[Terrapreta] ethanol media blitz

[lou gold]

Michael, I agree -- and sugarcane is used in much the same way in Brazil. A
flexfuel fossil and bio mix is not a bad thing UNLESS the resulting
agricultural boom further depletes soils. Unfortunately the focus of the Big
Guys is still on energy and not earth.

I just posted the following discussion with Ed Ring over at EcoWorld and on
my blog. Everyone is welcome to join in the discussion.

http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2007/11/27/terra-preta/#comment-63564

Hi Ed,

It looks like we are going to have a good discussion. I welcome the
opportunity for us to learn from each other and I invite others to chime
in.  That's why I am going to cross-post this comment at my own blog,
VISIONSHARE at http://lougold.blogspot.com/.

I want to thank Ed you for the really fine post about terra preta. It was a
gem and that's why I chose to make a lengthy and totally supportive comment.
Perhaps, you can imagine my surprise at discovering, a few days later, that
the terra preta post and my comments  are surrounded  four large General
Motors "LiveGreenGoYellow"  advertisements?

I objected. Your follow-up response was "I'm more worried about tropical
rainforest destruction than whether or not Americans subsidize their own
midwestern farmers instead of sending the money to OPEC" sounds nice but it
simply doesn't hold up.

The current subsidies of US corn ethanol have triggered massive
deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. When US farmers, pulled by the new
subsidies, shifted from planting soybeans to corn the economic slump that
has limited soybean expansion in places like Matto Grosso, Brazil took off
-- and so did the fires and deforestation which have now returned to record
levels. I posted about it under the title, "US Ethanol Subsidies Help Fuel
Range Wars and Fires in the Amazon"
http://lougold.blogspot.com/2007/11/us-ethanol-subsidies-help-fuel-range_8749.html

The fact is that we are living in a globalized world where just about
everything impacts everything else. We no longer can afford the old
assumptions of separation. Nowadays we are all connected.

My specific concerns about the GM advertising campaign are:

1) it promotes one of the most inefficient and highly subsidized form of
biofuel -- corn ethanol --
which competes with much more efficient forms such as sugarcane ethanol;

2) it places some of the largest and most fuel guzzling vehicles (Chevy
Suburbans and GMC trucks) in the class of new green-ness;

3) it targets and promotes the "American dream" of big materialism and big
agri-business in developing countries such as Brazil; (see my in-depth
report
http://lougold.blogspot.com/2007/08/expoacre-few-nights-ago-i-went-to-rodeo.html
)

4) the alliance of auto manufacturers and agri-business and oil companies
has been a powerful lobby in the US Congress against sensible vehicle
emissions standards and they are now green-washing through ad campaigns like
this;

One might respond with, "what's wrong with incremental involvement from the
BIG GUYS? Aren't they necessary in the task of changing the world?" Yes, of
course they are. But the emphasis of this group is energy and not earth.
They are not promoting earth-restoring technologies like terra preta and
agri-char which includes a reciprocity of giving some back to the earth. At
this point they are focused still on maximizing the flow of fuel in support
of out-of-control energy consumption. The Chinese saying points out that
crisis is a combination of danger and opportunity. For GM the danger is the
end of cheap fossil fuels and the opportunity is biofuel. It's all an energy
trip.

That's the bad news. And, YES, I'm saddened that EcoWorld is serving as a
vehicle to advertise it. Perhaps you might reconsider it?

But there really is good news -- can can save rainforests and save the world
through the emerging carbon market and a few intelligent decisions as we
revise the Kyoto Protocols. To protect the rainforests we must have carbon
credits for avoided or reduced deforestion. To renew the earth and draw
massive amounts CO2 down from the sky we need carbon credits for
sequestration in the soil. And, yes, biofuels are part of the equation.
Here's my take on the issue:
http://lougold.blogspot.com/2007/11/biofuels-are-only-part-of-solution.html

All best,

lou







On Nov 30, 2007 8:23 AM, Michael Bailes <michaelangelica at gmail.com> wrote:

> In Australia we make rum, sugar or ethanol from sugar cane.\
> .
> We have virtually no oil suitable for fuel although we do have lots of
> natural gass.
> So is a 10% petrol-ethanol mix (from sugar cane) such a bad thing?
>
> You still have the sugar-cane bagess to make into charcoal or mulch.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>



-- 
http://lougold.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/visionshare/sets/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20071130/11c26803/attachment.html