Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - Re: [Livingontheland] op-ed piece on ethanol

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Dan Conine <dconine@dotnet.com>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] op-ed piece on ethanol
  • Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 11:46:06 -0500

I agree with Mark here. There are a lot of factors which are ignored in the ethanol debate which I think shouldn't be. The problem which is manifest is overconsumption and eventual collapse of a species. We need to look at the Net Creativity of the human species, and what usefulness we create vs. what we consume in resources. The idea that we have to feed the desires for liquid fuel at all costs is the first that should go. The second is the idea that we cannot reduce population pressure on politicians. The third is that everyone gets to enjoy the slovenly life of America's Dream with white picket fences and pesticide laden lawns.
The construction of an ethanol plant alone isn't worth the lost cropland in it's footprint. The problem with feeding corn to cattle isn't necessarily that people could eat the corn, but that the cows aren't healthy. There is a fundamental flaw in feeding high energy foods to cattle. They evolved to eat low energy foods, and they create a net gain for the ecosystem when they do so.
Not only do I agree with Mark's statement "Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should.", I also think that we need to think about doing the things we should do, and that they need to be done RIGHT. The ethanol that will be produced by all that corn could easily be replaced by a small reduction in fossil fuel use. The only farmers who will benefit from growing large quantities of corn are the ones who do it 'efficiently', which means without fences, cattle, or people on their land. To be good stewards of the land, we have to be ON it.

Dan Conine
Belgium, WI,

Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree.

Your discussion centers around mass production. While mass production is
efficient, it is so at the expense of needing to promote growth.

None of this is sustainable in a growth environment. And seeing that the
economic system that maintains these methods of production rely on growth in
order to operate, it's not a workable system long-term.

Ethanol production (especially from corn) is going to ramp up big time. And
it's not because it's a good idea, but rather because of the existing lobby
groups.

As to your statement "Properly processed, remaining solids could even provide direct
nutrition for human consumption," there's that magic word- "processed." At what
cost is this production? How much energy are we going to pump into this?

Just because something can be done doesn't mean that it should.

I'll forgo comments on the environmental impacts from ethanol
production/processing.


-Mark Nagel
Everett, WA






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page