For anyone who still doesn't believe Saudi Arabia's government is evil.

[Kuciwalker]

Only thousands?

[RGBVideo]

re: knee-jerk reaction from hippies when it comes to increasing human needs

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
What would be more damaging to the environment, thousands of square miles of additional crops with the pesticides and deforestation that comes with them, or the current gas emissions?

Yes, I must agree because the place where you'll get your corn ethanol from, the American midwest, is FILLED with rainforests! Save the rainforests!

Ever heard of rural flight, kid? States like Kansas are filled with ghost towns surrounded by former farmlands right now. If demand for ethanol would go up, the price would go as well, thus making farming viable in the rural midwest once again. It's basic supply and demand.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

What would be more damaging to the environment, thousands of square miles of additional crops with the pesticides and deforestation that comes with them, or the current gas emissions?

Brazil's environment seems to be surviving just fine even though 70% of Brazil's cars now run on a gasoline-ethanol blend similiar to E85. Brazil is now a net oil exporter due to the governments one-two punch to first offset oil imports via converting sugar cane to ethanol and then massively increasing the number of off shore oil plateforms. There wasn't even an offshore platform in the country 15 years ago but today they're popping up everywhere.

Now, I'm sure there is an environmental impact from all this but at least the Brazilians have stopped importing energy and have found a secure domestic way to provide for their needs.

[Dinner]

Re: re: knee-jerk reaction from hippies when it comes to increasing human needs

Originally posted by VJ
Yes, I must agree because the place where you'll get your corn ethanol from, the American midwest, is FILLED with rainforests! Save the rainforests!

Ever heard of rural flight, kid? States like Kansas are filled with ghost towns surrounded by former farmlands right now. If demand for ethanol would go up, the price would go as well, thus making farming viable in the rural midwest once again. It's basic supply and demand.

Corn is less then 1/3 as productive as sugar cane due to the fact that it has less sugar to convert to ethanol. If we really were serious about making ethanol affordable we'd eliminate the high tarrifs we have on sugar but the powerful corn lobby won't allow it. They love selling their high fruitose corn syrup for several times the world market value just as they love getting massive subsidies from the government.

Improve the world. Hang a farm lobbyist.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Brazil's environment seems to be surviving just fine

[Dinner]

Rain forest destruction has actually been decreasing since the early 1990's in Brazil. Please know what you are talking about.

[atawa]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Rain forest destruction has actually been decreasing since the early 1990's in Brazil. Please know what you are talking about.

Slowed but still being destroyed

[Kuciwalker]

Rain forest destruction has actually been decreasing since the early 1990's in Brazil. Please know what you are talking about.

The deficit is decreasing every year too, so there's no reason to bash Bush about the debt.

[techumseh]

Re: Nice try, but I think all the regulars here already know you too well to catch this

Originally posted by VJ

4.4/10

Actually, it would have been a good subject to debate. All I know about Catholic schools I learned from stand up comedians.

[Kuciwalker]

Which is why your troll sucked.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Rain forest destruction has actually been decreasing since the early 1990's in Brazil. Please know what you are talking about.

The deficit is decreasing every year too, so there's no reason to bash Bush about the debt.

You were backing the idea that somehow the cultivation of sugar cane was some how increasing the rate of deforestation. That is simply not true. Brazil had a major problem in the early 1990's in that rich countries heavily subsidized their agriculture so Brazilian farmers couldn't afford to stay in business. Most of those failed farmers ended up in slums in the cities where they tried to find work while large parts of the Brazilian countryside was being emptied of people since few could make a living there (much as the midwest is losing people in the US though our government is attempting to pay people to get them to stay via subsidies).

The Brazilian plan was to find a major new market for excess sugar cane so that the farmers would stay on the farm and to also cut imports via import substitution (which was hugely popular in the third world in the 1960's but fell out of favor due to the problems excess protectionism caused). The plan worked because previously abandoned land was restored to profitable agriculture use since the state oil company promised to buy virtually all excess sugar in order to make ethanol, many peasants moved back to farms or at least didn't leave their farms, oil imports were slashed, and opening of the oil sector to foreign investment has lead to the development of several offshore fields.

[Kuciwalker]

You were backing the idea that somehow the cultivation of sugar cane was some how increasing the rate of deforestation.

No, I was laughing at your claim that the Brazilian environment is "just fine."

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


What would be more damaging to the environment, thousands of square miles of additional crops with the pesticides and deforestation that comes with them, or the current gas emissions?

this is rich. Whenever someone advocates use of GM crops to help alleviate the pressures that push deforestation various luddites complain that additional crops aren't needed. But when someone recommends as a partial solution to the over reliance on fossil fuels that additional crops be grown for producing biofuels they claim that this will require deforestation.

Just let us develop the damn GM crops and use them to efficiently produce biofuels on existing cropland. jeezus.

[Geronimo]

Re: Re: re: knee-jerk reaction from hippies when it comes to increasing human needs

Originally posted by Oerdin


Corn is less then 1/3 as productive as sugar cane due to the fact that it has less sugar to convert to ethanol. If we really were serious about making ethanol affordable we'd eliminate the high tarrifs we have on sugar but the powerful corn lobby won't allow it. They love selling their high fruitose corn syrup for several times the world market value just as they love getting massive subsidies from the government.

Improve the world. Hang a farm lobbyist.

This disadvantage of corn is easily remedied by engineering corn specifically tailored for efficient ethanol production. If we really were serious about making ethanol affordable we'd directly fund the development of such crops with taxpayer money OR we'd drop the bans on importation or use of GM crops in places like Europe that make investment in developing new such crops so unattractive in the private sector.

Having said all that I wouldn't mind seeing the tarrifs dropped on sugar in the least.

[Fake Boris]

Two things:

1. This place won't even allow you to ask an honest question. But thanks for playing VJ and Geronimo

2. There are many places where agricultural land is saturated. Quebec for instance - it may be a large country, but from what I remember of my geography classes we're pretty much using up every square mile of viable agricultural land already.