Suzanne Pereira dos Santos of Brazil's Landless Workers Movement, who helped organize the march, remarked, "Bush and the US go to war to control oil reserves, and now Bush and his pals are trying to control the production of ethanol in Brazil, and that has to be stopped."

In February, massive protests broke out in Mexico over the price of corn, a major staple in that country. More than 75,000 people marched through the streets of Mexico City to demand an immediate reduction of corn prices. Why are corn prices so high? Because ever-increasing amounts of corn are going towards ethanol production, and this increased demand has caused corn prices to skyrocket. Corn is now going toward feeding the US's auto addiction rather than the world's poor.

The environmental impacts of ethanol production are also troubling. Growing the corn is incredibly energy intensive, in terms of fuel consumption by farm equipment and the large amounts of fossil-fuel-based fertilizers used. In addition, large quantities of toxic pesticides must be used.

ethanol distillation also burns large amounts of fossil fuels. Most distilleries burn natural gas, though more and more are relying on coal. One plant in Goldfield, Iowa, burns 300 tons of coal every day! Overall, ethanol is incredibly inefficient, taking three units of energy to make four. Some argue that it actually takes more energy to produce ethanol than you get from burning it.

Many proponents of ethanol claim that it is "carbon neutral"; since the carbon in the ethanol was originally sucked out of the atmosphere by the plant, they say it is a closed cycle. This ludicrous claim completely ignores the massive amounts of fossil fuels used in the growth, transportation and refinement of corn ethanol. In fact, when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, the production and burning of ethanol is only slightly better than burning gasoline!

The ethanol boom is one of many last-ditch attempts by industrial capitalism to continue its existence in a rapidly approaching post-oil world. The pursuit of ethanol is simply the continuation of an exploitative, colonial system that steals resources from the world's poor communities to maintain the consumer lifestyles of the First World.

Large-scale ethanol production can only lead to greater devastation of the Earth, as diverse ecosystems are converted to monoculture farms. Dispossession will increase as subsistence farmers and hunter-gatherers are forced off their land to make way for the US's new energy colonies.

A turn to ethanol as a fuel source also means shifting a considerable portion of farmable land from food production to energy production. As demand for ethanol grows, we will see increasing tension between First World people choosing to fuel their "green" cars and the rest of the world simply struggling to eat. The events in Mexico have no doubt foreshadowed what is to come.

There is no quick techno-fix to climate change or peak oil. We cannot accept a new wave of colonialism that offsets the problems created by our exorbitant First World lifestyles onto the Global South. The only answer to these problems is a dramatic reduction in our energy and resource consumption.

Skyler Simmons enjoys seeing liberals go into convulsions as they realize that biofuels aren't going to save the world.

[RommelTJ]

Yeah. I'm pretty pissed off that Tacos and Beer are more expensive.

[JudgeDredd]

At 2/16/08 11:35 PM, carbanonzo wrote: ... "The only answer to these problems is a dramatic reduction in our energy and resource consumption".

I agree with the science, but i can't agree ^his conclusion to what is split equally between a global social and a global eco problem.

[Al6200]

At 2/16/08 11:35 PM, carbanonzo wrote: This article is not one of I myself have written, though credit has been given to it's author. I am new :to the newgrounds political forum and am seeking to create a topic for discussion that is probably :not a common one around here, or most places for that matter. The following article is pertaining to :the ramifications of widespread ethanol production. Beyond the fact that it requires just as massive :and infastructure to process and distribute as oil does, a massive move to ethanol would cause :widespread starvation, as fields that once provided people with food are now put to the purpose of :providing industrialized countries with a fuel source.

Earth First is a primitivist organization - they oppose all technology and human progress.

By Skyler Simmons
Earth First! Journal
Beltane 2007

http://www.earthfirst.org/about.htm

The buzz about ethanol has grown tremendously in the past few years as oil prices skyrocket, :racist right-wingers look for a way to be independent of the Middle East, and lefties look for a quick :fix to global warming that doesn't require them to reduce their level of consumption.

Note all of the unsupported assumptions. "Racist right-wingers". What's his basis for this claim? Also, its interesting to see how he criticizes leftists for not wanting to reduce their standard of living.

In early March, Bush traveled to Brazil to secure massive imports of ethanol to the US. Bush's visit :was met not with praise for supporting Brazilian agriculture but with militant protests decrying the :environmental devastation and neo-colonialism perpetrated by Brazil's ethanol industry.

And this is relevant how? Of course the militants within Brazil will want to stop the ethanol industry - any economic stability and prosperity makes their communist message less reasonable, and their attempt to sell cocaine based on the desperation of farmers less practical.

:In the region of Ribeirão Preto, 900 women took over an ethanol plant owned by the agribusiness :cartel Cargill. They also decried the increased land consolidation that is occurring as wealthy :landowners grab more and more land for monoculture sugarcane farms.

Okay, so poor militants took over an ethanol plant that could improve the standard of living of the Brazilian people. Real surprise? Besides, would Earth First like to think about why the US, a highly developed economy, doesn't have this "gloom and doom" corporate land consolidation?

In São Paulo, demonstrators responded to Bush's visit by marching through the streets, carrying :stalks of sugarcane and clashing with police. Protesters noted that increasing amounts of the :Amazon rainforest are being cleared for monoculture farms to produce ethanol.

This is nothing new, the rainforest has been cleared for many years and for many reasons. Obviously it's possible for the US to start ethanol production without destroying the rainforest.

:Suzanne Pereira dos Santos of Brazil's Landless Workers Movement, who helped organize the :march, remarked, "Bush and the US go to war to control oil reserves, and now Bush and his pals are :trying to control the production of ethanol in Brazil, and that has to be stopped."

Wow, how reliable, the communist party... One only wonders why the communist party is trying to stop the Brazilian people from improving their standard of living.

In February, massive protests broke out in Mexico over the price of corn, a major staple in that :country. More than 75,000 people marched through the streets of Mexico City to demand an :immediate reduction of corn prices. Why are corn prices so high? Because ever-increasing amounts :of corn are going towards ethanol production, and this increased demand has caused corn prices to :skyrocket. Corn is now going toward feeding the US's auto addiction rather than the world's poor.

Poor nations that manage their economies well should never have to go through any starvation. Only the most poorly managed nations with the least industrialization go through starvation.

The environmental impacts of ethanol production are also troubling. Growing the corn is incredibly :energy intensive, in terms of fuel consumption by farm equipment and the large amounts of :fossil-fuel-based fertilizers used. In addition, large quantities of toxic pesticides must be used.

Huh? Sure, it's energy intensive, and that's why we need a clean source of fuel like ethanol.

ethanol distillation also burns large amounts of fossil fuels. Most distilleries burn natural gas, :though more and more are relying on coal. One plant in Goldfield, Iowa, burns 300 tons of coal every :day! Overall, ethanol is incredibly inefficient, taking three units of energy to make four. Some argue :that it actually takes more energy to produce ethanol than you get from burning it.

Does this article even bother to cite sources? Who is this "Some" who argues that it takes more energy?

Many proponents of ethanol claim that it is "carbon neutral"; since the carbon in the ethanol was :originally sucked out of the atmosphere by the plant, they say it is a closed cycle. This ludicrous :claim completely ignores the massive amounts of fossil fuels used in the growth, transportation and :refinement of corn ethanol. In fact, when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, the production and :burning of ethanol is only slightly better than burning gasoline!

But every type of power will have a distribution process, even solar or wind. By their logic, there is no way to have clean energy, since dirty fuels might be used to support the clean fuels.

The ethanol boom is one of many last-ditch attempts by industrial capitalism to continue its :existence in a rapidly approaching post-oil world. The pursuit of ethanol is simply the continuation of :an exploitative, colonial system that steals resources from the world's poor communities to :maintain the consumer lifestyles of the First World.

Wow. Did I just read that? These people seriously think that they're going to destroy the "industrial capitalist" system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_eco nomic_reform

There is no quick techno-fix to climate change or peak oil. We cannot accept a new wave of :colonialism that offsets the problems created by our exorbitant First World lifestyles onto the Global :South. The only answer to these problems is a dramatic reduction in our energy and resource :consumption.

There's actually this new fuel source called "Nuclear Fission". It's clean, and reliable. However, because of these Earth First morons it's being phased out in favor of coal. What I hate is people who listen to these "environmentalists" and think that they oppose Nuclear Fission because they think it's dangerous and harmful. In reality, they hate it because it's clean and efficient, and allows us to continue to have a good standard of living.

Skyler Simmons enjoys seeing liberals go into convulsions as they realize that biofuels aren't going :to save the world.

Al6200 enjoys seeing Skyler Simmons go into convulsions as he realizes that he's wasted his life arguing for a morally and intellectually bankrupt movement that no one listens to or cares about.

[Earfetish]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchgrass

I thyink it is 500% effecient. And it grows on praries. Biofuels are the way forward, and Switchgrass is the bestest by miles. Some sandal-wearing leftists hate biofuels because it will give them one less reason to moan about corporations and pollution and technology.

[ABsoldier17]

At 2/17/08 09:51 AM, Earfetish wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchgrass

I thyink it is 500% effecient. And it grows on praries. Biofuels are the way forward, and Switchgrass is the bestest by miles. Some sandal-wearing leftists hate biofuels because it will give them one less reason to moan about corporations and pollution and technology.

You do know that gasoline is necessary to distribute ethonal right? Since ethonal is water based it can't be transported by pipe line, because it evaporates. It has to be transported by trucks to fill up stations. Not to mention it costs an arm and a leg to make it.

[Earfetish]

At 2/17/08 10:44 AM, ABsoldier17 wrote: You do know that gasoline is necessary to distribute ethonal right? Since ethonal is water based it can't be transported by pipe line, because it evaporates. It has to be transported by trucks to fill up stations. Not to mention it costs an arm and a leg to make it.

All I can tell you is, whilst most biofuels cost a lot in fossil fuels, Switchgrass creates 5 times more fuel than it uses. So it doesn't matter.

[Al6200]

At 2/17/08 12:20 PM, Earfetish wrote:

All I can tell you is, whilst most biofuels cost a lot in fossil fuels, Switchgrass creates 5 times more fuel :than it uses. So it doesn't matter.

As a person who just finished taking Physics, I have to point out that biofuels are basically just a primitive form of solar power. When you say 500% efficiency, you mean 500% with respect to the energy used in maintenance/processing/transportation. In other words, 500% more fuel is generated than is wasted.

[Earfetish]

At 2/17/08 12:32 PM, Al6200 wrote: As a person who just finished taking Physics, I have to point out that biofuels are basically just a primitive form of solar power. When you say 500% efficiency, you mean 500% with respect to the energy used in maintenance/processing/transportation. In other words, 500% more fuel is generated than is wasted.

Yes, of course. 500% more fuel is generated than is burnt in the creation of said fuels, but of course the energy initially comes from the Sun. And, since it's that bloody efficient, if all the trucks and ploughs and whatever use switchgrass biofuel then we can lose our dependence on (foreign) oil and have everything using switchgrass.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/01/
switchgrass_yields.php

Like, biofuels are amazing. A small patch of land on the US growing biofuels could have you all carbon neutral and completely self-sufficient in a very small amount of time. Fuck the environment, imagine how much safer the world would get, politically, if you grew your own oil? And how much more secure your economy would be?

[Al6200]

At 2/17/08 12:46 PM, Earfetish wrote:

Yes, of course. 500% more fuel is generated than is burnt in the creation of said fuels, but of course :the energy initially comes from the Sun. And, since it's that bloody efficient, if all the trucks and :ploughs and whatever use switchgrass biofuel then we can lose our dependence on (foreign) oil and :have everything using switchgrass.

Photosynthesis is amazing. Go outside on a cold day, and grab a tree. How cool is it compared to its environment? Grab an animal or a person. You should find that it's much warmer than the world around it.

The respiration process that animals use produces an amazing amount of waste heat, but plants seem to barely produce any - their efficiency is incredible.

Like, biofuels are amazing. A small patch of land on the US growing biofuels could have you all :carbon neutral and completely self-sufficient in a very small amount of time. Fuck the environment, :imagine how much safer the world would get, politically, if you grew your own oil? And how much :more secure your economy would be?

Yeah, definitly. I don't like the biowank mentality of "Biological is always better than non-biological. The best technology is always organic", but photosynthesis is so efficient from a solar perspective that such reasoning really holds true. I really want to know how they do photosynthesis from a thermo perspective, since it's amazing.

[carbanonzo]

At 2/17/08 09:19 AM, Al6200 wrote:

At 2/16/08 11:35 PM, carbanonzo wrote:

Earth First is a primitivist organization - they oppose all technology and human progress.

While it is true that earth first is a primitivist orgonization I would harldy say that the beliefs of the orgonization that this author is affiliated with detracts from the value of the article, I would just define your statement as character assasination.

http://www.earthfirst.org/about.htm

The buzz about ethanol has grown tremendously in the past few years as oil prices skyrocket, :racist right-wingers look for a way to be independent of the Middle East, and lefties look for a quick :fix to global warming that doesn't require them to reduce their level of consumption.

Note all of the unsupported assumptions. "Racist right-wingers". What's his basis for this claim? Also, its interesting to see how he criticizes leftists for not wanting to reduce their standard of living.

Just as you made the point of noting the assumption he made of right wingers being racist I would once again point out that this could be defined as character assasination once again. While it is true that he does not have any rhetoric to back up his assumption it once again hardly has anything to do with the real content of the article. It would seem you are pointing it out simply for the purpose of pointing it out, and all the statement will serve to do is distract from the main points of the article (although it could be said that the author did the same thing by making his statement in the first place). Also I would like to note you've made a few assumptions of your own. "[earth first] opposes all technollogy and human progress" it would seem there that on behalf of earth first you are equating human progress with technological progress, without (just like the author) any sort of rhetoric or reasoning to explain that conclusion. "he criticizes the leftists for not wanting to reduce their standard of living" the paragraph that statement is in response to said "reduce their level of consumption" now unless you made some sort of typing mishap it would seem that there you are equating a standard of living with a level of consumption. In todays modernized society it is easy to draw these conclusions without thinking about it, but in an objective sense these conclusions should still be backed up by reasoning. Of course maybe they were irrelevant offhand remarks (just like the author's comment on right wingers was) in which case this whole paragraph is irrelavent.

In early March, Bush traveled to Brazil to secure massive imports of ethanol to the US. Bush's visit :was met not with praise for supporting Brazilian agriculture but with militant protests decrying the :environmental devastation and neo-colonialism perpetrated by Brazil's ethanol industry.

And this is relevant how? Of course the militants within Brazil will want to stop the ethanol industry - any economic stability and prosperity makes their communist message less reasonable, and their attempt to sell cocaine based on the desperation of farmers less practical.

Earlier you pointed out how the author made an unsupported claim, yet in this attempt to provide anecdotal evidence of the risidual effects of the ethanol industry on the the brazillian people (ie militant protests). Also noting the other assumption you make that the militant protests were due to the communist tendencies and not any real starvation that could have been caused by the ethanol industries land grab. Although maybe it is not an assumption, maybe you are brazillian yourself, which either means you are a very priviliged brazillian or I am wrong. Or perhaps you do have information to back up that claim, but just as earlier you pointed out the authors inability to back his claim up in the ARTICLE it would seem logical to point out your inability to do the same in your RESPONSE.

In the region of Ribeirão Preto, 900 women took over an ethanol plant owned by the agribusiness :cartel Cargill. They also decried the increased land consolidation that is occurring as wealthy :landowners grab more and more land for monoculture sugarcane farms.

...Besides, would Earth First like to think about why the US, a highly developed economy, doesn't have this "gloom and doom" corporate land consolidation?

To quote the author "an exploitative, colonial system that steals resources from the world's poor communities to maintain the consumer lifestyles of the First World." Perhaps that is why the US doesn't suffer from "'gloom and doom' cororate land consolidation" and Brazil does, though for the sake of saving typing room I'll leave out the paragraphs that it would take to explain why the dominant culture is killing the planet and the worlds poor, though if you were curious I would reference you to Derrik Jensen's book "Endgame".

In February, massive protests broke out in Mexico over the price of corn, a major staple in that :country. More than 75,000 people marched through the streets of Mexico City to demand an :immediate reduction of corn prices. Why are corn prices so high? Because ever-increasing amounts of corn are going towards ethanol production, and this increased demand has caused corn prices to skyrocket. Corn is now going toward feeding the US's auto addiction rather than the world's poor.

Poor nations that manage their economies well should never have to go through any starvation. Only the most poorly managed nations with the least industrialization go through starvation.

ethanol distillation also burns large amounts of fossil fuels. Most distilleries burn natural gas, :though more and more are relying on coal. One plant in Goldfield, Iowa, burns 300 tons of coal every :day! Overall, ethanol is incredibly inefficient, taking three units of energy to make four. Some argue :that it actually takes more energy to produce ethanol than you get from burning it.

Does this article even bother to cite sources? Who is this "Some" who argues that it takes more energy?

Many proponents of ethanol claim that it is "carbon neutral"; since the carbon in the ethanol was :originally sucked out of the atmosphere by the plant, they say it is a closed cycle. This ludicrous :claim completely ignores the massive amounts of fossil fuels used in the growth, transportation and :refinement of corn ethanol. In fact, when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, the production and :burning of ethanol is only slightly better than burning gasoline!

But every type of power will have a distribution process, even solar or wind. By their logic, there is no way to have clean energy, since dirty fuels might be used to support the clean fuels.

The ethanol boom is one of many last-ditch attempts by industrial capitalism to continue its :existence in a rapidly approaching post-oil world. The pursuit of ethanol is simply the continuation of :an exploitative, colonial system that steals resources from the world's poor communities to :maintain the consumer lifestyles of the First World.

There is no quick techno-fix to climate change or peak oil. We cannot accept a new wave of :colonialism that offsets the problems created by our exorbitant First World lifestyles onto the Global :South. The only answer to these problems is a dramatic reduction in our energy and resource :consumption.

There's actually this new fuel source called "Nuclear Fission". It's clean, and reliable. However, because of these Earth First morons it's being phased out in favor of coal. What I hate is people who listen to these "environmentalists" and think that they oppose Nuclear Fission because they think it's dangerous and harmful. In reality, they hate it because it's clean and efficient, and allows us to continue to have a good standard of living

Sorry for the lack of a total critique, or that I took out certain parts of the article and your response. I did not do this to distort your opinion or dodge certain arguments. I did it simply for the sake of typing space.

[morefngdbs]

Not meaning to be walking on your grass (switchgrass) here guy's but I read last year about how the most efficient bio source out there is Palm oil & it can yeild about 680 gallons per acre.

Algae can produce up to 10,000 gallons per acre and while growing has the potential to triple in size every day ! Better yet doesn't need for us to use productive farmland to grow it.

I first read about it in National Geographic, but here's a source on it. If it dosn't work just google algae Biofuel, I got half a million hits in a quater second.

http://media.www.therip.com/media/storag e/paper443/news/2007/04/25/Features/Alga e.May.Be.An.Alternate.Fuel.Source-287743 2.shtml

[Al6200]

At 2/17/08 07:15 PM, carbanonzo wrote:

While it is true that earth first is a primitivist orgonization I would harldy say that the beliefs of the :orgonization that this author is affiliated with detracts from the value of the article, I would just define :your statement as character assasination.

Ugh, other than the fact that they're utter psychopaths. Clearly credibility should play a role in whether we should trust the article or not.

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/j arboe021202.htm

Just as you made the point of noting the assumption he made of right wingers being racist I would once again point out that this could be defined as character assasination once again. While it is true that he does not have any rhetoric to back up his assumption it once again hardly has anything to do with the real content of the article. It would seem you are pointing it out simply for the purpose of pointing it out, and all the statement will serve to do is distract from the main points of the article (although it could be said that the author did the same thing by making his statement in the first place). Also I would like to note you've made a few assumptions of your own. "[earth first] opposes all technollogy and human progress" it would seem there that on behalf of earth first you are equating human progress with technological progress, without (just like the author) any sort of rhetoric or reasoning to explain that conclusion. "he criticizes the leftists for not wanting to reduce their standard of living" the paragraph that statement is in response to said "reduce their level of consumption" now unless you made some sort of typing mishap it would seem that there you are equating a standard of living with a level of consumption. In todays modernized society it is easy to draw these conclusions without thinking about it, but in an objective sense these conclusions should still be backed up by reasoning. Of course maybe they were irrelevant offhand remarks (just like the author's comment on right wingers was) in which case this whole paragraph is irrelavent.

:Perhaps that is why the US doesn't suffer from "'gloom and doom' cororate land consolidation" and :Brazil does

Well, the complaint is that Brazil is being abused by large capitalist corporations. Inarguably, these same corporations operate in the US, and logically profit is their motive in both areas. So by your logic, America, being far more open to capitalism and industry than a developing nation like Brazil, should have extreme land consolidation.

Obviously, since you don't have any concept of scale or practicality, you see a world where large businesses control and dominate everything, even though many of today's large businesses started out as very, very small businesses run by individuals (Google, Dell, Microsoft). Corporations obviously don't consolidate power or land, since capitalism is a competitive process that often has small companies defeating huge multi-nationals (think Microsoft and IBM).

To quote the author "an exploitative, colonial system that steals resources from the world's poor :communities to maintain the consumer lifestyles of the First World."

This "colonial system" has actually done more to help the world's poor than any of the liberal aid packages, donations, or acts of charity put together.

China has reduced poverty dramatically:

http://www1.worldbank.org/devoutreach/oc t04/images17/zagha-figure2.gif

Over this time period China has developed large multi-national corporations:

http://www.economist.com/images/20070901 /CFN870.gif

And also the Western World has invested incredible sums of money into China, the so called "imperialism" that you decry.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/as ia_pac/02/chinese_economic_history/html/
1978.stm

The pictures above paint a clear picture. China after 1985 has opened itself up to western "imperialism" and their economy has flourished. Poverty is in rapid decline, and the standard of living has risen dramatically. Contrary to your misconceptions, poor nations that are open to foreign investment do very well and tend to dramatically reduce poverty.

Sort of throws your whole "western capitalism exploits the world's working poor" theory out the window, eh?

Sorry for the lack of a total critique, or that I took out certain parts of the article and your response. I :did not do this to distort your opinion or dodge certain arguments.

If you want to have a serious debate than you should post your opinion and support that position (namely that ethanol is not going to benefit the global standard of living).