Rogersville ethanol plant still moving forward, company says By Matt Wagner
Springfield Business Journal Staff 7/16/2007
A Mount Vernon company’s plans to build a corn-based ethanol plant near Rogersville are still moving forward, according to a company official.
More than two months have passed since a judge ruled that Gulfstream Bioflex Energy LLC could proceed with the $185 million plant despite objections from property owners who sued the company over concerns about their groundwater supply.
But GBE’s lead attorney, Bryan Wade of Husch & Eppenberger LLC, said his client still intends to build the plant on 252 acres east of Rogersville. Wade said he recently filed a response to post-trial motions filed by the plant opponents’ attorney, Bill McDonald of McDonald, Hosmer, King & Royce PC.
“We would certainly like to know what the court’s feeling is on it before any significant activity occurs, but as far as I know, everything’s a go,” Wade said.
GBE Vice President Charles Luna would neither discuss the impending sale nor the plant’s construction timeline. He did, however, say that the company expects to have an approved air permit from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources no later than Sept. 30.
When asked whether other Missouri cities have attempted to woo GBE, Luna said that Seymour – several miles east of the existing site – previously expressed interest. The Rogersville site, however, remains GBE’s top pick for a plant, he said.
TEXT
Webster County's Ethanol Factory looks to be on schedule. With the next round in court all but a done deal for the ethanol factory and DNR getting ready to issue an approved air permit for that TOXIC TERROR, construction should be taking place on the ethanol factory no later than by the end of this year.
Unless people in Webster County and the Ozarks band together to fight this monstrosity, 2007 could be known as the last year in which Webster County folks enjoyed breathing air free of pollutants.
2007 will also be remembered as the last year in which Ozark Aquifer water was free of ethanol factory pollutants.
Better plan for the future by investing in a large truck with a water tank. Because once our drinking water dries up from feeding the insatiable quench of this ethanol factory, hauling water to our homes will be a weekly occurence in the Ozarks.
As for the ethanol factory claims that it will create more than $3 million annually in property tax revenue, one has to figure in the DECREASE that will come from the devaluation of the property tax value of the houses near the ethanol factory, which will offset the ethanol factory figures.
And write off any future growth for that part of Webster County. Who would want to buy a house or piece of property near a TOXIC TERROR?
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Friday, July 27, 2007
FOR SALE: PROPERTY AT 1600 PENNSYLVANNIA AVE.
As of last week, nearly 200 corporate and individual patrons of President Bush had given between $25,000 and $250,000 to enjoy VIP access at inaugural parties with White House officials. The group comprises the usual roll call of corporations and wealthy executives with significant government interests -- energy firms, sub-prime bank lenders, federal contractors, and pharmaceutical companies. "It's the modern version of selling access to the White House," says Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a group that advocates stricter campaign finance laws. The 2002 campaign finance reforms outlawed direct contributions to candidates in excess of $2,000, but it left open loopholes for donating unlimited sums to the party conventions and the inauguration. The White House has voluntarily limited the size of individual inaugural checks to $250,000. "There are only a couple of avenues left where you can put up a large sum of money that is of direct value to the president," Wertheimer said.
Nearly all of the inaugural donors have benefited—or hope to benefit—from the President's policies. For many of these companies, a six-figure donation is but a small part of their multi-million dollar lobbying strategies. Among the $250,000 donors are name brands like Exxon Mobil, Ameriquest Capital, FedEx, Bristol Myers Squibb and Lockheed Martin. The Nuclear Energy Institute, which has received White House backing for new nuclear power plants, chipped in $100,000.
Carl Lindner, the former owner of the Chiquita Banana brand and one of the most reliable of Republican moneymen, gave $250,000 under his own name. But so did two companies he controls, American Financial and New Energy Corp.The lesser-known New Energy, which is based in South Bend, Ind., is one of the nation's largest manufacturers of ethanol, a corn-based alternative and additive to gasoline, and a longstanding recipient of federal research funding. It will likely be among the biggest winners of the Energy Bill, which Congress plans to reconsider later this year. A previous version of the bill, which failed to pass in 2003, would have tripled the amount of ethanol produced in the U.S., costing taxpayers nearly $5 billion, according to the environmental group Friends of the Earth.
TEXT
People and corporations don't contribute $250,000 to what basically amounts to a party and not expect nothing in return. Quite the opposite, in fact.
For donating $250,000 to the president will get one all sorts of "access." Access that us common folk will never have, unless you happen to have a quarter of a million dollars lying about.
This kind of access gets paid back and then some. Paid back with laws uniquely crafted to benefit your pet cause or in this case, to help shovel even more tax payer money, in the form of subsidies, to ethanol factories.
And We the People are left standing out in the cold, not even allowed to look in thru the window to watch the ongoing shenanigans.
Unless you have $250,000 to spare.
Nearly all of the inaugural donors have benefited—or hope to benefit—from the President's policies. For many of these companies, a six-figure donation is but a small part of their multi-million dollar lobbying strategies. Among the $250,000 donors are name brands like Exxon Mobil, Ameriquest Capital, FedEx, Bristol Myers Squibb and Lockheed Martin. The Nuclear Energy Institute, which has received White House backing for new nuclear power plants, chipped in $100,000.
Carl Lindner, the former owner of the Chiquita Banana brand and one of the most reliable of Republican moneymen, gave $250,000 under his own name. But so did two companies he controls, American Financial and New Energy Corp.The lesser-known New Energy, which is based in South Bend, Ind., is one of the nation's largest manufacturers of ethanol, a corn-based alternative and additive to gasoline, and a longstanding recipient of federal research funding. It will likely be among the biggest winners of the Energy Bill, which Congress plans to reconsider later this year. A previous version of the bill, which failed to pass in 2003, would have tripled the amount of ethanol produced in the U.S., costing taxpayers nearly $5 billion, according to the environmental group Friends of the Earth.
TEXT
People and corporations don't contribute $250,000 to what basically amounts to a party and not expect nothing in return. Quite the opposite, in fact.
For donating $250,000 to the president will get one all sorts of "access." Access that us common folk will never have, unless you happen to have a quarter of a million dollars lying about.
This kind of access gets paid back and then some. Paid back with laws uniquely crafted to benefit your pet cause or in this case, to help shovel even more tax payer money, in the form of subsidies, to ethanol factories.
And We the People are left standing out in the cold, not even allowed to look in thru the window to watch the ongoing shenanigans.
Unless you have $250,000 to spare.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
WHAT'S THAT SMELL?
SOUTH BEND — Imagine a skunk that sprayed the inside of an outhouse. It’s enough to make your nostrils snap shut in self-defense.
A similar noxious odor was wafting Friday morning from the sewers in the neighborhood around St. Adalbert School on the city’s west side.
“Most of our classrooms have no air conditioning,’’ Principal Jeny Sejdinaj wrote in an e-mail to The Tribune, “so windows are open to let the cool air in.’’
But the open windows also let in the nauseating odor.
“How are our children supposed to learn while holding their noses or suffering headaches from this?” Sejdinaj asked. “How are our teachers supposed to teach?”
One teacher, she said, moved her students from their third-floor classroom to the first-floor lunchroom to escape the stench.
Sejdinaj was fed up enough Friday morning to start making phone calls. She called the mayor’s office and asked that Mayor Stephen Luecke call her back. She called the Department of Public Works, she said, which transferred her to the Division of Environmental Services.
She called the county Health Department, which transferred her to the sewer department. Someone there told her the sewer department had done some deodorizing, but the person she needed to talk to was on vacation.
But Sejdinaj said he told her that the problem stems from a discharge from the New Energy Co. of Indiana, an ethanol plant located about a mile south of St. Adalbert School. The company flushes waste products into the sewers, where they flow through South Bend’s west side on their way to the Waste Water Treatment Plant on Riverside Drive.
ARTICLE
A nauseating and obnoxious odor, emitting from the local ethanol factory in South Bend, IN. That ethanol plant flushes some of its toxic waste into the sewers, which probably flow to the TAX PAYER supported water treatment plant.
But people in Webster County won't have the luxury of letting their ethanol factory flush its toxic waste into the sewer lines.
They'll have to deal with above ground storage ponds to handle the ethanol factory waste water. And hope and pray that a gully washer type rain doesn't hit the waste water ponds. If one does--like the one we had several weeks ago--then that waste water will be spread out to the surrounding area, impacting homes and their inhabitants.
Then, the toxic brew will slowly sink into the Ozark Aquifer, to be enjoyed by all.
A similar noxious odor was wafting Friday morning from the sewers in the neighborhood around St. Adalbert School on the city’s west side.
“Most of our classrooms have no air conditioning,’’ Principal Jeny Sejdinaj wrote in an e-mail to The Tribune, “so windows are open to let the cool air in.’’
But the open windows also let in the nauseating odor.
“How are our children supposed to learn while holding their noses or suffering headaches from this?” Sejdinaj asked. “How are our teachers supposed to teach?”
One teacher, she said, moved her students from their third-floor classroom to the first-floor lunchroom to escape the stench.
Sejdinaj was fed up enough Friday morning to start making phone calls. She called the mayor’s office and asked that Mayor Stephen Luecke call her back. She called the Department of Public Works, she said, which transferred her to the Division of Environmental Services.
She called the county Health Department, which transferred her to the sewer department. Someone there told her the sewer department had done some deodorizing, but the person she needed to talk to was on vacation.
But Sejdinaj said he told her that the problem stems from a discharge from the New Energy Co. of Indiana, an ethanol plant located about a mile south of St. Adalbert School. The company flushes waste products into the sewers, where they flow through South Bend’s west side on their way to the Waste Water Treatment Plant on Riverside Drive.
ARTICLE
A nauseating and obnoxious odor, emitting from the local ethanol factory in South Bend, IN. That ethanol plant flushes some of its toxic waste into the sewers, which probably flow to the TAX PAYER supported water treatment plant.
But people in Webster County won't have the luxury of letting their ethanol factory flush its toxic waste into the sewer lines.
They'll have to deal with above ground storage ponds to handle the ethanol factory waste water. And hope and pray that a gully washer type rain doesn't hit the waste water ponds. If one does--like the one we had several weeks ago--then that waste water will be spread out to the surrounding area, impacting homes and their inhabitants.
Then, the toxic brew will slowly sink into the Ozark Aquifer, to be enjoyed by all.
Monday, July 23, 2007
COUGH, COUGH, HACK, HACK, WHEEZE
Carbon Monoxide----89.76 Tons
Nitrogen Oxides------97.25 Tons
Particulate Matter----97.89 Tons
Particulate Matter----54.58 Tons
(<10 Microns)
Sulfur Dioxide--------47.64 Tons
VOC's-----------------90.52 Tons
Volatile Organic Compounds
Total Air
Emissions-------------477.64 TONS
TEXT
Let's take a closer look at what some of these chemicals that are typical of ethanol factories:
*Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are contaminants of concern in ground water because (1) some VOCs have been detected in ground water in similar studies in the past, and it is important to examine whether there have been changes in their occurrence, (2) some VOCs are released to the environment in large volumes, and (3) some VOCs, once they have reached ground water, tend to persist and migrate to drinking-water wells.
TEXT
*Particulate matter is a combination of fine solids such as dirt, soil dust, pollens, molds, ashes, and soot; and aerosols that are formed in the atmosphere from gaseous combustion by-products such as volatile organic compounds, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.
Particulate pollution comes from such diverse sources as factory and utility smokestacks, vehicle exhaust, wood burning, mining, construction activity, and agriculture.
Particulate matter air pollution is especially harmful to people with lung disease such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Exposure to particulate air pollution can trigger asthma attacks and cause wheezing, coughing, and respiratory irritation in individuals with sensitive airways.
Recent research has also linked exposure to relatively low concentrations of particulate matter with premature death. Those at greatest risk are the elderly and those with pre-existing respiratory or heart disease.
TEXT
From just TWO of the listed ethanol factory pollutants, VOC's and Particulate Matter, people living near an ethanol factory can expect to die early, from various ethanol factory pollutants. Diseases like COPD and heart failure from breathing pollutants from the ethanol factory.
Plus, the VOC's tend to migrate to ground water, which then winds up in our drinking water.
People around the country have stood togther and successfully fought the placement of ethanol factories in their communities. Like those in Milford, Indiana. Folks in Milford, Indiana fought against a proposed ethanol factory in their community and WON. Of course, it helps to have the governor on the side of the public.
Don't think we'll have to worry about our governor taking the side of the people. He'll be too busy helping his family build ethanol factories.
Nitrogen Oxides------97.25 Tons
Particulate Matter----97.89 Tons
Particulate Matter----54.58 Tons
(<10 Microns)
Sulfur Dioxide--------47.64 Tons
VOC's-----------------90.52 Tons
Volatile Organic Compounds
Total Air
Emissions-------------477.64 TONS
TEXT
Let's take a closer look at what some of these chemicals that are typical of ethanol factories:
*Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are contaminants of concern in ground water because (1) some VOCs have been detected in ground water in similar studies in the past, and it is important to examine whether there have been changes in their occurrence, (2) some VOCs are released to the environment in large volumes, and (3) some VOCs, once they have reached ground water, tend to persist and migrate to drinking-water wells.
TEXT
*Particulate matter is a combination of fine solids such as dirt, soil dust, pollens, molds, ashes, and soot; and aerosols that are formed in the atmosphere from gaseous combustion by-products such as volatile organic compounds, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.
Particulate pollution comes from such diverse sources as factory and utility smokestacks, vehicle exhaust, wood burning, mining, construction activity, and agriculture.
Particulate matter air pollution is especially harmful to people with lung disease such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Exposure to particulate air pollution can trigger asthma attacks and cause wheezing, coughing, and respiratory irritation in individuals with sensitive airways.
Recent research has also linked exposure to relatively low concentrations of particulate matter with premature death. Those at greatest risk are the elderly and those with pre-existing respiratory or heart disease.
TEXT
From just TWO of the listed ethanol factory pollutants, VOC's and Particulate Matter, people living near an ethanol factory can expect to die early, from various ethanol factory pollutants. Diseases like COPD and heart failure from breathing pollutants from the ethanol factory.
Plus, the VOC's tend to migrate to ground water, which then winds up in our drinking water.
People around the country have stood togther and successfully fought the placement of ethanol factories in their communities. Like those in Milford, Indiana. Folks in Milford, Indiana fought against a proposed ethanol factory in their community and WON. Of course, it helps to have the governor on the side of the public.
Don't think we'll have to worry about our governor taking the side of the people. He'll be too busy helping his family build ethanol factories.
Friday, July 20, 2007
DOING OUR PART TO SUPPORT MILLIONAIRE SHEIKS
The corporation-lobbied politicians who've led us into war in the Middle East are leading the ethanol parade at home and abroad. Ethanol is simply the most widespread, costly, and U.S. security-risking money scam in history.
ETHANOL: A COSTLY SNAKE OIL AND A DANGER TO AMERICA
By Ray Wallace
PRESIDENT BUSH thought it was OK for Arabs to buy control of U.S. ports. Does he also think it's OK for Arabs to invest nearly $185 billion in the fire- and explosion-prone fuel factories now being planned, built, and operated – with U.S. taxpayer money – in farm communities across America?
Concerning Thomas C. Dorr of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the following appears in "Dorr calls for new rural investment opportunities," by Jean Caspers-Simmet, in the February 14, 2006 Rochester, Minnesota Agri News:
LINK
"Last June Dorr attended the Second Annual Renewable Energy Finance Forum in New York City.
"Represented in the room was $125 billion of capital willing to invest in green energy. A venture capitalist shared how his firm raised $185 billion capital to invest in Midwest ethanol refining capacity. Dorr asked how much came from the Middle East. The investor said nearly all of it."
If Middle East billions get invested in ethanol plants in the U.S. Midwest alone, doesn't that put our farmers – whom the Bush Administration keeps urging to invest in ethanol plants – in direct and unfair competition with oil-rich sheiks?
This also puts the lie to government propaganda that taxpayer-subsidized ethanol distilleries are supposed to benefit U.S. family farmers and their local communities.
Bush also claims ethanol helps cure U.S. addiction to Middle East oil. Whoever heard of his Middle East buddies' investing a penny to wean anyone off oil?
TEXT
$185 BILLION DOLLARS to invest in those TOXIC TERRORS known as ethanol factories and nearly ALL of the money coming from the Middle East.
Haven't we already sacrificed enough of our wealth, world standing and untold numbers of our troops, helping to prop up some of these same Middle East multi-millionaires dictators? All of those precious commodities and lives squandered, helping to protect these tyrants from the ravages of DEMOCRACY.
Any guess as to where this nearly $185 BILLION DOLLARS of investment money came from? Do we need to give even more of our money to these potentates?
The Middle East holds vasts reserves of oil. Which the ME plans on selling to the U.S. in the form of gasoline. One would think they would be hesitant to invest in the competition that is being sold as an alternative to ME oil.
Yet, these Sultans are more than willing to invest in ethanol factories. They know ethanol and biofuel factories will gobble up THEIR Middle East oil, increasing THEIR profits by increasing the amount of money we pay at the pump
What does that tell you about the mantra we've been hearing about how ethanol will help wean the country off ME oil?
It won't. In fact, it will increase the use of ME oil and natural gas. And the sheiks know this, that's why they're willing to invest billions and billions of dollars into the ethanol craze.
They're just "priming the pump", so to speak.
ETHANOL: A COSTLY SNAKE OIL AND A DANGER TO AMERICA
By Ray Wallace
PRESIDENT BUSH thought it was OK for Arabs to buy control of U.S. ports. Does he also think it's OK for Arabs to invest nearly $185 billion in the fire- and explosion-prone fuel factories now being planned, built, and operated – with U.S. taxpayer money – in farm communities across America?
Concerning Thomas C. Dorr of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the following appears in "Dorr calls for new rural investment opportunities," by Jean Caspers-Simmet, in the February 14, 2006 Rochester, Minnesota Agri News:
LINK
"Last June Dorr attended the Second Annual Renewable Energy Finance Forum in New York City.
"Represented in the room was $125 billion of capital willing to invest in green energy. A venture capitalist shared how his firm raised $185 billion capital to invest in Midwest ethanol refining capacity. Dorr asked how much came from the Middle East. The investor said nearly all of it."
If Middle East billions get invested in ethanol plants in the U.S. Midwest alone, doesn't that put our farmers – whom the Bush Administration keeps urging to invest in ethanol plants – in direct and unfair competition with oil-rich sheiks?
This also puts the lie to government propaganda that taxpayer-subsidized ethanol distilleries are supposed to benefit U.S. family farmers and their local communities.
Bush also claims ethanol helps cure U.S. addiction to Middle East oil. Whoever heard of his Middle East buddies' investing a penny to wean anyone off oil?
TEXT
$185 BILLION DOLLARS to invest in those TOXIC TERRORS known as ethanol factories and nearly ALL of the money coming from the Middle East.
Haven't we already sacrificed enough of our wealth, world standing and untold numbers of our troops, helping to prop up some of these same Middle East multi-millionaires dictators? All of those precious commodities and lives squandered, helping to protect these tyrants from the ravages of DEMOCRACY.
Any guess as to where this nearly $185 BILLION DOLLARS of investment money came from? Do we need to give even more of our money to these potentates?
The Middle East holds vasts reserves of oil. Which the ME plans on selling to the U.S. in the form of gasoline. One would think they would be hesitant to invest in the competition that is being sold as an alternative to ME oil.
Yet, these Sultans are more than willing to invest in ethanol factories. They know ethanol and biofuel factories will gobble up THEIR Middle East oil, increasing THEIR profits by increasing the amount of money we pay at the pump
What does that tell you about the mantra we've been hearing about how ethanol will help wean the country off ME oil?
It won't. In fact, it will increase the use of ME oil and natural gas. And the sheiks know this, that's why they're willing to invest billions and billions of dollars into the ethanol craze.
They're just "priming the pump", so to speak.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
WHAT ABOUT THE LAND?
A look at the impacts of biofuels production, in the U.S. and the world
BY JULIA OLMSTEAD
Great news! We can finally scratch "driving less" off our list of ways to curb global warming and reduce our dependence on foreign oil! Biofuels will soon not only replace much of our petroleum, but improve soil fertility and save the American farmer as well!
Sound too good to be true? Well, yes. But you could be excused for buying the hype.
Ethanol and biodiesel are being promoted as cures for our energy and environmental woes not just by flacks for corporations like Archer Daniels Midland, BP, and DuPont, but by many eco-minded activists and some prominent environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council as well.
"Even if corn and soy biodiesel have positive energy balances, that's not enough," says Andy Heggenstaller, a graduate student at Iowa State University researching biofuel crop production. "Large-scale production of corn and soybeans has negative ecological consequences. If biofuels are based on systems that exacerbate soil erosion and water contamination, they're ultimately not sustainable."
The effects of corn and soybean production in the Midwest include massive topsoil erosion, pollution of surface and groundwater with pesticides, and fertilizer runoff that travels down the Mississippi River to deplete oxygen from a portion of the Gulf of Mexico called the dead zone that has, in the last few years, been the size of New Jersey.
And according to a recent report by the World Resources Institute, stepped-up corn ethanol production means not only increases in soil erosion and water pollution, but increases in greenhouse-gas emissions. "If your objective is reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, you need to be aware of what's happening in the agricultural sector," says Liz Marshall, coauthor of the WRI study.
TEXT
BY JULIA OLMSTEAD
Great news! We can finally scratch "driving less" off our list of ways to curb global warming and reduce our dependence on foreign oil! Biofuels will soon not only replace much of our petroleum, but improve soil fertility and save the American farmer as well!
Sound too good to be true? Well, yes. But you could be excused for buying the hype.
Ethanol and biodiesel are being promoted as cures for our energy and environmental woes not just by flacks for corporations like Archer Daniels Midland, BP, and DuPont, but by many eco-minded activists and some prominent environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council as well.
"Even if corn and soy biodiesel have positive energy balances, that's not enough," says Andy Heggenstaller, a graduate student at Iowa State University researching biofuel crop production. "Large-scale production of corn and soybeans has negative ecological consequences. If biofuels are based on systems that exacerbate soil erosion and water contamination, they're ultimately not sustainable."
The effects of corn and soybean production in the Midwest include massive topsoil erosion, pollution of surface and groundwater with pesticides, and fertilizer runoff that travels down the Mississippi River to deplete oxygen from a portion of the Gulf of Mexico called the dead zone that has, in the last few years, been the size of New Jersey.
And according to a recent report by the World Resources Institute, stepped-up corn ethanol production means not only increases in soil erosion and water pollution, but increases in greenhouse-gas emissions. "If your objective is reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, you need to be aware of what's happening in the agricultural sector," says Liz Marshall, coauthor of the WRI study.
TEXT
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
GOODBYE CHEAP FOOD, HELLO SMOG
Biofuel Mania Ends Days Of Cheap Food By Gwynne Dyer
07/16/07 "NZHerald" --The era of cheap food is over. The price of maize has doubled in a year, and wheat futures are at their highest in a decade. The food price index in India has risen 11 per cent in one year, and in Mexico in January there were riots after the price of corn flour - used in making the staple food of the poor, tortillas - went up fourfold.
Before World War II, most families in developed countries spent a third or more of their income on food, as the poor majority in developing countries still do. But after the war, a series of radical changes, from mechanisation to the green revolution, raised agricultural productivity hugely and caused a long, steep fall in the real price of food.
For the global middle class, it was the good old days, with food taking only a tenth of their income.
It will probably be back up to a quarter within a decade. And it may go much higher than that because we are entering a period when three separate factors are converging to drive food prices up.
A sixth of all the grain grown in the United States this year will be "industrial corn" destined to be converted into ethanol and burned in cars, and Europe, Brazil and China are all heading in the same direction.
The attraction of biofuels for politicians is obvious: they can claim that they are doing something useful to combat emissions and global warming - although the claims are deeply suspect - without demanding any sacrifices from business or the voters.
The amount of United States farmland devoted to biofuels grew by 48 per cent in the past year alone, and hardly any new land was brought under the plough to replace the lost food production.
ARTICLE
07/16/07 "NZHerald" --The era of cheap food is over. The price of maize has doubled in a year, and wheat futures are at their highest in a decade. The food price index in India has risen 11 per cent in one year, and in Mexico in January there were riots after the price of corn flour - used in making the staple food of the poor, tortillas - went up fourfold.
Before World War II, most families in developed countries spent a third or more of their income on food, as the poor majority in developing countries still do. But after the war, a series of radical changes, from mechanisation to the green revolution, raised agricultural productivity hugely and caused a long, steep fall in the real price of food.
For the global middle class, it was the good old days, with food taking only a tenth of their income.
It will probably be back up to a quarter within a decade. And it may go much higher than that because we are entering a period when three separate factors are converging to drive food prices up.
A sixth of all the grain grown in the United States this year will be "industrial corn" destined to be converted into ethanol and burned in cars, and Europe, Brazil and China are all heading in the same direction.
The attraction of biofuels for politicians is obvious: they can claim that they are doing something useful to combat emissions and global warming - although the claims are deeply suspect - without demanding any sacrifices from business or the voters.
The amount of United States farmland devoted to biofuels grew by 48 per cent in the past year alone, and hardly any new land was brought under the plough to replace the lost food production.
ARTICLE
Sunday, July 15, 2007
THE ULTIMATE CON GAME
Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel from corn and other crops is not worth the energy
By Susan S. Lang
ITHACA, N.Y. -- Turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates, according to a new Cornell University and University of California-Berkeley study.
"There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel," says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell. "These strategies are not sustainable."
Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley, conducted a detailed analysis of the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass and wood biomass as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants. Their report is published in Natural Resources Research (Vol. 14:1, 65-76).
In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that:
corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and
wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that:
soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and
sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
"The United State desperately needs a liquid fuel replacement for oil in the near future," says Pimentel, "but producing ethanol or biodiesel from plant biomass is going down the wrong road, because you use more energy to produce these fuels than you get out from the combustion of these products."
TEXT
That ethanol will somehow magically help cure our addiction to oil is nothing more than a pipe dream, being sold to the American public by assorted shills, who's only interest is their bottom line.
That ethanol will somehow get us away from importing oil from the world's premier trouble spot, the Middle East, is another fabrication, being sold to the American public by some of the same corporations that are seeing their quarterly profits set new records every year.
As this respected study shows, ethanol production will use MORE fossil energy to produce than it gives back. That means more money going to certain Middle East countries with a proven track record of supporting terrorism.
Terrorism that will be increasingly directed at the U.S., as long as we have a massive military presence in that volatile region.
Ethanol is nothing more than a variation of the "SHELL" con game, which is portrayed as a gambling game, but in reality, when a wager for money is made, it is an illegal confidence trick used to perpetrate fraud.
The person perpetrating the swindle begins the game by placing the pea under one of the shells, then quickly shuffles the shells around. Once done shuffling, the operator takes bets from his audience on the location of the pea. The audience is told that if a player bets and guesses correctly, the player will win back double his bet (that is, he will double his money); otherwise he/she loses the money. However, in the hands of a skilled operator, it is not possible for the game to be won, unless the operator wants the player to win.
And in essence, we are being played by professional con artists, seeking to separate us from our money, health and our pristine Ozark enviroment.
Will we fall for this con or wise up and walk away before we lose all we hold dear?
By Susan S. Lang
ITHACA, N.Y. -- Turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates, according to a new Cornell University and University of California-Berkeley study.
"There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel," says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell. "These strategies are not sustainable."
Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley, conducted a detailed analysis of the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass and wood biomass as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants. Their report is published in Natural Resources Research (Vol. 14:1, 65-76).
In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that:
corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and
wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that:
soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and
sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
"The United State desperately needs a liquid fuel replacement for oil in the near future," says Pimentel, "but producing ethanol or biodiesel from plant biomass is going down the wrong road, because you use more energy to produce these fuels than you get out from the combustion of these products."
TEXT
That ethanol will somehow magically help cure our addiction to oil is nothing more than a pipe dream, being sold to the American public by assorted shills, who's only interest is their bottom line.
That ethanol will somehow get us away from importing oil from the world's premier trouble spot, the Middle East, is another fabrication, being sold to the American public by some of the same corporations that are seeing their quarterly profits set new records every year.
As this respected study shows, ethanol production will use MORE fossil energy to produce than it gives back. That means more money going to certain Middle East countries with a proven track record of supporting terrorism.
Terrorism that will be increasingly directed at the U.S., as long as we have a massive military presence in that volatile region.
Ethanol is nothing more than a variation of the "SHELL" con game, which is portrayed as a gambling game, but in reality, when a wager for money is made, it is an illegal confidence trick used to perpetrate fraud.
The person perpetrating the swindle begins the game by placing the pea under one of the shells, then quickly shuffles the shells around. Once done shuffling, the operator takes bets from his audience on the location of the pea. The audience is told that if a player bets and guesses correctly, the player will win back double his bet (that is, he will double his money); otherwise he/she loses the money. However, in the hands of a skilled operator, it is not possible for the game to be won, unless the operator wants the player to win.
And in essence, we are being played by professional con artists, seeking to separate us from our money, health and our pristine Ozark enviroment.
Will we fall for this con or wise up and walk away before we lose all we hold dear?
Thursday, July 12, 2007
KILLING OURSELVES TO LIVE
Ethanol is widely touted as an eco-friendly, clean-burning fuel. But if every vehicle in the United States ran on fuel made primarily from ethanol instead of pure gasoline, the number of respiratory-related deaths and hospitalizations would likely increase, according to a new study by Stanford University atmospheric scientist Mark Z. Jacobson. His findings are published in the April 18 online edition of the journal Environmental Science & Technology.
"Ethanol is being promoted as a clean and renewable fuel that will reduce global warming and air pollution,'' said Jacobson, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering. ''But our results show that a high blend of ethanol poses an equal or greater risk to public health than gasoline, which already causes significant health damage.
''We found that E85 vehicles reduce atmospheric levels of two carcinogens, benzene and butadiene, but increase two others-formaldehyde and acetaldehyde,'' Jacobson said. ''As a result, cancer rates for E85 are likely to be similar to those for gasoline. However, in some parts of the country, E85 significantly increased ozone, a prime ingredient of smog.''
Inhaling ozone-even at low levels-can decrease lung capacity, inflame lung tissue, worsen asthma and impair the body's immune system, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The World Health Organization estimates that 800,000 people die each year from ozone and other chemicals in smog.
TEXT
Will sanity eventually triumph over our addiction to cheap gasoline to fuel our vehicles? Or will we become a fossilized part of the planet's history, doomed to extinction by our unhealthy love affair with the "infernal" combustion engine.
We like to tout humans as the most intelligent life on the planet. But how smart is it to go down a path that is leading to our destruction?
Whether we succumb to lung disease and cancers from breathing ethanol fumes or finally ignite a Nuclear WW III, fighting over oil fields in the Middle East, it won't matter to future generations, since we are currently signing their death warrants.
Signing our children's death warrants with ink made from blood.
"Ethanol is being promoted as a clean and renewable fuel that will reduce global warming and air pollution,'' said Jacobson, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering. ''But our results show that a high blend of ethanol poses an equal or greater risk to public health than gasoline, which already causes significant health damage.
''We found that E85 vehicles reduce atmospheric levels of two carcinogens, benzene and butadiene, but increase two others-formaldehyde and acetaldehyde,'' Jacobson said. ''As a result, cancer rates for E85 are likely to be similar to those for gasoline. However, in some parts of the country, E85 significantly increased ozone, a prime ingredient of smog.''
Inhaling ozone-even at low levels-can decrease lung capacity, inflame lung tissue, worsen asthma and impair the body's immune system, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The World Health Organization estimates that 800,000 people die each year from ozone and other chemicals in smog.
TEXT
Will sanity eventually triumph over our addiction to cheap gasoline to fuel our vehicles? Or will we become a fossilized part of the planet's history, doomed to extinction by our unhealthy love affair with the "infernal" combustion engine.
We like to tout humans as the most intelligent life on the planet. But how smart is it to go down a path that is leading to our destruction?
Whether we succumb to lung disease and cancers from breathing ethanol fumes or finally ignite a Nuclear WW III, fighting over oil fields in the Middle East, it won't matter to future generations, since we are currently signing their death warrants.
Signing our children's death warrants with ink made from blood.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
HIGHWAY ROBBERY
"Ethanol is a magic elixir. It allows politicians and political operatives to promise voters that America can achieve "energy independence." In this new energy Valhalla, American farmers will be rich, fat and happy, thanks to all the money they will be making from "energy crops." Better yet, U.S. soldiers will never again need to visit the Persian Gulf - except, perhaps, on vacation. With enough ethanol-blended motor fuel, America can finally dictate terms to those rascally Arab sheikhs with their rag-covered heads, multiple wives and supertankers loaded with sulfurous crude.
First, the subsidies. Making ethanol from corn borders on fiscal insanity. It uses taxpayer money to make subsidized motor fuel from the single most subsidized crop in America. Between 1995 and 2005, federal corn subsidies totaled $51.2 billion. In 2005 alone, according to data compiled by the Environmental Working Group, corn subsidies totaled $9.4 billion. That $9.4 billion is approximately equal to the budget for the U.S. Department of Commerce, a federal agency that has 39,000 employees.
But the ethanol lobby isn't satisfied with the subsidies paid out to grow the grain. They are also getting huge subsidies to turn that grain into fuel. According to the Global Subsidies Initiative, meeting Bush's goal of producing 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels per year by 2017 will require total subsidies of $118 billion. The group claims that this price tag "would be the minimum subsidy" over the eleven-year period. In a report released on February 9, the group said that adding in tax breaks that the corn distillers are getting from state and local governments and federal tariffs imposed on foreign ethanol (mostly from Brazil) "would likely add tens of billions of dollars of subsidies" to the $118 billion estimate.
In April, Mark Z. Jacobson, an engineering professor at Stanford University, published a study concluding that the widespread use of E85 (fuel that contains 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline) "may increase ozone-related mortality, hospitalization, and asthma by about 9 percent in Los Angeles and 4 percent in the United States as a whole" when compared to the use of regular gasoline. Jacobson also found that because of its ozone-related effects, E85 "may be a greater overall public health risk than gasoline."
TEXT
$118 BILLION DOLLARS in future subsidies to the ravenous, pork laden ethanol industry. The ethanol industry is turning out be one of the biggest scams in recent memory.
Not only will taxpayers be forced to feed this "FRANKENFUEL" monster with their hard earned money, they will also be the ones to reap the "benefits", like polluted water and air, a depleted Ozarks Aquifer and cancer clusters around the ethanol plants.
With that much pork to be spread around, it's no wonder the present and future ethanol producers are crowding around the feed trough, waiting for the next delivery of YOUR tax dollars that go into their ever expanding stomachs..... and wallets.
First, the subsidies. Making ethanol from corn borders on fiscal insanity. It uses taxpayer money to make subsidized motor fuel from the single most subsidized crop in America. Between 1995 and 2005, federal corn subsidies totaled $51.2 billion. In 2005 alone, according to data compiled by the Environmental Working Group, corn subsidies totaled $9.4 billion. That $9.4 billion is approximately equal to the budget for the U.S. Department of Commerce, a federal agency that has 39,000 employees.
But the ethanol lobby isn't satisfied with the subsidies paid out to grow the grain. They are also getting huge subsidies to turn that grain into fuel. According to the Global Subsidies Initiative, meeting Bush's goal of producing 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels per year by 2017 will require total subsidies of $118 billion. The group claims that this price tag "would be the minimum subsidy" over the eleven-year period. In a report released on February 9, the group said that adding in tax breaks that the corn distillers are getting from state and local governments and federal tariffs imposed on foreign ethanol (mostly from Brazil) "would likely add tens of billions of dollars of subsidies" to the $118 billion estimate.
In April, Mark Z. Jacobson, an engineering professor at Stanford University, published a study concluding that the widespread use of E85 (fuel that contains 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline) "may increase ozone-related mortality, hospitalization, and asthma by about 9 percent in Los Angeles and 4 percent in the United States as a whole" when compared to the use of regular gasoline. Jacobson also found that because of its ozone-related effects, E85 "may be a greater overall public health risk than gasoline."
TEXT
$118 BILLION DOLLARS in future subsidies to the ravenous, pork laden ethanol industry. The ethanol industry is turning out be one of the biggest scams in recent memory.
Not only will taxpayers be forced to feed this "FRANKENFUEL" monster with their hard earned money, they will also be the ones to reap the "benefits", like polluted water and air, a depleted Ozarks Aquifer and cancer clusters around the ethanol plants.
With that much pork to be spread around, it's no wonder the present and future ethanol producers are crowding around the feed trough, waiting for the next delivery of YOUR tax dollars that go into their ever expanding stomachs..... and wallets.
Friday, July 6, 2007
ETHANOL A "CLEVER IDEA?"
Ethanol a 'clever idea' of industry, government July 5, 2007 by Doug Kelly
David Pitts makes several very good and well-thought-out points. I agree with his analysis of ethanol. I have read similar articles in a variety of magazines that support his scientific data. And I also question not only the veracity of the ethanol proponents, but also the moral-ethical discussion about which he writes. We'll likely run out of water before we run out of oil and gas. If you don't believe it, go to a Western state and see for yourself.
Too many people are ill-informed about ethanol. Some people are just gullible. And others are so desperate to save gas they are clutching onto anything possible to save fossil fuel and cut emission. But clearly ethanol is not the answer. In fact, if people would take a little time to study this, they would find that ethanol will do just opposite of what they want — that is, to save gas.
I'm afraid it's another one of those "clever ideas" cooked up by industry and government. And a more dangerous combination of forces doesn't exist.
Ethanol is a joke for fuel savings because it's nothing but "watered-down" gasoline that actually costs more to make and sell. And it does indeed have water in it. Not only is water not particularly good for an engine, but it will condense in your fuel tank and cause it to rust. This does wonders for your fuel pumps and filter.
Not to mention that it doesn't save fuel because it is really just a low grade gasoline; it burns unevenly in the cylinder head and so it actually gets worse mileage than one gets now on plain 87 octane and certainly less mpg than 92 octane. We used to be afraid of buying cheap gas because it may be "watered-down," now we're actually getting watered-down gas and it's said to be a great achievement.
At first it was 90 percent gas and 10 percent ethanol. Now I'm seeing 85 percent in some places, even 80 for biodiesel. Well, that would invalidate my car's engine and drive-train warranty. It says so very clearly in the owner's manual. I don't like that part. And to all the ethanol-lovers, I'm not confusing this with methanol. Ethanol is clearly stated in my car's manual. Ask a mechanic how ethanol will ruin your engine.
I have another question for those who are saving our environment. How does ethanol save the use of "fossil fuel" when it requires just as much or more actual fossil fuel than before? I believe strongly in protecting our environment. But as I remember, the original idea was to use less fossil fuel, not the same amount or likely more along with corn and water added. Was that not the original idea?
Well, ethanol doesn't lessen our use of fossil fuel. Like a fellow once said, "When you're up to your butt in alligators, it's hard to remember that the original idea was to drain the swamp."
But it is a nice sop from the government and taxpayers to the corn growers. Makes the cost of corn higher because it's in greater demand. Believe me, everything having any amount of corn in it, as well and livestock produced from feed corn, will all cost us more. Well, we can't expect industries reliant on corn and our beef and hog farmers to sell for a loss just because we "need" ethanol.
This is about the worst idea for using less fossil fuel that we've come up with. It's a really, really bad idea. But the bandwagon for ethanol is up and running. And it looks like the loss is going to be ours. What do you think should be done? Well, I guess we can buy carbon credits to allow us to feel good about continuing to emit high carbon content exhaust gasses. Those are popular with the jet set and rich crowd.
TEXT
David Pitts makes several very good and well-thought-out points. I agree with his analysis of ethanol. I have read similar articles in a variety of magazines that support his scientific data. And I also question not only the veracity of the ethanol proponents, but also the moral-ethical discussion about which he writes. We'll likely run out of water before we run out of oil and gas. If you don't believe it, go to a Western state and see for yourself.
Too many people are ill-informed about ethanol. Some people are just gullible. And others are so desperate to save gas they are clutching onto anything possible to save fossil fuel and cut emission. But clearly ethanol is not the answer. In fact, if people would take a little time to study this, they would find that ethanol will do just opposite of what they want — that is, to save gas.
I'm afraid it's another one of those "clever ideas" cooked up by industry and government. And a more dangerous combination of forces doesn't exist.
Ethanol is a joke for fuel savings because it's nothing but "watered-down" gasoline that actually costs more to make and sell. And it does indeed have water in it. Not only is water not particularly good for an engine, but it will condense in your fuel tank and cause it to rust. This does wonders for your fuel pumps and filter.
Not to mention that it doesn't save fuel because it is really just a low grade gasoline; it burns unevenly in the cylinder head and so it actually gets worse mileage than one gets now on plain 87 octane and certainly less mpg than 92 octane. We used to be afraid of buying cheap gas because it may be "watered-down," now we're actually getting watered-down gas and it's said to be a great achievement.
At first it was 90 percent gas and 10 percent ethanol. Now I'm seeing 85 percent in some places, even 80 for biodiesel. Well, that would invalidate my car's engine and drive-train warranty. It says so very clearly in the owner's manual. I don't like that part. And to all the ethanol-lovers, I'm not confusing this with methanol. Ethanol is clearly stated in my car's manual. Ask a mechanic how ethanol will ruin your engine.
I have another question for those who are saving our environment. How does ethanol save the use of "fossil fuel" when it requires just as much or more actual fossil fuel than before? I believe strongly in protecting our environment. But as I remember, the original idea was to use less fossil fuel, not the same amount or likely more along with corn and water added. Was that not the original idea?
Well, ethanol doesn't lessen our use of fossil fuel. Like a fellow once said, "When you're up to your butt in alligators, it's hard to remember that the original idea was to drain the swamp."
But it is a nice sop from the government and taxpayers to the corn growers. Makes the cost of corn higher because it's in greater demand. Believe me, everything having any amount of corn in it, as well and livestock produced from feed corn, will all cost us more. Well, we can't expect industries reliant on corn and our beef and hog farmers to sell for a loss just because we "need" ethanol.
This is about the worst idea for using less fossil fuel that we've come up with. It's a really, really bad idea. But the bandwagon for ethanol is up and running. And it looks like the loss is going to be ours. What do you think should be done? Well, I guess we can buy carbon credits to allow us to feel good about continuing to emit high carbon content exhaust gasses. Those are popular with the jet set and rich crowd.
TEXT
Sunday, July 1, 2007
"THAR'S PORK IN THEM THAR HILLS"
A quarter-mile procession of trucks piled high with corn trundles concussively over the ruts on Distillery Road in the farm town of Pekin, Illinois, 163 miles south of Chicago.
The 18-wheelers are about to drop their loads at Aventine Renewable Energy LLC, an ethanol maker that Morgan Stanley bought for $66 million three years ago. Today, that investment is worth about $750 million, according to a company filing, as runaway oil prices spur an ethanol boom.
Investors and politicians from Wall Street to Detroit, to Silicon Valley are lavishing money and praise on the fuel made from corn. Goldman Sachs Group Inc.'s announcement in May of a $26.9 million ethanol investment came after similar forays this year by billionaire Bill Gates and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, helping boost the shares of ethanol makers fourfold.
Aventine, which was planning an initial public offering for as early as June, is adding a total of about 500 million gallons of ethanol production in the next few years, a threefold increase.
Morgan Stanley spun off its buyout unit in 2004 into a new company called Metalmark Capital LLC, at which Abramson now serves as managing director. New York-based Metalmark manages the Morgan Stanley Capital Partners funds, which own a controlling 40 percent stake in Aventine. Abramson declined to be interviewed.
Climate Ark
From an initial $66 million dollar investment to a whopping cash cow that climbed in value to nearly $750 Million Dollars, investing in ethanol is looking more and more like the next PONZI scheme for the public.
If the ethanol business is such a money-making enterprise, then why is the public being forced to subsidize these "Ethanol Factories" with billions and billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies. These tax breaks are generously handed out at the local, state and federal level by our so-called "Public Servants" who are serving anything but the public when they hold for ransom our schools, infrastructure and our health.
The 18-wheelers are about to drop their loads at Aventine Renewable Energy LLC, an ethanol maker that Morgan Stanley bought for $66 million three years ago. Today, that investment is worth about $750 million, according to a company filing, as runaway oil prices spur an ethanol boom.
Investors and politicians from Wall Street to Detroit, to Silicon Valley are lavishing money and praise on the fuel made from corn. Goldman Sachs Group Inc.'s announcement in May of a $26.9 million ethanol investment came after similar forays this year by billionaire Bill Gates and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, helping boost the shares of ethanol makers fourfold.
Aventine, which was planning an initial public offering for as early as June, is adding a total of about 500 million gallons of ethanol production in the next few years, a threefold increase.
Morgan Stanley spun off its buyout unit in 2004 into a new company called Metalmark Capital LLC, at which Abramson now serves as managing director. New York-based Metalmark manages the Morgan Stanley Capital Partners funds, which own a controlling 40 percent stake in Aventine. Abramson declined to be interviewed.
Climate Ark
From an initial $66 million dollar investment to a whopping cash cow that climbed in value to nearly $750 Million Dollars, investing in ethanol is looking more and more like the next PONZI scheme for the public.
If the ethanol business is such a money-making enterprise, then why is the public being forced to subsidize these "Ethanol Factories" with billions and billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies. These tax breaks are generously handed out at the local, state and federal level by our so-called "Public Servants" who are serving anything but the public when they hold for ransom our schools, infrastructure and our health.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)