|
| I'm glad you cited Wikipedia.
They say,"The production of corn also causes an immense amount of soil erosion. Soil loss is seventeen times greater than soil formation on land that produces corn and to replace one inch of eroded soil takes 500 years.
Corn production uses more insecticides, herbicides, and fertilizers than any other grown crop. The nitrogen based fertilizers used in corn production have had some extremely negative environmental impacts. It contributes to the accumulation of greenhouse gases and contributes to global warming but more importantly it is responsible for the “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico. Nitrogen based fertilizers are laid down on crops but when it rains, the eroded soil and fertilizer flows into the water supply which eventually ends in the Mississippi River and flows into the Gulf of Mexico wreaking havoc on the plant and animal life.
There is also controversy over the production of corn in many equatorial regions with rain forests,[citation needed] and South Africa. Farmers and agriculture businesses are burning down rain forests (which are natural CO2 sequesters already), while CO2 studies assume no sequestration if the corn is not planted. Scientists say that this will mean that ethanol will end up contributing to global warming more than if we used oil, where rainforests are destroyed to produce it. "
"According to a University of Minnesota study, corn ethanol may be even worse for air quality than gasoline. The study concluded that the total environmental and health costs of making a gallon of gasoline was about 71 cents, compared with a range of 72 cents to $1.45 for corn-based ethanol, and 19 to 32 cent for cellulosic ethanol, depending upon the technology and type of plants used."
Wikipedia may not be the best source to quote, but I would not believe much that ethanol proponents claim either.
From: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090217104441.htm
"Jobs are a big draw for small, rural communities seeking to capitalize on their proximity to cornfields that feed the plants. But the study found that industry forecasts vastly overestimate employment gains.
While the industry projects plants producing 100 million gallons of ethanol a year can create more than 1,000 plant and spin-off jobs, the study found that similar plants would net a maximum of 250 jobs, based on an analysis of ethanol facilities proposed in three Illinois communities and one in Nebraska."
The ethanol industry stretching the truth to further their own interests? Making claims they can't prove? Producing a product that the public is forced to use? Producing a product the public is forced to subsidize? I'm glad I am not a part of this scam.
You say,"Basically there are no.. known.. proven methods of extracting the oil.. even though people have been trying for the past 30 years..."
I could say the same about cellulosic...........I wonder if they could extract that oil if we gave them a huge subsidy and mandated its use? Say it is for national security, it will create jobs, it will stop terrorism, stimulate the economy, and a bunch of other feel-good stuff. | |
|
USDA Dec 1 STOCKS 10.934 Billion Bushels.
