Comments by Media_Critic
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on April 5 at 7:32 p.m.
As to the higher grocery costs to which you referred in your followup post, CO2, I believe they will be offset by other major benefits to the economy, public health, and to the environment:
"Who gains from a fair price for corn? Certainly farmers do. Corn's increased value raised prices across other major commodities too, including wheat and soybeans.
Taxpayers also win. When market prices rise, subsidies paid by taxpayers fall. We've already seen a $7 billion drop in agriculture subsidies from 2005 to 2006, with more expected in 2007.
Public health stands to gain too. Consumer research shows that price plays a significant role in the food we purchase. If soft drinks and greasy burgers start to cost more, healthier food including grass-fed beef and fruits and vegetables, become more competitive.
The environment stands to gain from higher priced corn. Higher feed cost makes industrial mega meat and poultry farms much less competitive. The environmental community has fought against these operations because of concerns about antibiotic use, animal welfare, manure spills and resulting water contamination.
Higher price is also a necessary step to shifting the biofuels industry beyond corn. Most believe corn is just the first wave of biofuels feedstock, and other environmentally friendly crops like switchgrass represent the next wave.
The eventual shift to perennial crops that use fewer or no pesticides and fertilizers will represent a huge gain for the environment. Not to mention reductions in greenhouse gases as we shift away from fossil fuels.
Higher corn prices accelerate the shift by making environmentally friendly crops more competitive.
Any time the status quo is rattled, people get nervous. In the case of corn, a small group of big grain companies reaped tremendous rewards during the last few decades. This new era of high-priced corn gives the rest of us a chance to benefit from a new kind of bounty."
http://www.agobservatory.org/headlines.c... ("Pricier corn is good for the nation")
Posted on April 5 at 7:27 p.m.
CO2, I agree with you that irrigation is only part of the water equation for ethanol production from corn, that most U.S. corn is not irrigated, and that it takes 4 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of ethanol. However, Granite Falls Energy is well aware of this. That is why it recently completed a Minnesota River water intake, pipeline, and water treatment project in February 2007, which should substantially reduce demand from the underground aquifer it had been using to excess. See http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/10... and http://www.secinfo.com/dsvRm.u3yj.d.htm
The fact that ethanol is subsidized at present does not, in any way, disprove the scientific research showing that it yields a net energy gain. As the technology matures, corn yields continue to increase, and political pressures subside, I think it's entirely possible that even the current moderate subsidies may be reduced or eliminated. You are also overlooking the history of the corn market, which demonstrates that when market prices rise, subsidies fall.
I do not agree with you that ethanol is strictly a auto-agribusiness dictated by large corporate concerns. There are already tens of thousands of family farmers and local cooperatives directly involved in its production -- unlike the highly concentrated, multinational oil companies (or "oil pigs," as MelissaE colorfully put it), at whose behest and for whose benefit many believe we went to war in Iraq at a staggering cost of more than $600 billion to date. Are you willing to pay that sort of price in the continued quest for "cheap oil," for which you conclude there is "probably no good substitute"? I'm not.
If the real problem is, as you argue, that there are too many people for the planet to sustain and too many greedy and lazy Americans who don't care about conservation or energy efficiency, how do you propose to attack the problem, CO2? Forced birth control ala China? Summary execution of anyone whose home is not sufficiently energy-efficient or refuses to conserve? Sitting around and waiting for them to eventually suffer the fate of the dinosaurs (along with the rest of humanity)? Any solution that relies primarily on permanently changing the behavior of "brain dead soccer moms & dads" is DOA by definition, since those who are brain-dead don't think -- they just act. Forget about harping on five words ("putting money in your pocket") -- isn't trying a promising alternative to exclusive dependence on cheap oil worth at least considering over the status quo ante?
Posted on April 5 at 2:01 p.m.
4_Emporia, I agree with you. While the writer of the opinion piece was certainly under no obligation to mention Mr. Solis and the Gazette published information about his views elsewhere, it would have been better to have done so.
Mr. Dillon, when I referred to you and Mr. Solis as "fringe candidates," I did not mean to imply that I think city government ought not to work for all its citizens, and that I approve of the victimization of people by slum lords, unscrupulous payday loan operators, or other downtown businesses. In fact, I actually thought you were a better alternative than candidates Myers and Solis. In your case, I thought "fringe candidate" was an apt description since you had only recently moved to Emporia and could not establish enough of a viable constituency through your representation of average folks -- and the results of the election bore that out. (Next time, however, the outcome may well be different.) I do, however, strongly disagree with any suggestion that Mr. Solis was worthy of a vote simply because he is Hispanic, because I believe racial/ethnic politics ala New Orleans is bad politics, no matter what the racial/ethnic makeup of the city.
Posted on April 5 at 1:33 p.m.
4_Emporia, I couldn't care less whether you or anyone else is impressed (or unimpressed) with what I have written and how I have written it. Likewise, my vocabulary is utterly irrelevant except to the extent it allows me to express myself clearly. Meanwhile, as I have said before, you don't know anything about me, my education, or my background, so your claim that I used a dictionary to look up what you think are the "big words" found in my posts is as vapid and vacuous as the rest of your appeals to emotion and age discrimination.
So for the second (and final) time, I now bid you adios, amigo, as I have now said all I am going to say about the school board election, which is water under the bridge now, anyway.
Posted on April 5 at 8:31 a.m.
The article clearly states that the piece was designed to focus on what were considered to be "the three strongest city commission candidates." This is logical since there were only three positions available, so I don't see it as necessarily disrespectful that Solis was not mentioned in the piece. Also, the article referred anyone who was interested in learning more about the candidates' views to read the Gazette's special election section, in which Solis was covered.
Furthermore, the voters clearly agreed that Agler, Longbine, and Nelson were the three strongest candidates, since they were elected by a significant margin. Myers lost despite being a 14-year incumbent, and the others (Dillon and Solis) were fringe candidates who finished next to last and last, respectively, more than 800 votes behind Agler. In fact, Dillon managed to outpoll Solis by 11 votes even though Dillon just moved to Emporia and Solis runs two local businesses (a liquor store and a security company). And, 4_Emporia, since when have fringe candidates had the right to the same media coverage as everyone else running?
Posted on April 5 at 1:55 a.m.
I neglected to say thank you to midnight_rider for the very kind comments. If you would like to see how I have analyzed a very different issue discussed in the online Gazette, visit http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/2007/... It's a fascinating and complex issue regarding the use of ethanol as a partial alternative to gasoline. I'll see you around!
Posted on April 5 at 1:46 a.m.
As correctly observed by songhaidoc, Mr. Hartman's analysis is also extremely simplistic, and does not take into account a myriad of critical factors. As one online commentator recently argued:
"Corn ethanol used to be a net loser up until about 10 years ago. Corn yields have improved. When the negative corn ethanol studies were done, the Cornell professor low-balled the yield. He said 2.5 gallons per bushel, when corn is 2.8 to 3 gallons per bushel. He also low balled the bushels of corn per acre. He said you only get 120 bushels per acre, when in the real world, you get 200 or more bushels per acre. He said that what throws corn ethanol off is the cost of irrigation and the fossil fuels to grow the corn and process it into fuel. That is misleading. Most corn for ethanol is not irrigated. Not all corn is grown the same. Some corn is grown specifically for food, some for feed, and some for ethanol production. Not all farms are the same. Some farmers use biodiesel and ethanol to power their equipment and/or to generate their own electricity. All ethanol plants are not the same. Some plants have windmills and solar panels. Others use a portion of the fuel for power or co-generate energy from biomass. Some plants are now converting the corn stover into ethanol as well. Now you have about ten new cellulose ethanol plants coming on line which use waste wood, agricultural bi-products, and other forms of organic waste, and they all co-generate their own energy to run the conversion process. The negative ethanol studies did not evaluate converting waste, and they did not account for ethanol plants that co-generate their own production power or farmers that use bio-fuels. They also did not evaluate miscanthus grass, municipal waste, or algae -- which can generate over 10,000 gallons of fuel per acre per year. Also, DuPont said that it will double corn ethanol efficiency in the next few years. Ethanol is used to replace toxic MTBE and enhances gasoline as an oxygenator. Also we don't go to war over ethanol. . . . Ethanol is creating jobs and stimulating the economy right here at home. When you buy ethanol, you are paying American farmers and American companies, and you're putting money in your pocket. E-85, biodiesel, and pure ethanol will be our transition fuels. Watch Honda's pure ethanol Indy cars. Technology will solve the mileage deficit. If you still think that ethanol is a net loser -- sorry -- that is based on out of date and misleading information."
So the ethanol issue is far more complex than Mr. Hartman and Herr Stanton would have us believe. The fact is that there are no simple answers.
Posted on April 5 at 1:44 a.m.
As songhaidoc observed, no one is suggesting that the U.S. must "produce enough corn based ethanol to meet the [entire] current U.S. demand for automotive gasoline." Nor, given the anti-nuclear energy sentiment and long-term, adverse regulatory climate in this country, can nuclear power be the answer ala France. And, like MelissaE, I believe we should not ignore the economic benefit of increased domestic ethanol production to American farmers, who are, in fact, much more economically efficient than their European counterparts. Finally, while Herr Stanton evidently believes that a combination of solar power, wind farms, and biomass (but not nuclear, which is off-limits to him because of waste disposal issues) could "replace the Arabic Mideast to supply the Americans' remaining energy needs," I do not share his sanguine enthusiasm about those alternatives, particularly in the short term. I also do not take kindly to Herr Stanton's finger-wagging line, from across the Atlantic, that "America should get over its greed and laziness" when it comes to excessive energy use by automobiles, as Germany's autobahns are energy hogs of the highest order (and will continue to be even if maximum speed limits are eventually imposed on a system-wide basis).
One also needs to keep in mind that, contrary to what you might think after reading Mr. Hartman's piece, there is a great deal of scientific disagreement over whether ethanol is a "net loser." Here is just one recent illustration of this: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx... ("Recent study says ethanol makes net gain for energy")
There are other conflicting studies as well. For example, visit http://www.agriculture.com/ag/story.jhtm... ("New study confronts old thinking on ethanol's net energy value") and http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=1... ("Ethanol Does Yield Net Energy Gain")
Of course, if Hill, Wang, and the others are correct, the arguments of Mr. Hartman and Herr Stanton collapse.
Furthermore, the research Mr. Hartman cites has been heavily criticized by both ethanol proponents and other scientists -- visit http://nebraska.statepaper.com/vnews/dis... for example. And here is an interesting discussion of Pimintel's research, in which he admits that using his model, practically ALL forms of fuel, including gasoline itself, are net energy losers: http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/fe...
(Continued in next post.)
Posted on April 4 at 11:30 p.m.
4_Emporia, your laughable attempt at a final rejoinder proves absolutely nothing, as it does not respond to a single argument I made in my previous post, does not explain how I have contradicted myself, and does not even say what your "point" was (if there ever was one). To use your analogy, what actually happened here was that you were hit very hard right between the eyes with the first stone (and the second and the third), and never managed to get off a shot of your own before collapsing ala Goliath. Adios, amigo -- and by all means, continue deluding yourself to your heart's content. Until we meet again, I'm looking forward to your candidacy in the next school board election.
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on April 5 at 9:18 p.m.
By the way, it just occurred to me that I didn't fully explain why I thought Mr. Solis was a "fringe candidate" as well. The reason for that is equally plain -- I doubted he could establish a viable constituency either, given your observation that locally, less than 10% of the Hispanics and Latinos, which constitute around 22% of Emporia's population as a whole, actually turn out to vote. (The reasons for this are unclear, but part of the explanation has to be that some unknown proportion of them are ineligible to vote since they are illegal aliens.)
On A closer look at the city slate