yeah its pretty crazy to use monsantoADM and their inefficient corn for ethanol. and we all know that switchgrass cellulostic ethanol is waybetter.... and i totally look forward to the rest ofthe review especially if they get into just how much of the corn we grow is fed to animals we eat.

but hey, if you want to grow corn, healthy corn, without N-P-K (which BTW was used to make bombes before being used to grow big yields). It's easy. it's natural. it's how gaia re-fertilizes (or at least hwo she has for 2,000,000 years now) and it's so hip it has it's own organization, and findings and it's own guru (the gurus work has some tech. mistakes but if you correct them the findings are even more true)

so if you want to get greater yields, and healthier plants (more vitamins more minerals, more protein...) go to ReminTheEarth and find a rock dust dealer near you!

I'm a little lost on this issue. I instinctively think it is good to use biomass for energy - as long as it is grown naturally of course so that it doesn't damage the ecosystem. Yet in my gut I hate thinking of using food to power SUVs. I never throw food away because I end up thinking of starving people and end up feeling guilty. So thinking of using food to drive cars makes me slightly nervous. I also believe that ethanol production won't be able to solve the oil addiction. Actually, I tend to think that it only helps maintain it since ethanol is usually mixed with gasoline. And even if all cars became 100% ethanol cars, there wouldn't be enough of it to power the ridiculous number of cars in the US - actually, rethinking it, that wouldn't be so bad.

I think the ethanol issue is more tricky to diagnose than most environmental issues. I hope society handles the ethanol issue in the right way so that it alleviates the strain on the environment rather than adding to it.

Isn't Ethanol to be produced from bio-mass that would traditionally go to waste?
I know that's generally the goal with bio-diesel, utilizing the stalks and other left over plant matter, I had always presumed it was the same for ethanol...
Regardless, I'll re-state the obvious to most readers here - North America must adopt diesel (and bio-diesel) with the same enthusiasm as Europe (approx. 40% of vehicles on the road are diesel on the other side of the pond).
All this talk of ethanol strikes me as rather suspect, given the energy required to produce it and it's poor performance reviews to date.

After reading some of David Pimental's work on ethanol a few years ago, I became very concerned about our increased dependence on it. I know that a lot of his numbers have been argued about and/or discredited, but there are still a lot of valid points in his work. The main one being, that corn is a very environmentally unfriendly crop to grow. I feel that this is echoed in your post here, and it brings my concern to the forefront again.

One of your posters noted that they would be fine with ethanol made from corn so long as the corn was grown naturally so that it doesn't damage the ecosystem. The problem with this is that all of the studies (even pimental's) assume the enhanced corn production that comes from non-natural growing.

Pimental's study used old production numbers (from the late 70s), but I'm betting these numbers predict higher corn per acre yields than "natural" growing as the poster envisions it. Using these numbers Pimental noted that
"If all the automobiles in the United States were fueled with 100 percent ethanol, a total of about 97 percent of U.S. land area would be needed to grow the corn feedstock. Corn would cover nearly the total land area of the United States. "
Obviously if you lower the yield per acre this number becomes even more unrealistic.

Basically my conclusion is that corn is a very dirty crop to grow, and increasing our consumption of it by making ethanol should be considered a non-treehugger activity.

Surely the real problem is that we are attempting to milk the Earth to support a preposterously large population using entirely too much energy. There is no solution that will allow us to continue exponentially consuming the planet's resources. Sooner or later we have to realise that there are too damn many of us and we don't have a right to whatever we want.

Garth: You're right, Ethanol devised of as a way to turn corn and soy that was rotting in grain bins into something useful. GW has it in his head that this will replace oil, but it wasn't meant for that. It was started as a way to keep farmers from going bankrupt when there was a good year (hence, more corn, hence lower prices, or even no price).

Make no mistake, Ethanol production got to where it was because it was a way to subsidize farmers, AND get something usable in return.

I really wish people understood that we have a SOIL crisis as well as an OIL crisis.

Here's a good explanation:

http://gumption.org/1993/memo/landmarks/grandmothers_soil.html

I am reading Omnivore's Dilemma as well. I am glad that someone other than myself realizes the silliness involved in using petroleum based fertilizer to grow corn that is then fermented to make ethanol to replace petroleum fuels. Any attempt to deny the laws of thermodynamics will eventually lead to ruin.

Ethanol issues aside, I was surprised at how much I didn't know about the food industry and how a simple desire to use up the corn we are growing has such far ranging consequences in energy use, obesity, health issues, sustainability and a host of other areas. It's as if I can't get the taste of oil out of my mouth. This is not surprising, considering the amount of oil that goes into every bite we eat. The impact of the human animal on this planet is obviously heavy, but glib answers like, "there are too many people and too many cars" do not get to changing behavior and producing solutions to the problem.

The success of the current system is that most people have a high standard of living and it is rising all the time. Now, knowing what we know now, how do we do this sustainably, without asking everyone to give up the gains they have made. Because my rudimentary knowledge of human behavior says that they won't, but they are looking for and might consider standard of living neutral alternatives. (Hence the success of sites like Treehugger.)

And I was so looking forward to reading this book, now I don't know. I can't say this enough. Don't blame ethanol, blame the program. Using corn to produce ethanol is insane. There are a dozen other crops (cough... hemp) with 3 to 4 times the yield of glucose rich bio-mass. We're being bamboozled by agrobiz crooks! Let's take back this country, OK?

Nature doesn't waste - what falls to the ground enriches the soil - which is a living organism. When we talk about the waste after a crop - you are talking about the nutrients for the next.

Judging from the many websites proclaiming the prolific crop , industrial hemp , it seems absurd to continue letting big government and corporate America dupe the public on this issue.I can envision small time Americans all over the U.S. producing the distillate from this magnificent crop to power their engines.It requires no herbicides, no pesticides , and in most instances no fertilizer. It is prolific in all fifty states , so the acreage buffs will have to button their lips. If, in fact , hemp would be utilized , the present day big money moguls in the timber , paper , and chemical industries will be relegated to the status of the rest of us. Also , Americans will regain a semblance of their previous health as many large corn and soybean farmers will opt to grow a crop that does not require chemicals.

The most comprehensive and holistic approach to challenge the capitalistic exploitation of Nature's food which I've come across.
If we combine this knowledge with SirMartin Reed's Vision
is it surprising,that as yet there hasn't been an outcry to prevent the unrestricted continuation of increased GMO-experimentation with food
production at cost of many
NHS's,supported even by the
Worldbank & WHO, FAO et al.?
Produce GMO-Food for the growing populations to make
them sick and depending on new symptomatic medication ? Which only the richest of the
developing nations can afford
,which in turn should secure the prospected wealth of the
heirs of todays'Shareholders presently united in a R&D-, Food&Drug- &Military-Economic
Complex ?
Which Organization or Ethic Authority should be called for to judge about such
BIO-FRAUD like "Alteration of
Photosynthesis-Factors" of
ancient staple Food-Materials
Rice,Breadwheat,Soybean,Tuber& Potatoe etc risking global
progressive metabolic distur-
bances in all consumers as an
"unexpected D.U.O."(=Disease
of UnknownOrigin)& preparing
Bio-cidal Species-Reduction
as a most profitable final
event ??
The Facts of Recycling Anthro
-pogene Technically un-avoi-dable Radioactive Pollutants
via such specially designed CO2-avid fastgrowing fodder-plants into the Biomass of
all Forms of Life supporting
the human species have to be
reviewed and effective measu-
res to secure basic possibi-lities for the lives of our
children's grand-children must be installed urgently.
There must be installed Measures to Reduce any such Unnatural Production of Energy urgently as of highest significance for the survival of Mankind, lest the Moon is to be proclaimed as a hospitable island within reach.