WaPo Ignores Facts: Enviromentalists, Regulators Killing The Gulf Of Mexico

I did this post for TFR - I think you'll appreciate it here.

Comments

[WAHOO WILLIE]

It isn't only corn production (and a total lack of actual environmentalism) it is development, golf courses are worse than farms. Filling in recharge areas and estuaries kill acres of pollution scrubbers. Then there's our friends at USACE trying to control the life cycle of the Mississippi and its tributaries. Hmm, sugar does very well in the gulf states and is easier to grow than corn...why can't we do what the Brazillians do?

[Worst President Ever]

"only something akin to journalistic malpractice could have kept them from reporting all the facts."

Dan Riehl actually wrote those words. Now THAT's funny!

But, as usual, behind the curve and not particularly factual.

From envirnomnetal blog Grist - March 29, 2007:

Boosting corn production by nearly 13 percent should chill the spine of any green-minded person, because fertilizer runoff destroys water-borne life from Midwestern streams through the Mississippi clear down to the Gulf of Mexico. It also evaporates in the air, creating a greenhouse gas 310 times stronger than carbon dioxide.

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/12/06/ADM/

Next time you go off to write "facts" about ethanol, ya might want to explore corporate ag-giant AMD's part in its rise.

[Dan Riehl]

Your point, wpe, only re-affirms my post. If Grist can publish it, why leave it out of the WaPo - you know ... the more significant liberal rag of the two ... that more people read?

[SacTownMan]

The Washington Compost is busy here lately. First the Jew line and now the profound revelation about the toxic runoff from increased Corn/Ethanol production. Not to mention the impact of more potential food rioting in the third world. Ah, hell let them eat cake!

Newt says it best: Drill here, drill now and keep the corn for my summer BBQ.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Ethanol use, particularly with the lack of additional refinieries, something enviromentalists also oppose, has created huge supply line problems for America. Those issues are compounded by state and local governments who use so many different standards for mixed fuels, it’s almost impossible to supply it efficiently. And America has been paying higher gasoline prices all along as a result. --"

ORLY? That's a funny thing to say when oil companies are making money hand over fist. You would think, with all the burdensome regulations and costs of ethanol, this would be eating into the bottom line. But, magically, all costs are passed on to the consumer while Exxon and Shell post the biggest profits in world history.

Some might look at those numbers and think that big corporations were indulging in price gouging. But loyal wingnuts blame environmentalists.

Furthermore, GOoPer operatives are screeching about how off-shore drilling is the answer to all our oil woes. If refineries are operating at max capacity, one would think we'd have a glut of oil. So we're too short on oil which has produced an increase in demand for wells. But we're too low on refineries, which means we're seeing an oil bottle neck. That seems mutually contradictory.

http://www.citizen.org/print_article.cfm?ID=11829

Hey look! Two lies for the price of one. We've seen exactly one refinery built in the last 24 years. But while refineries haven't been constructed since 1976, that doesn't mean our refinery capacity has decreased. On the contrary, companies have been expanding existing refineries.

And it gets better, because independent refineries have actually been getting SHUT DOWN due to lack of profitability. How could that happen? Was it the evil environmentalists? Why, no. It was rival corporations pricing them out of the market.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Monteith/stanley1.htm

Unchecked capitalism closed refineries and catapulted up the price of gasoline. Lack of speculation regulation turned oil into an investment vehicle that billions of dollars of pension funds and retirement accounts flooded into. And a handful of mega-corporations put a lock on the gasoline industry, merging or obliterating competitors like Mobile, Texaco, and Marathon.

Republican policies over the last 14 years have positioned America to take this dive. But please, keep blaming environmentalists.

[Worst President Ever]

If you'd looked into the "facts", you'd know environmentalists are unhappy with the loss of habitat that comes with increased corn production, the problems brought on by using more fertilizer, and the higher food costs driven by diverting corn from making food stuffs to producing alcohol.

But I guess I can't accuse you of journalistic malpractice since you're a propagandist, not a journalist.

[SacTownMan]

Maybe if Congress could do their job there would be an effort to build new oil refineries with the same zest the farmers pushed Ethanol plants:

"In 2005 the U.S. was home to 81 ethanol plants, according to ethanol trade group the Renewable Fuels Association.
Once the energy bill was enacted, construction took off. By January 2006 the number of ethanol-production facilities had grown to 95. By the start of 2007, 110 refineries were online, with another 73 under construction, and today there are 139 in the U.S. and at least 60 under construction."

The "not in my backyard" mentality has handcuffed this country long enough. This mind frame funnels down to the community level as witnessed in my neighborhood several years ago. The City wanted more low income housing including in the upscale neighborhood I live in. The local folks freaked out, "more crime", "bad elements" etc. I had my doubts but the need for these folks to have a shot at doing better for their families was a worthy goal. The 23 unit complex was built within a couple of blocks from my house. It is maintained well and the folks that live there are not a problem at all. The whole project was well done and added to the community.

No difference with the energy crisis we face. We need action now, not next year or 10 years out. This include all forms of energy with the goal of weening ourselves off of the Middle Eastern teet. The current "do nothing" congress is an embarassment. Nancy and Harry continue to press a radical left agenda and could care less about the needs of this country over their own political agenda that is dictated to them by the likes of Soro's, Move-on and the Daily Koz minions.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"THE YEAR'S MOST OUTRAGEOUS STATEMENT: OPEC PRESIDENT SAYS 40% OF THE OIL PRICE INCREASE IS DUE TO BIOFUELS
POSTED: JUL 25, 2008

In probably the most outrageous statement of the year, OPEC president Chakib Khelil stated that the "intrusion of bioethanol on the market" is responsible for 40% of the increase in the price of oil.

Scripps Howard columnist Clifford May takes after OPEC in this article, "OPEC thinks we're stupid enough to swallow lies," found at this link: http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/25631269.html?page=1&c=y

May says: "They say we live in an Information Age, but where energy is concerned it's more like a Disinformation Age, thanks in no small measure to the money and clout wielded by OPEC -- a cartel whose sole interest is to preserve petroleum's near-monopoly of the transportation fuel market and to keep the price of oil as high as possible."

Ethanol is part of the solution!"

[Philip McDaniel]

"If you'd looked into the "facts", you'd know environmentalists are unhappy with the loss of habitat that comes with increased corn production, the problems brought on by using more fertilizer, and the higher food costs driven by diverting corn from making food stuffs to producing alcohol."
Doubtful. Perhaps you can submit some evidence. My family farms corn and other crops. So do our neighbors. I know of no loss of habitat from increased corn production. Further, there should be no increase in food costs due to diverting corn from making food stuff -- if there is then the market will dictate increased production to meet the demand. Re the fertilizer, possibly, but most of the farmers I know are very careful with fertilizer use. It is expensive, after all. Only the amount needed is usually applied. Farmers now days monitor their crops rather closely.

[Fred Beloit]

Whatever the Dems are paying Moe for repeating this kind of crap from a blog called "newswithviews [read "propaganda"] is way too much:

"Unchecked capitalism closed refineries and catapulted up the price of gasoline. Lack of speculation regulation turned oil into an investment vehicle that billions of dollars of pension funds and retirement accounts flooded into. And a handful of mega-corporations put a lock on the gasoline industry, merging or obliterating competitors like Mobile, Texaco, and Marathon.

Republican policies over the last 14 years have positioned America to take this dive. But please, keep blaming environmentalists."

Republicans, specifically G. W. of course, got busy to ruin a good market. How did they do that, one wonders. Why the Republicans saw that Japan was failing as an economic rival so the Repubs said let us invent a new rival. Let's see, Germany? No. Too socialistic. France? No same ol' same ol'. I got it. China. Let's do China. Wait India. Let's remake India. Wait a mo. Why not India and China? Thereby we increase energy demand but the Dems prevent energy supply. Oh good. The public will love us for it.

Moe, sell crazy somewhere else.

[Philip McDaniel]

"Hmm, sugar does very well in the gulf states and is easier to grow than corn...why can't we do what the Brazillians do?"
A very good point, WW. An ethanol plant I visited in Panama does very well off sugar cane. Interestingly, they produce more than ethanol, as there are apparently a number of different alcohols that can be fractured out. The Caribbean and Central America would profit quite a bit, IMHO, building some plants there and selling the product to the US.

[Fred Beloit]

There may be just a few minor flaws in this statement by Worst:

"If you'd looked into the "facts", you'd know environmentalists are unhappy with the loss of habitat that comes with increased corn production, the problems brought on by using more fertilizer, and the higher food costs driven by diverting corn from making food stuffs to producing alcohol."

(1) "Environmentalists" are always unhappy. If we lived at one with nature, as they say the Earlier Americans did, they would be unhappy about us killing buffalo and using hides for our teepees.
(2) The "problems brought on by using more fertilizer" (much of which comes from nature) are compensated for by the increased production of food (another product of our natural environment).
(3) "Environmentalists" don't give a crap about how much things cost. They are infamous for projects and practices that increase the cost of everything. They are driven mostly by blind emotion.

[Fred Beloit]

"They are driven mostly by blind emotion."

Let me back this up. "...environmentalists are unhappy with the loss of habitat..."

Habitat? Habitat? That means: :hab·i·tat (hb-tt)
n. 1. The area or environment where an organism or ecological community normally lives or occurs: a marine habitat.
2. The place where a person or thing is most likely to be found.
3. A structure that affords a controlled environment for living in extremely inhospitable locations, such as an underwater research laboratory.

Isn't corn an organism? Doesn't corn need habitat. Why would "environmentalists" want to deny corn more habitat. Pheasants love corn fields too. So do Canada geese and lots of other organisms.

[Fred Beloit]

Now Wahoo, you know I love ye, but: "It isn't only corn production (and a total lack of actual environmentalism) it is development, golf courses are worse than farms."

Lay off the golf courses, ixnay on the olfgay, will you? Or we may have to discuss pollution of the air and water by power boats lessen you do.

[Worst President Ever]

"I know of no loss of habitat from increased corn production."

Really? Becuase I grew up in Iowa, on a farm, hunting. And I can tell you for a fact that there's not nearly as much habitat today as 10, 20 years.

"Thousands of farmers are taking their fields out of the government’s biggest conservation program, which pays them not to cultivate. They are spurning guaranteed annual payments for a chance to cash in on the boom in wheat, soybeans, corn and other crops. Last fall, they took back as many acres as are in Rhode Island and Delaware combined."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/business/09conserve.html

[seekeronos]

"--- Thousands of farmers are taking their fields out of the government’s biggest conservation program, which pays them not to cultivate. ---"

This very idea in and of itself is an example of government waste.

Let the markets determine the prices and availability and use of land and the foodsftuffs grown on it.

If nothing else, that extra land could be used to stock a strategic grain reserve, much like the SPR we keep for petroleum.

And the Old King Cotton states could very well be the sugar cane states, if not for some federal corn subsidies from groups like ConAgra and other co-ops pimping corn. Sugar cane is far more efficient than corn for conversion to ethanol.

And on that subject, Algae conversion might be even more exceedingly productive: these could be stood up inside cities or other areas with a high density of CO2 emissions and a fair amount of sunlight.

http://www.valcent.net/s/Ecotech.asp?ReportID=182039

[Worst President Ever]

You want to get rid of those programs Seek, you're going to have to fight the farmers, hunters from Ducks Unlimited and a bunch of NRA members.

Archers Daniels Midland is the biggest beneficiary of ethanol. Sugar cane doesn't grow very well in the Midwest. Switch grass perhaps.

[Philip McDaniel]

""I know of no loss of habitat from increased corn production."

Really? Becuase I grew up in Iowa, on a farm, hunting. And I can tell you for a fact that there's not nearly as much habitat today as 10, 20 years."

Of course, WPE! The same is true in Michigan. More people, larger farms, etc. We still have large heards of deer, et al. due to wise conservation practices. I just got home in Florida from a 4 month stay in mid & upper Michigan. Agriculture is thriving, hunting & fishing look to be doing quite well...game is everywhere and the people are as friendly as ever -- despite being under the thumbs of a socialist government that is taxing them to death. But a political change is coming...hopefully not too late.

[Philip McDaniel]

""I know of no loss of habitat from increased corn production."

Really? Becuase I grew up in Iowa, on a farm, hunting. And I can tell you for a fact that there's not nearly as much habitat today as 10, 20 years."

Of course, WPE! The same is true in Michigan. More people, larger farms, etc. We still have large heards of deer, et al. due to wise conservation practices. I just got home in Florida from a 4 month stay in mid & upper Michigan. Agriculture is thriving, hunting & fishing look to be doing quite well...game is everywhere and the people are as friendly as ever -- despite being under the thumbs of a socialist government that is taxing them to death. But a political change is coming...hopefully not too late.