Re: The biofuel hoax will starve the world and speed global warming!

On Dec 23, 12:29 am, "calderh...@xxxxxxxxx" <calderh...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

     On December 19th, 2007, George W. Bush signed into law an
historic energy bill that mandates massive increases in the production
of ethanol, which is to be used as "biofuel" to run automobiles and
trucks.  Ethanol is currently made from corn and other foodstuffs, and
all of the various forms of biofuel, including "biodiesel," are made
from food or from inedible crops which displace normal agricultural
activity.  Even at current limited levels of biofuel production, this
"renewable energy source" has already caused huge increases in the
price of food around the world, which can be experienced firsthand at
any supermarket in America.  Unfortunately, consumers/voters are
undereducated as to exactly why food prices have risen so rapidly.

     The United Nations has officially stated that its charity
programs can no longer afford to feed the starving peoples of the
world because the cost of food has risen so dramatically due to
biofuel production.  Local food banks in the United States are running
low on supplies, and many families who use to contribute to food banks
are now in need of help themselves.  When farmers plant more corn in
order to cash in on artificially high corn prices created by political
biofuel mandates, they plant less wheat and fewer vegetables and other
crops, and thus food prices rise across the board.  We use corn to
feed chickens and cattle, so the price of poultry, beef, and dairy
products have risen dramatically and will continue to rise with no end
in sight.

     The advocacy and use of biofuels is one of the greatest political
hoaxes in American history.  The ideology of biofuel production sounds
wholesome superficially, a kind of green, health food store way of
producing energy.  The problem is that the entire biofuel scheme is
based on lies and political selfishness, without any legitimate
science based ecological justification.

 1)  Biofuel production starves the poor and reduces our standard of
living by dramatically increasing the cost of food, which we all need
just to survive.  Of course the homeless, the elderly, the disabled,
and those living on Social Security and other fixed incomes are the
hardest hit.

2)  Biofuel production increases our Federal budget deficit because it
demands large subsidies to exist.  Without massive Federal subsidies
and mandates, there would be no significant free market demand for
biofuels at all.  Biofuel schemes are energy socialism gone wrong.

3)  Biofuel production harms the environment by needlessly eroding
topsoil and encouraging the destruction of forests, which are
desperately needed as a sponge to soak up excess carbon dioxide from
the atmosphere.  Carbon dioxide (C02) is the major greenhouse gas that
causes global warming.  Do we really want to cut down forests all over
the world, from Indonesia to Pennsylvania, just to have more land to
grow corn, soybeans, palm oil, sugarcane, and other crops to burn as
fuel in our SUVs?  Biofuel schemes speed up global warming because the
entire biofuel production process, from beginning to end, releases
huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere while destroying
native forests which naturally clean and rejuvenate the air we
breathe.

     Biofuel production will aggravate water shortages world wide
because water is diverted to grow biofuel crops and thus taken away
from our ever shrinking supplies of safe drinking water.  Biofuel use
also demands a dramatic increase in the production of fertilizers made
from natural gas, coal and mined minerals in a messy industrial
process which unleashes even more greenhouse gases.  Biofuels are a
losing proposition on every level, except for the big profits giant
agricultural corporations will make producing it.

4)  Biofuels schemes are a scientific hoax and an economic fraud
because they take more energy to produce than they yield in the form
of the biofuel itself.  We have to use large amounts of coal and oil
just to produce biofuels.  The economic numbers for biofuel production
do not add up any way you look at them, and at the recent United
Nations conference on strategic environmental issues held in Bali,
Indonesia, several studies were presented detailing the dangers of
making automobile fuels from crops.  Respected scientists warned that
biofuel production is destructive to the environment and will not give
us the clean "renewable energy" its advocates claim.  Just a few days
after the Bali conference ended, George W. Bush and the United States
Congress enacted a new law mandating massive increases in biofuel
production, the science and the facts be damned.

5)  The biofuel hoax in the United States is fueled to a large degree
by domestic American politics.  Both the Republican and Democratic
political parties want to get the "farm vote" in politically strategic
farming states like Iowa, Ohio, and Nebraska.  Our politicians have
put political gain ahead of the world's starving poor, the elderly on
fixed incomes, and the welfare of the American middle class.  Rich
politicians can afford to pay the dramatically higher food bills that
biofuel production creates, and they have decided to throw science
aside and charge blindly into what will inevitably be branded as one
of the most destructive political fiascoes of the 21st century.

6)  Making cellulosic ethanol from lignocellulose, a structural
material that comprises much of the mass of plants, is better than
making ethanol from corn, but it still has most of the drawbacks
listed for ethanol made from food crops.  Growing lignocellulose
yielding grasses on land we currently use to graze cattle will
increase the price of beef and milk.  We will still have to use
fertilizers made from natural gas and coal to make inedible crops
grow, and the entire process will erode topsoil and increase the price
of food.  The process for making cellulosic ethanol has not been
proven to be economically viable, and the Bush energy bill assumes new
scientific breakthroughs which have not yet occurred.  Furthermore,
many of the plants being proposed as lignocellulose yielding biofuel
crops are weeds which will have a destructive impact on wildlife and
biodiversity around the world.  In practical terms, there is not
enough usable land area to grow a sufficient quantity of biofuel
plants to meet the world's energy demands.

     Dramatic increases in food prices created by biofuel production
will cause political instability around the globe, because food
products are sold in a world wide marketplace just like oil.  Imagine
the political instability in Mexico, Central and South America,
Africa, India and Pakistan that skyrocketing food prices and mass
starvation will cause.  Will a starving Pakistan, armed with nuclear
weapons, make the world a safer place?  If American politicians lead
us down a path to global use of biofuels, we will be leading the world
into a historic disaster that can easily kill more people due to
starvation than have been killed in the Iraq war by bullets and
bombs.

     If we truly wish to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and not just
waste time on destructive political scams, then we will have to create
an infrastructure based on nuclear energy, improved battery
technology, and hydrogen fuel, not on ethanol and biofuels.  Hydrogen
releases water vapor when burned and is the cleanest burning fuel
known to man.  Hydrogen can be used in both internal combustion
engines and in fuel cells.  It is very doubtful that automakers can
produce dual-fuel vehicles that run on both hydrogen and ethanol, so
we must make a strategic choice now.  Hydrogen fuel can be made
through the electrolysis of water via electricity generated from zero
emissions nuclear power plants, which currently produce about 19.4% of
our nation's electricity.  We need to build large numbers of nuclear
power plants using mass production techniques if we want to end global
warming.

     Nuclear power plants do not contribute to global warming because
they release no greenhouse gases at all.  You do not need much land to
build a nuclear power plant, and you do not need to make fertilizer to
make nuclear energy grow.  We need to get off the carbon cycle for
energy production and use nuclear power to produce the highly
concentrated energy supply that solar and wind power can never hope to
provide.  Even by the most optimistic estimates, solar and wind power
can only hope to satisfy perhaps 20% of our future energy needs.
Solar and wind power tap into natural energy sources that are far too
diffuse to be collected on a large enough scale to power an advanced,
industrialized nation.  Solar and wind power currently produce only
about 2.4% of our nation's electricity, so even an increase to 20%
would be an major undertaking.

     One of the added benefits of nuclear power is that we already own
huge amounts of nuclear fuel in the form of nuclear weapons materials,
which can be converted into fuel rods for civilian power production.
The United States Government has hundreds of years worth of nuclear
fuel in storage thanks to the cold war nuclear arms race of the 1950s
and 1960s.  We can turn our swords into plowshares while paying only
the modest costs of converting high level weapons grade nuclear
materials into low level nuclear fuel rods suitable for civilian power
production.  Unlike oil, we do not have to import nuclear fuel from
foreign countries or fight endless foreign wars to protect our
supplies.

     Nuclear fuel rods can be reprocessed over and over again because
only a tiny portion of the nuclear material is actually used up during
each fuel cycle.  When you reprocess fuel rods there is very little
high level nuclear waste that needs to be stored.  The nuclear "waste"
is simply reused as nuclear fuel, and this is part of the reason why
France's nuclear power program has been so successful.  France relies
heavily on nuclear power plants and nuclear fuel reprocessing, and
thus France has the cleanest air and lowest electricity rates in
Europe.

     The fears many Americans have about civilian nuclear power plants
are largely unfounded.  Our latest nuclear reactor designs are
excellent, with many layers of redundant safety and security features
built-in.  One single disaster that occurred in 1986 at an obsolete
Ukrainian reactor is no reason to be eternally afraid of all civilian
nuclear power plants across the board.  The old Chernobyl reactor used
a dangerous design that has never been used in the West, and which did
not even have a containment vessel.  The infamous Chernobyl accident
was caused by Soviet engineers conducting wildly irresponsible
experiments that were totally unrelated to normal civilian power
production, and which would never be allowed in the USA.  The
Chernobyl nuclear accident killed a total of 56 people, a great
tragedy, but not a nation killing disaster.  Far fewer people died at
Chernobyl than on Japan Airlines Flight 123 in 1985, when the lone 747
jetliner crashed and killed all 520 passengers.  Americans suffer over
40,000 deaths due to automobile accidents every year, but there is no
great human cry to ban automobiles.

     Nuclear power plants in America have an excellent record for
safety and for clean, pollution free operation.  By contrast, the over
600 coal burning power plants in the United States which produce
approximately 49% of our nation's electricity emit sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) which combine with moisture in the
atmosphere to create destructive acid rain.  Coal burning power plants
also release microscopic particulate matter which clog the lungs and
which are attributed to causing approximately 24,000 unnatural
premature deaths in America every year, which is 428 times the
Chernobyl death toll.

     Coal fired power plants in the USA release approximately 200,000
pounds of toxic mercury each year, and nearly 10% of global carbon
dioxide emissions, which represents an enormous river of skyward bound
greenhouse gas.  On top of all of that, coal burning power plants
release radioactive materials into the atmosphere due to the natural
thorium and uranium content of coal.  A single 1,000 megawatt coal-
burning power plant can release as much as 12.8 tons of radioactive
thorium every year, and 5.2 tons of uranium each year.  The uranium
figure includes 74 pounds of uranium-235, which is the most dangerous,
highly fissionable form of uranium that was used to construct the
"Little Boy" atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.

     Why is there so little fear in the United States of coal burning
power plants, but so much hysterical fear of much safer and healthier
nuclear power?  The answer is that nuclear power has been unfairly
demonized by a Hollywood entertainment industry trying to make a quick
buck (The China Syndrome, The Simpsons, etc.), and by scientifically
undereducated politicians and environmental activists.  The fact is
there has never been a single human death attributable to the daily
activity of nuclear power plants in the USA, and American nuclear
power plants produce electricity at an average cost of less than two
cents per kilowatt-hour (2004 figure), which is comparable with coal
and hydroelectric power.  Newer, more efficient power plant designs
and the mass production of major structural and control components can
bring the cost down even further.

     Nuclear power is the only technology that can produce an
extremely high volume of energy, at reasonable cost, using only a tiny
amount of land, and all without emitting any greenhouse gases.  That
is why British atmospheric scientist and father of Gaia theory, James
Lovelock, stated that nuclear power is the only way to have a large
human population on planet earth without causing global warming and
destroying the environment.  Please read James Lovelock's public
statement on nuclear energy, Nuclear power is the only green solution
at:http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24.....

     We must remember that biofuels are made from food or from
inedible crops which displace current levels of food production.  With
a world wide human population of over 6.6 billion people and growing,
we cannot afford to feed our families and at the same time use
precious farm and grazing land to produce food products and/or
lignocellulose yielding crops to burn in our automobile engines.  Food
belongs in the stomachs of hungry men, women, and children, not in the
gas tanks of our Fords, Hondas, and Mercedes Benz automobiles.

     If you do not want food prices to double, triple, or even
quadruple in the next ten years, then write your Congressman, Senator,
Governor, and President and tell them that you do not want to waste
food production resources on biofuels.  Furthermore, state the obvious
fact that food prices are already too high and that you want all
biofuel mandates repealed and all biofuel manufacturing subsidies
ended.  If this is done you will soon see food prices declining
instead of rising, your local food banks will become full again, and
the United Nations and other charitable organizations will be able to
meet their moral obligations to help feed the world's starving
masses.  Biofuel production for use in automobiles represents a
needless man made disaster, not a blessing, and biofuels are
effectively agricultural products no matter how you make them.  We
should not waste or displace food production capacity if we wish to
feed a hungry world.

Christopher Calderhttp://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

http://www.helenair.com/articles/2007/12/22/health_top/c01121807_01.txt
Corn boom could bust Gulf sea life
By HENRY C. JACKSON - Associated Press - 12/18/07
AP photo - Jerry Peckumn stands in a combine on his farm outside of
Jefferson, Iowa, Monday Dec. 10. Peckumn grows thousands of acres of
corn because he needs to make a profit, but says he is worried about
the impact his farming has on the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

JEFFERSON, Iowa - Because of rising demand for ethanol, American
farmers are growing more corn than at any time since the Depression.
And sea life in the Gulf of Mexico is paying the price.

The nation's corn crop is fertilized with millions of pounds of
nitrogen-based fertilizer. And when that nitrogen runs off fields in
Corn Belt states, it makes its way to the Mississippi River and
eventually pours into the Gulf, where it contributes to a growing
''dead zone'' - a 7,900-square-mile patch so depleted of oxygen that
fish, crabs and shrimp suffocate.

The dead zone was discovered in 1985 and has grown fairly steadily
since then, forcing fishermen to venture farther and farther out to
sea to find their catch. For decades, fertilizer has been considered
the prime cause of the lifeless spot.

With demand for corn booming, some researchers fear the dead zone
will
expand rapidly, with devastating consequences.

''We might be coming close to a tipping point,'' said Matt Rota,
director of the water resources program for the New Orleans-based
Gulf
Restoration Network, an environmental group. ''The ecosystem might
change or collapse as opposed to being just impacted.''

Environmentalists had hoped to cut nitrogen runoff by encouraging
farmers to apply less fertilizer and establish buffers along
waterways. But the demand for the corn-based fuel additive ethanol
has
driven up the price for the crop, which is selling for about $4 per
bushel, up from a little more than $2 in 2002.

That enticed American farmers - mostly in Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota,
North Dakota and South Dakota - to plant more than 93 million acres
of
corn in 2007, the most since 1933. They substituted corn for other
crops, or made use of land not previously in cultivation.

Corn is more ''leaky'' than crops such as soybean and alfalfa - that
is, it absorbs less nitrogen per acre. The prime reasons are the
drainage systems used in corn fields and the timing of when the
fertilizer is applied.

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that up to 210 million
pounds of nitrogen fertilizer enter the Gulf of Mexico each year.
Scientists had no immediate estimate for 2007, but said they expect
the amount of fertilizer going into streams to increase with more
acres of corn planted.

''Corn agriculture practices release a lot of nitrogen,'' said Donald
Scavia, a University of Michigan professor who has studied corn
fertilizer's effect on the dead zone. ''More corn equals more
nitrogen
pollution.''

Farmers realize the connection between their crop and problems
downstream, but with the price of corn soaring, it doesn't make sense
to grow anything else. And growing corn isn't profitable without
nitrogen-based fertilizer.

''I think you have to try to be a good steward of the land,'' said
Jerry Peckumn, who farms corn and soybeans on about 2,000 acres he
owns or leases near the Iowa community of Jefferson. ''But on the
other hand, you can't ignore the price of corn.''

Peckumn grows alfalfa and natural grass on the 220 or so acres he
owns, but said he cannot afford to experiment on the land he rents.

The dead zone typically begins in the spring and persists into the
summer. Its size and location vary each year because of currents,
weather and other factors, but it is generally near the mouth of the
Mississippi.

This year, it is the third-biggest on record. It was larger in 2002
and 2001, when it covered 8,500 and 8,006 square miles respectively.

Soil erosion, sewage and industrial pollution also contribute to the
dead zone, but fertilizer is believed to be the chief factor.

Fertilizer causes explosive growth of algae, which then dies and
sinks
to the bottom, where it sucks up oxygen as it decays. This creates a
deep layer of oxygen-depleted ocean where creatures either escape or
die.

Bottom-dwelling species such as crabs and oysters are most at risk,
said Michelle Perez, an analyst with the Washington-based
Environmental Working Group. ''They struggle to survive,'' Perez
said.
''They can't swim away.''

Crabbers complained at a meeting in Louisiana earlier this year that
they pulled up bucket upon bucket of dead crabs.

Rota warned that if the corn boom continues, the Gulf of Mexico could
see an ''ecological regime change.'' The fear is that the zone will
grow so big that most sea life won't be able to escape it, leading to
an even bigger die-off.

''People's livelihood depends on the shrimp, fish and crabs in these
waters,'' he said. ''Already, some of these shrimpers are traveling
longer and longer distances to catch anything.''

Given the market pressure to grow corn, the Natural Resources Defense
Council and others argue that the nation needs a comprehensive,
federal approach to the problem.

Among the ideas floated: rules to force farmers to use fertilizers
with more care, and the establishment of buffer zones to contain
runoff.
.

Relevant Pages
Loading