The Issue of Ethanol

[jdobbin]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070330/...nol_exaggerated

It might amount to a 1% reduction.

But a study by Frederic Forge of the library's science and technology division says regulations to promote biofuels will have "relatively minor impact" on reducing greenhouse emissions across Canada.

"In fact, if 10 per cent of the fuel used were corn-based ethanol (in other words, if the E-10 blend were used in all vehicles) Canada's greenhouse gas emissions would drop by approximately one per cent," says the study, dated March 8.

Nor will biofuels have much impact in reducing dependence on oil and gas: "Global production is still too small and the need for raw materials is still too high for biofuels to have a significant impact on the fuel market and be able to compete with fossil fuels."

More worrying is how much farmland might have to be used for bio-fuels.

It cites an article in New Scientist as concluding that Canada would have to use 36 per cent of its farmland to produce enough biofuels to replace 10 per cent of the fuels now used in transportation.

I wonder if we are putting too many eggs into one basket with little to show for it.

Edited April 3, 2008 by jdobbin

[sharkman]

These clear headed facts are what get ignored in the headlong rush to be 'green'. Our government is pretty much having it's hand forced by the misled public to be green at any cost.

[jdobbin]

These clear headed facts are what get ignored in the headlong rush to be 'green'. Our government is pretty much having it's hand forced by the misled public to be green at any cost.

The Tories made this decision because politically it helps them with farmers and the rural vote.

I think if the government wanted to really reduce energy consumption as well as reduce emissions, they would invest in a national geo-thermal strategy.

[Topaz]

These clear headed facts are what get ignored in the headlong rush to be 'green'. Our government is pretty much having it's hand forced by the misled public to be green at any cost.

The Tories made this decision because politically it helps them with farmers and the rural vote.

I think if the government wanted to really reduce energy consumption as well as reduce emissions, they would invest in a national geo-thermal strategy.

Its kinda hard to think that way when Harper has family in the oil business and the rest of them have investments in the oil companies!!

[Borg]

Ethanol - good for the grain guys - ie:corn.

Lousy for the folks raising livestock - cattle, hogs, chickens. Feed price goes up in order to get the corn before it goes to be processed.

The by product of processing produces some feed - but it als now needs to be transported and the cost goes up again.

If a person wants to make money perhaps they should open a feed lot, hog barns or poultry production operations near the ethanol plant.

Borg

[geoffrey]

The poor freakin' Mexicans can't afford their tortillas anymore. Now that, is a crisis.

Sure we might save ourselves from forking money over to Russia or China... but in the process we are eatting up the staple food of much of Central and South American.

Burning our food is not a reasonable solution IMO. It's not long-term sustainable.

[August1991]

Lousy for the folks raising livestock - cattle, hogs, chickens. Feed price goes up in order to get the corn before it goes to be processed.

That's true in the short run. If the price of corn goes up, in the longer run, more farmers will start producing corn.

As to the argument that bio-fuels will have a "negligible" effect on Canada's GHG emissions, it is the cumulative "negligible" effects that matter. Environmental protection will occur at the margin.

In addition, transportation is one (relatively) small part of Canada's GHG emissions. Coal burning to generate electricity is a larger source.

The poor freakin' Mexicans can't afford their tortillas anymore. Now that, is a crisis.

That's evidence of more Leftist zero-sum thinking. The amount of food in the world is fixed. If the rich countries take more, there will be less for poor countries.

If Mexicans want corn, they have only to grow it themselves. And with high corn prices, they'd be foolish not to.

[jdobbin]

As to the argument that bio-fuels will have a "negligible" effect on Canada's GHG emissions, it is the cumulative "negligible" effects that matter. Environmental protection will occur at the margin.

In addition, transportation is one (relatively) small part of Canada's GHG emissions. Coal burning to generate electricity is a larger source.

I don't know that overall costs of federal money into bio-fuel could not be spent better.

The prime minister's residence could be converted to geo-thermal and it would not be necessary to burn as much fossil fuels to heat and power it.

[geoffrey]

That's evidence of more Leftist zero-sum thinking. The amount of food in the world is fixed. If the rich countries take more, there will be less for poor countries.

If Mexicans want corn, they have only to grow it themselves. And with high corn prices, they'd be foolish not to.

The Mexicans do grow corn, they are hampered with the problem of having not a whole hell of a lot of arable land. They have to burn forest down to get any, which is counter productive in this CO2 game.

It's typical statist thinking that an artifical market for corn could bring success to the world. Why should the Mexicans grow it when Ontario farmers can grow it better, and Mexicans ranch on their land better than Ontario farmers.

If anything your encouraging those with a competitive disadvantage to produce a product for a domestic population to consume, limiting trade in the process. A national border rarely dictates prices, even when it tries to.

If ethanol is the great thing it is, people will use it without subsidy.

[August1991]

Why should the Mexicans grow it when Ontario farmers can grow it better, and Mexicans ranch on their land better than Ontario farmers.

You won't get an argument from me with that suggestion.

Corn should be produced wherever it is best to produce it.

My point was that it is wrong to blame ethanol for any starving Mexicans.

The Left blames America for subsidizing agriculture and depressing food prices and causing Third World hardship. Then the Left blames America for buying foodstuffs and raising world prices and causing Third World hardship.

America is dominant; the Third World is oppressed. The facts don't matter; the Left's mind is made up.

[jdobbin]

You won't get an argument from me with that suggestion.

Corn should be produced wherever it is best to produce it.

My point was that it is wrong to blame ethanol for any starving Mexicans.

The Left blames America for subsidizing agriculture and depressing food prices and causing Third World hardship. Then the Left blames America for buying foodstuffs and raising world prices and causing Third World hardship.

America is dominant; the Third World is oppressed. The facts don't matter; the Left's mind is made up.

What is the Right's mind on this?

[August1991]

Warning: Thread hijacking ahead.

What is the Right's mind on this?

I can't speak for the Right but Dobbin, I'll give you another Leftist example of the same type, but this one is closer to home.

The Canadian Left is angry if America imposes tariffs and won't buy our lumber. Yet the Canadian Left is also angry if America wants to buy our water.

Once again, America is bad whatever it does. Why? America is dominant and the dominant is always wrong. The Left defends the underdog. And the underdog is always right.

That's Leftist ideology in a nutshell.

What is Rightist ideology? I dunno but it's not Leftist ideology.

[Why is the term "Leftist" easy to say but not the term "Rightist"? That's true in French too - gogauchiste is now slang.]

[jdobbin]

Warning: Thread hijacking ahead.

I can't speak for the Right but Dobbin, I'll give you another Leftist example of the same type, but this one is closer to home.

The Canadian Left is angry if America imposes tariffs and won't buy our lumber. Yet the Canadian Left is also angry if America wants to buy our water.

Once again, America is bad whatever it does. Why? America is dominant and the dominant is always wrong. The Left defends the underdog. And the underdog is always right.

That's Leftist ideology in a nutshell.

What is Rightist ideology? I dunno but it's not Leftist ideology.

[Why is the term "Leftist" easy to say but not the term "Rightist"? That's true in French too - gogauchiste is now slang.]

I seem to remember it was business and labour together that were opposed to the tariffs on lumber.

And I can't recall anyone of any political persuasion who border the Great Lakes whether they are Conservative, Liberal, Democrat or Republican who think the lakes should be classified as a beverage that can be tapped and shipped anywhere by pipeline.

I personally don't have a problem with trade nor with the U.S.

To get back on topic, I have said in the past and I will say it now, I don't think that ethanol spending is the best way for the federal government to be spending their money, especially when it comes to greenhouse gases.

There are only so many dollars to go around and I'd hate to see so many eggs in one basket. If the government wants to have a larger impact, they should continue to make buildings energy efficient to reduce both cost and overall power consumption. They should invest in more mass transit. They should look at getting the east-west power grid in place so that hydro rather coal plants are the primary sources of energy and they should look at getting new sub-divisions completely built with geo-thermal and other zero emission energy plants.

[Remiel]

I thought the tariff was not so that Americans would not buy our lumber, but that it was so that Canadians would have to pay for Americans to buy our lumber. Remember, the one American group that was with Canada on the softwood lumber debate was the Homebuilders Association, the ones who wanted to buy our lumber.

As for water, it may yet prove to be our most valuable resource. Why the hell would we want to start selling it as fast as we can when prices are cheap? That just seems dumb from a strategic perspective. If we can afford not to sell our water now, and we do not want to sell our water because of some ideal, then why should we? Because the " Rightists " say we have to because they are always " right " (Now, I wonder which side of the political spectrum the guy who decided who was left and who was right was on.)?

[in response to your off topic question, why do people use " woman " as an adjective, when replacing it with " man " readily proves how ridiculous that usage is? Probably for a similar reason as your Leftist versus Rightist.]

[August1991]

To get back on topic, I have said in the past and I will say it now, I don't think that ethanol spending is the best way for the federal government to be spending their money, especially when it comes to greenhouse gases.

There are only so many dollars to go around and I'd hate to see so many eggs in one basket.

You'll like this, Dobbin. I agree with Dion and the Liberal amendments to the Clean Air Act. I may even vote Liberal as a result.

I think the best way to decide whether ethanol is a good or not is to impose a carbon tax of about $20/tonne or create an "Environmental Bank". If we want to limit GHG emissions, let's do that or at least tax them. We should not subsidize ethanol production, or the purchase of hybrid cars.

I even like the idea of an international carbon market but I think the idea is impractical now. We need Kyoto II - an agreement that includes China, India and Indonesia.

----

If the Liberals make Kyoto I an election issue, they'll lose and Harper will win his majority.

Will Dion start an election on this? I think there are still enough smart Liberals to know that an environmental policy based on sending billions of dollars to Russia will not win votes in Canada. Then again, if I were Harper, I'd offer the Liberals a chance to make fools of themselves. Maybe Dion will take the bait and Harper will get his majority.

I thought the tariff was not so that Americans would not buy our lumber, but that it was so that Canadians would have to pay for Americans to buy our lumber. Remember, the one American group that was with Canada on the softwood lumber debate was the Homebuilders Association, the ones who wanted to buy our lumber.

As for water, it may yet prove to be our most valuable resource. Why the hell would we want to start selling it as fast as we can when prices are cheap?

If you think through carefully that post of yours Remiel, you may get my point.

Canadians would have to pay for Americans to buy our lumber? WTF?

As I say: Canadian Leftists are angry if Americans buy our water and Canadian Leftists are angry if Americans don't buy our wood. There's no logic there except that Americans, whatever they do, are big oppressive, imperialist bad guys.

[jdobbin]

You'll like this, Dobbin. I agree with Dion and the Liberal amendments to the Clean Air Act. I may even vote Liberal as a result.

I think the best way to decide whether ethanol is a good or not is to impose a carbon tax of about $20/tonne or create an "Environmental Bank". If we want to limit GHG emissions, let's do that or at least tax them. We should not subsidize ethanol production, or the purchase of hybrid cars.

I even like the idea of an international carbon market but I think the idea is impractical now. We need Kyoto II - an agreement that includes China, India and Indonesia.

I certainly don't want an election fought strictly on the environment. It has to be about the economy and who is best to manage it into the future. The environment plays a part in this but it can't be the focus.

I disagree about subsidizing car purchases. I am dubious about subsidizing ethanol production.

I think the carbon tax idea is a trap that Harper would like Dion to fall into. He has stayed away from it.

I like parts of the Liberal environment program, others I am skeptical on, some I don't understand.

Harper might want to reject the bill as it comes out of committee but he will be challenged all along the way in an election about what he would do differently.

[geoffrey]

Why should the Mexicans grow it when Ontario farmers can grow it better, and Mexicans ranch on their land better than Ontario farmers.

You won't get an argument from me with that suggestion.

Corn should be produced wherever it is best to produce it.

My point was that it is wrong to blame ethanol for any starving Mexicans.

I do blame ethanol for starving Mexicans though. Without government intervention and the subsidization of ethanol technology, Mexicans would have cheaper tortillas. This isn't the market, this is leftist intervention that is creating the problem in Mexico.

In a reasonable market, there would be no ethanol.

[Borg]

Mexico has been starving for centuries - if they do not care then why should I? Perhaps they should look after themselves for a change?

Ethanol will do nothing more than provide a means to shift energy from the well to the field.

It will through various means drive food prices up for Mrs. Apartment dweller - as farmers become unable to produce livestock crops - then we will commence importing even larger amounts of food from other countries.

Unfortunately the veggies and meat you eat are aften treated with chemicals that are prohibited in this country. CFIA does not stop this food from entering Canada.

Borg

[madmax]

As I say: Canadian Leftists are angry if Americans buy our water and Canadian Leftists are angry if Americans don't buy our wood. There's no logic there except that Americans, whatever they do, are big oppressive, imperialist bad guys.

Canada and the United States have a trade agreement. If Harper wants to undermine the treaty further that is his business.

From Wiki

The United States and Canada had been arguing for years over the United States' decision to impose a 27% duty on Canadian softwood lumber imports, until new Canadian PM Stephen Harper compromised with the United States and reached a settlement on July 1, 2006 [15], though the settlement has not yet been ratified by either country, in part due to domestic opposition in Canada. Canada had filed numerous motions to have the duty eliminated and the collected duties returned to Canada[16]. After the United States lost an appeal from a NAFTA panel, it responded by saying "We are, of course, disappointed with the [NAFTA panel's] decision, but it will have no impact on the anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders," (Neena Moorjani, spokeswoman for U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman[17]. Most recently, on July 21, 2006, the U.S. Court of International Trade found that imposition of the duties was contary to U.S. law[18][19]. The U.S.'s apparent failure to comply with various rulings against it in this case has generated widespread political debate in Canada.

Making a dumb business decision, for the sake of getting an agreement, wouldn't matter which party was in power. This wasn't about "leftists", as much as it is about the weakness and lack of backbone Canadian Governments have. The current one included.

The US lost its appeal. They Lost in their own court and violated their own laws.

The Decision by the current government shows weakness and a lack of resolve.

[White Doors]

Isn't 1% a pretty good reduction? I mean our target is what 10%? Well Ethanol is a pretty painless way to get part way there. IF people already don't like this measure what will be their appetite for the truly painful reductions needed to get us over the hump?

Also, besides reduced CO2, does anyone know if ethanol actually pollutes less with real pollutants?

[jdobbin]

Isn't 1% a pretty good reduction? I mean our target is what 10%? Well Ethanol is a pretty painless way to get part way there. IF people already don't like this measure what will be their appetite for the truly painful reductions needed to get us over the hump?

Also, besides reduced CO2, does anyone know if ethanol actually pollutes less with real pollutants?

1% is considered pretty small for the amount of money that will be spent on ethanol.

The repercussions of using food for energy is already starting to take effect in the U.S.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17870172/

DES MOINES, Iowa - An ethanol-fueled boom in prices will prompt American farmers to plant the most corn since the year the Allies invaded Normandy, but surging demand could mean consumers still may pay more for everything from chicken to cough syrup.

Farmers are expected to plant 90.5 million acres of corn, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s annual prospective plantings report released Friday. That would be a 15 percent increase over 2006 and the most corn planted since 1944.

As far as what can be emitted from the ethanol plant itself, we have these byproducts.

http://www.thebarrieexaminer.com/webapp/si...ews%20-%20Local

• formaldehyde

• acetaldehyde

• nitrogen oxide

• sulfur dioxide

• particulate matter (dust)

• acetic acid

• ethanol

• ethyl acetate

• isoamyl alcohol

• benzene

• cyclopentane

• nonane

• n-pentane

• isopentane

Source: MOE

[geoffrey]

To be fair, alot of those emissions would be caught as their is a reasonable market. Lots of natural gas is split to produce some of those elements to be used in plastics and other petrochemical markets.

Being said, ethanol definitely isn't the solution to global warming. All hydrocarbon combustion produces CO2. Burning a different hydrocarbon maybe be more efficient... but it still doesn't address the underlying issues.

[fellowtraveller]

The amount of food in the world is fixed

Don't think so. There is a limit to how much can practically be produced, but we aren't close to that amount yet.

Countries like Canada , Australia, USA, France an others grow crops based on market forces or political agendas.

They could all produce far more food and/or biofuel feedstck if they so chose.

Whatever happened to that Ottawa company that produced biofuels from straw, a food byproduct that has no other commercial purpose?

[jbg]

In our country, a company known as Archer Daniels Midland stands to reap the biggest gains from agrifuels. One of the few blemishes on Bush's otherwise good record, IMHO.

[blueblood]

Ethanol might not be a solution to global warming, but it's sure a solution to what's plaguing the rural economy. Farmers are going to be planting the max. amt. of acres to get the max. return so the emissions are always going to be at a level, the difference is where the grain goes, if it goes to a biodiesel/ethanol plant and goes back into the machinery, levels will go down. Biofuels provides much needed dollars into our economy and makes the country all the richer for it. How is that a bad thing? Are country boys not allowed to make money?

As far as the mexicans go, that's poor government policy concerning their food supply, the fact that mexican farmers are vastly more inefficient than us. A country like that should be under supply management to incur a steady food supply. Why should the Americans be subsidizing the Mexican's cheap food? Also what rights do the mexican's have to cheap food? What right does anybody have to cheap food? If you want cheap food grow a garden, buy a fishing liscence, etc. Brazil has had a biofuel industry for more than 30 years, are they starving? I think their ecomony is growing in fact. With biofuels our exports will end up being worth more in the process (Iran will have to pay more to get it's wheat)

This is also good in that with biofuels taking up the market glut. It gives the poorer countries a chance to establish their agriculture industry without countries with massive subsidies (U.S., E.U.) flooding their countries with taxpayer subsidized food putting their farmers out of business.

Also good in that it takes X amt. of barrells of oil out of production which prolongs the oil supply, not a bad strategy and when the oil runs out, chances are we'd be going this route anyways.

As far as cattle goes, this throws a wrench into the big boys that own about 3/4 of the national herd, they'll have to pay more for feed barley, upping the price of beef on the shelf. This gives the small guys a chance as they can "finish" the cattle themselves by using the grain they already grow making the industry that more efficient.

Boy this biofuel thing looks better and better all the time.