In These Times

David, You write "Though full energy independence may be illusory, increasing domestic biofuels production could significantly reduce the trade deficit." You are looking only at one side of the equation. First, diverting home-grown crops to fuel means less feed and food to sell for export. Second, the U.S. imports considerable quantities of nitrogenous fertilizers (which are made from natural gas), and will have to import more to satisfy the needs of nutrient-greedy corn, especially now that fewer farmers will be planting corn in rotation with nitrogen-fixing crops like soybeans. And those tractors will need fuel as well. On balance, any improvement …

Posted to Biofuels: Promise or Peril?

Texas Independent, thank you for the interesting thoughts on the agronomic possibilities of breeding corn that is nitrogen-fixing, and planting winter clover, but one has to wonder why these technologies and techniques are not in widespread use already. Meanwhile, large numbers of farmers in states north of Texas are saying that they are switching from corn-soybean rotation to corn-corn-soybean rotation, or to planting corn with no rotation. As a consequence, fertilizer consumption is booming. Regarding the balance-of-payments argument, you say

First “corn” and the canned corn or cob corn are two different animals. Field or feed corn is grown for meal, …

Posted to Biofuels: Promise or Peril?

Blonde Mike, some answers to your question of why the Green Revolution is stagnating in India can be found in this commentary on a workshop that we (the Global Subsidies Initiative) recently organized in India. Quoting the key paragraphs:

Eminent agricultural scientist, Professor M S Swaminathan, who heads the National Commission on Farmers, opened the workshop by detailing several dimensions of the crisis. He quoted the Approach Paper to the Eleventh Five-Year Plan in December last year: “Economic growth has failed to be sufficiently inclusive, particularly after the mid-1990s. Agriculture lost its growth momentum from that point on and …

Posted to Biofuels: Promise or Peril?

Kuya, you say:

Also, since [industrial cannabis] is not a food plant, growing it would have little effect on the supply or price of grains that have uses as food or as the base for fuel.

There is an opportunity cost to land. If the USA planted every arable acre with cannabis, or switchgrass, or corn for industrial uses, such as biofuels, would you still assert that doing so "would have little effect on the supply or price of grains"? Of course not. So it comes back to economics. If it is really that economical to grow cannabis for oil to …

Posted to Biofuels: Promise or Peril?

A word of advice, Blonde Mike: never, ever try to engage in a debate with somebody you do not even know and immediately resort to making presumptions about their political or economic points of view. You are apt to be as wrong as right. And it is likely to make the other party wonder why they should even bother continuing the discussion. Please, let us just stick to the merits of the arguments and the evidence. Nonetheless, if you are the curious type, do a web search on my name, or check out the Global Subsidies Initiative website. That said, …

Posted to Biofuels: Promise or Peril?

Blonde Mike, I guess you fail to see the distinction between engaging in debate on substance and pigeon-holing people by their presumed political orientation. Since you cannot refrain from the latter, I am ending my involvement in this one. Bye.

Posted to Biofuels: Promise or Peril?