permaculture

[Harmon Seaver <hseaver@gmail.com>]

Toby Hemenway wrote:
> Harmon Seaver wrote:
>>  I can't find where he says that the US has "1.5
>> billion acres" of cropland, let alone "prime cropland". . . Maybe some of 
>> you should try reading the book before posting about it, eh?
>>   
> 
> That's classic--Harmon is unable to find it, so he demeans others, 
> determined to make other people wrong. Why not learn to disagree with 
> people without smearing their intelligence?
> 
> Quotation marks, in my hand, means I'm quoting text, in this case cut 
> and pasted from the book's website (Full disclosure: I copied it last 
> December for a different use, but I assume it's still on line).

  Here's what it says on the website:
"Myth #2: There Isn’t Enough Land to Grow Crops for Both Food and Fuel!

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. has
434,164,946 acres of “cropland”—land that is able to be worked in an
industrial fashion (monoculture). This is the prime, level, and
generally deep agricultural soil. In addition to cropland, the U.S. has
939,279,056 acres of “farmland.” This land is also good for agriculture,
but it’s not as level and the soil not as deep. Additionally, there is a
vast amount of acreage—swamps, arid or sloped land, even rivers, oceans,
and ponds—that the USDA doesn’t count as cropland or farmland, but which
is still suitable for growing specialized energy crops.

Of its nearly half a billion acres of prime cropland, the U.S. uses only
72.1 million acres for corn in an average year. The land used for corn
takes up only 16.6% of our prime cropland, and only 7.45% of our total
agricultural land.

Even if, for alcohol production, we used only what the USDA considers
prime flat cropland, we would still have to produce only 368.5 gallons
of alcohol per acre to meet 100% of the demand for transportation fuel
at today’s levels. Corn could easily produce this level—and a wide
variety of standard crops yield up to triple this. Plus, of course, the
potential alcohol production from cellulose could dwarf all other crops."
http://www.permaculture.com/node/490

   I don't see any "1.5 billion acres" of "prime cropland" there. And if
 you have a copy of the book and you say it's in there, please tell us
the page number.



 The 1.5
> billion figure is also quoted in several book reviews, like Albert 
> Bates's in Permaculture Activist, and Dave wrote the number on the board 
> when I saw him speak. It's also in my own copy (signed by Dave, whom I 
> first met in 1995--so it's not like I dislike the guy).

    So what page is it on? And as for your memory, well.... The written
word trumps memory. I have a memory of Jeezzzuzz saying we'd all have
flying carpets to solve the energy problem. Or wait, maybe that was a
dream....

   But anyway --- what's the point? Blume certainly isn't promoting corn
for ethanol, there are far better crops for that. And the best ones
don't require "prime cropland" at all. His best idea is using cattails
to treat sewage and making ethanol from the cattails. A total win/win
situation, we get much cleaner water and energy too. And any city that
runs out of water to flush it's toilets will quickly be depopulated by
cholera, thus reducing the demand for energy by a large amount.

> 
>> corn . . . is only 72.1
>> million acres. , or  about 16.6% of the "cropland", or about 7.45% of
>> the total "agricultural" acreage -- and last I know of, the USDA
>> considers forests and rangelands "agricultural"
> If an intelligent person is unable to see how specious this argument is, 
> there's some prejudice deeper than logic going on. The 16% and 7% 
> numbers are irrelevant and misleading, since we're not going to plant 
> corn in arid rangeland (to arrive at 16%) or National Forest ( 7%). The 
> only honest comparison is the percentage of corn out of all land 
> currently planted to crops, which is roughly 30% (this year it's 91 
> million acres out of 315 million). Using 434 million as the basis is 
> also a stretch since it includes fallow land (a rough constant),  
> exhausted marginal lands, and conservation land. Planting any of that 
> will have dire consequences, which is why we don't.

   Again, what's your point? Neither Blume nor I am talking about using
corn for ethanol -- his point there was clearly that even using a crappy
feedstock like corn, there was enough land.
    Once again folks, for the slow learners out there -- most corn goes
to feed animals at present. If it were used to make ethanol first, then
the spent mash fed to the animals, we'd have much healthier animals,
just as much food, and plenty of energy besides.
   But why bother with corn at all? Cattails makes much more sense, or
any one of many other plants. Don't have much water? Grow buffalo gourd.



> 
> As has been pointed out, the increase in corn acreage has come at the 
> expense of soybeans and other crops, showing that we cannot increase 
> corn acreage even by a few percent without serious consequences. It's 
> arguments like the above that cause an otherwise valuable book not to be 
> taken seriously by policymakers and energy scientists, and that's a shame.

   This is sheer and utter nonsense. Blume says repeatedly that corn is
the worst choice crop for ethanol.


> 
> If anyone is interested in hearing a reasoned argument against biofuels 
> by an energy scientist, check out "The Myths of Biofuels" by David 
> Fridley (who must be, of course, another lying shill for the oil 
> industry!). A trailer is at 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeVT7jMYZlo&feature=related

   Another lying shill or just a fool?

-- 
Harmon Seaver