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
Thursday, July 19, 2007
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)