If You Don't Support Corn Ethanol, You Must be a Terrorist!

There were a couple of outstanding articles in the latest issue of Rolling Stone magazine that are worth reading. One is about Ethanol as a substitute fuel and the other (which I may discuss in a later post) is about Dateline's show To Catch a Predator. Both are excellent because they reasonably and rationally build arguments that buck the conventional wisdom. Think due process and legal protection are worth sacrificing to catch potential pedophiles? Think again - if you want to bother considering where those resources could be better spent to achieve the broader goal of protecting children.

But, let's focus now on corn-based Ethanol - the biofuel that's going to save the earth! According to former CIA Director John Woolsey, "American farmers, by making a commitment to grow more corn for ethanol, are at the top of the spear on the war against terrorism." Here are some quick facts from the article - summarized here for your protection:

• Last month, the Senate mandated the production of 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022.
• Corn is today the most subsidized crop in America (getting twice as much as wheat subsidies and four times as much as soybeans). Ethanol is further subsidized (including a 51-cent-per-gallon tax allowance for refiners)
• Our current ethanol production represents only 3.5% of our gasoline consumption, but consumer 20% of the entire U.S. corn crop.
• The resulting increase in the price of corn means ...
• ...devoting more acreage to the production of corn (less land for other staple crops)
• ...giving incentive for South American farmers to destroy more tropical forests for corn fields
• Even corn growers admit that turning more grain into fuel would disrupt global food supplies.
• Ethanol's energy density (how much power you can generate from a certain amount of the fuel) is one-third less than gasoline.
• Since it has a tendency to absorb water, it can't be transported by pipelines, but must use truck or rail, which is inefficient and results in an increase in consumption of fossil fuels for delivery.
• When you add up the fossil fuels used to irrigate, fertilize, transport, refine and grow corn into usable ethanol, its energy balance is 1.3-to-1 (the energy balance of gasoline is 5-to-1). Huge amount of fossil fuels are burned to produce corn.
• When corn ethanol is burned in automobiles, it is as "dirty" as conventional gasoline and does not help global warming.
• Even if ethanol producers manage to hit the mandated 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022, that will replace only 7% of our current oil needs.
• Even if you were willing to give up ALL corn consumption and devote 100% of the U.S. corn crop for making ethanol, it would replace only 12% of current gasoline use. Ethanol is not the magic bullet to free us from dependence on foreign oil.
• Runoff from industrial-scale cornfields silts up the Mississippi river creating the Gulf of Mexico dead zone.
• Creating the equivalent of one SUV fill-up of pure ethanol requires more than 450 pounds of corn - enough calories to feed one person for a year.
• The increased devotion of corn to ethanol production has resulted in massive increases in the price of poultry , beef, and pork as farmers can't afford the corn to feed the animals.
• The biggest corporate beneficiary of corn subsidies and related tax breaks, ADM has cozy link to ethanol supporting politicians.
• The closer we get to the Iowa primary, the greater the rush among politicians to publicly shout their support for corn ethanol.

So forget the fact that ethanol is bad for the environment, does not help with global warming, does not reduce dependence on foreign oil (and may actually increase it), and may leave more of the world's poorest hungry. Because, as our friendly, caring politicians will let you know, if you don't support corn ethanol, you obviously hate our country, you unpatriotic SOB!

I urge you to read the full article in Rolling Stone by Jeff Goodell, here.

No Matter What You Do, You Support Slavery!

I hate grand-standing, opportunistic politicans who cloak themselves in patriotism or morality and proclaim how "offended" they are by someone else's behavior purely for the sake of basking in the projected honor and glory.

What brought on this unusual reaction (for me) is an article in our local newspaper on the continuing saga of St. Louis (Minnesota) County Commissioner Keith Nelson who got caught on camera (with the active support of YouTube distribution) making an off-the-cuff response to a silly question at a County Board meeting. Basically, there was a debate on a smoking ban in our county and this guy was opposed to the smoking ban because a majority of his constituents, who he's supposed to be representing, opposed the ban (I mean, isn't that his job in a representative democracy?) In a clever use of argumentation and rhetoric, another commissioner, Bill Kron, asked him if he would have voted "for slavery" if a majority of his constituents did. Stuck in the situation with the need to respond to a rather silly and irrelevant question while reinforcing his point about being a representative for his constituents, he said "Yes." And that started a firestorm of controversy. Now, this whole exchange was repositioned as an elected official advocating in favor of slavery!!!!

Today, the paper reported that he apologized to the Human Rights Commission and agreed to try and take some diversity training. As one of my favorite journalists, John Stossel, likes to say, Give Me A Break! I wish Keith Nelson had instead responded to the question during the meeting by saying "Sir, if a majority of your constituents were against slavery, but you personally believed that slavery was good, would you have voted for it?" That would have put the other commissioner in his place and made everyone realize how stupid and irrelevant that question was. While I don't know Keith Neilson or the other Commissioner, I can identify political correctness run amuck. From what I saw, this man was not advocating or supporting slavery in any way, but was responding to an odd and ridiculous question. To any intelligent person (who is not looking to take advantage of such situations), there was no intent to glorify slavery or support it in any way.

Instead, this man found himself constantly apologizing to everyone from pious Ministers to, recently, the Human Rights Commission. According to today's paper, "I was offended by your statement," Commission Member Linda Esala told Nelson. If this is all it takes to offend Ms. Esala, she should consider herself the beneficiary of the great civil rights leaders who have come before her. I find it offensive that this commission is obviously taking advantage of this slip in the middle of a debate on a smoking ban. Why wasn't commissioner Bill Kron taken to task for asking such a ridiculously irrelevant question? Why wasn't he criticized for equating a smoking ban with slavery? He gets off scot free and Mr. Nelson, who just happened to be on the wrong end of the question gets to spend the rest of his career living this down.

You can watch the video of the response on YouTube below.



Read the latest article (from the Minneapolis Star Tribune) here.