I’m Back - Thoughts After A Vacation
June 22nd, 2008 | by Cranky Liberal |I spent a week isolated from the news, with limited Internet and almost no access to BIO. All that “relaxation” time gives you ample opportunity to think. Here are a smattering of things I came up with.
1. Let them eat crude: (warning non-liberal rant coming)
You know something, I’m tired of hearing how our development of biofuels is causing the worlds hungry to starve. Sorry to hear that but keep on keeping on with the biofuel research. Energy independence is of critical importance for this country and biofuels need to play a part.
I know corn based ethanol is a lousy product, but it’s a start. The industry continues to become more efficient (energy yields per barrel are up 6+% since 2001) and is a gateway to better technologies such as cellulose-based ethanol. Even if it were a lousy product with no hope of getting better though, I wouldn’t care if people wanted to use the corn to try and make fuel from it instead of feeding the “poor.” Why? Because it’s our corn!
Yeah that sounds like a bastard speaking and I don’t care. A farmer in the Midwest has every right to sell his corn to the highest bidder. He (and by he I mean a major corporation pretending to be a guy on a John Deer) produces it, he takes the risks and he decides what to do with it once it it harvested. If he wants to sell it to feed the poor he can. If he wants to sell it to fuel my car, he can do that too. Corn is a commodity. Oil is a commodity. If corn farmers have a moral obligation to feed the poor, then oil producers have the same moral obligation to provide us with oil. You don’t get corn with out equipment and that equipment takes fuel.
2. Speaking of Oil:
I read this in today’s CNN.
U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, attending the summit, said that oil kept hitting record highs because production has not kept pace with increasing demands. (emphasis added)
I think this is the reverse way of looking at the oil problem. Production hasn’t kept up with increasing demands because IT CAN’T. No amount of drilling in Alaska, no amount of drilling off of the beaches in Florida will add sufficiently to production to keep up with demands at the pace we are on. The way Bodman says is (and most other commentators for that matter) , subtly implies that oil production is just something you can increase when you need to.
Instead of saying production hasn’t kept pace with demands, we need to say demands have outstripped our production ability. It puts the burden on the right side of the equation. Production is relatively fixed while demand grows. This situation is bound to fail eventually. We MUST cut demand for oil worldwide or the production will never keep pace.
Think of it this way. You work for a living. You earn a paycheck (your money production) you have demands for that money (bills, food, entertainment etc). When the demands for your money outstrip your production you have a problem. You can try to increase your money production and long term you might be able to if you change careers or improve your skill set but that won’t help pay your rent this month. The most immediate thing you can do is scale back your demand. You cut out things like movies, dinning out, new clothing. If you continue to spend money you don’t have…
Wait this is America. It’s exactly that attitude that got us into this mess.
3. Speaking of Food:
My rant about our “moral obligation” to feed the poor aside, I am quite concerned about our food production in this country and in the world at large. We will soon be at a point where conventional food production just will not be able to keep up with the demands of food demand (there is that supply\demand thing again). Historically we have added more farm land horizontally but that is starting to run into the little problem that most of the available farmland is already being used. There just wont be enough land to keep expanding outwards (not to mention water). So why not up?
That’s the concept behind The Vertical Farm Project. It’s a brilliantly simple, insanely logical solution to the food problem - take the greenhouse idea and expand it upwards. WAYYYYYY up. Thirty stories up in some cases, and put those farms in the heart of urban areas so that the food is where the people are. Here’s the rationale from the projects website:
The concept of indoor farming is not new, since hothouse production of tomatoes, a wide variety of herbs, and other produce has been in vogue for some time. What is new is the urgent need to scale up this technology to accommodate another 3 billion people. An entirely new approach to indoor farming must be invented, employing cutting edge technologies. The Vertical Farm must be efficient (cheap to construct and safe to operate). Vertical farms, many stories high, will be situated in the heart of the world’s urban centers. If successfully implemented, they offer the promise of urban renewal, sustainable production of a safe and varied food supply (year-round crop production), and the eventual repair of ecosystems that have been sacrificed for horizontal farming.
It took humans 10,000 years to learn how to grow most of the crops we now take for granted. Along the way, we despoiled most of the land we worked, often turning verdant, natural ecozones into semi-arid deserts. Within that same time frame, we evolved into an urban species, in which 60% of the human population now lives vertically in cities. This means that, for the majority, we humans are protected against the elements, yet we subject our food-bearing plants to the rigors of the great outdoors and can do no more than hope for a good weather year. However, more often than not now, due to a rapidly changing climate regime, that is not what follows. Massive floods, protracted droughts, class 4-5 hurricanes, and severe monsoons take their toll each year, destroying millions of tons of valuable crops. Don’t our harvestable plants deserve the same level of comfort and protection that we now enjoy? The time is at hand for us to learn how to safely grow our food inside environmentally controlled multistory buildings within urban centers. If we do not, then in just another 50 years, the next 3 billion people will surely go hungry, and the world will become a much more unpleasant place in which to live.
According to the project, the advantages of vertical farming would be many fold. Some of them are
 |
Year-round crop production; 1 indoor acre is equivalent to 4-6 outdoor acres or more, depending upon the crop (e.g., strawberries: 1 indoor acre = 30 outdoor acres) |
|
No weather-related crop failures due to droughts, floods, pests |
|
All VF food is grown organically: no herbicides, pesticides, or fertilizers |
|
VF virtually eliminates agricultural runoff by recycling black water |
|
VF returns farmland to nature, restoring ecosystem functions and services |
|
VF greatly reduces the incidence of many infectious diseases that are acquired at the agricultural interface |
|
VF converts black and gray water into potable water by collecting the water of evapotranspiration |
|
VF adds energy back to the grid via methane generation from composting non-edible parts of plants and animals |
|
VF dramatically reduces fossil fuel use (no tractors, plows, shipping.) |
The cost of the project is reasonable too. Just imagine how much better the world would be if we could secure our food production in an environmentally sane way. Some ideas just make so much sense you can’t believe it hasn’t happened yet.
4. Montego Bay
If someone offers you a trip to Montego Bay - take them off your Christmas Card list. They don’t like you anymore. What a dump. You couldn’t pay me to go back to that disgusting hell hole. Pretty water though.
19 Responses to “I’m Back - Thoughts After A Vacation”
By rube cretin on Jun 22, 2008 | Reply
http://www.theclimatescam.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/foodforcar.jpg
hope you can get this link.
By Cranky Liberal on Jun 22, 2008 | Reply
Ok Rube that’s the typical picture but that doesn’t answer WHY the farmer shouldn’t sell it to the ethanol plant? We’ve had starving kids forever. Ethanol didn’t cause it and the lack of ethanol won’t solve it.
Once again if there is a moral obligation to give one commodity to help he poor there is a moral obligation then to give the fuel that runs the tractors, the trains the trucks, freight haulers etc responsible for producing and moving said food to the poor for free.
It’s NICE to give the food to the poor or sell it cheaply. It maybe smart in some ways. But my point is why aren’t people yelling at the oil producing nations to feed to poor from their profits instead of at the food producers to sell the food cheaper than the market demands? You can’t hold one side accountable and not the other.
By steve on Jun 22, 2008 | Reply
1. You are right.
2. You forget the weak dollar’s effect on oil prices…
3. You are the thinker.
4. This makes me think of Jamaica…
By Paul Watson on Jun 22, 2008 | Reply
Cranky,
Perhaps it’s because of the market distorting subsidy for corn-based biofuels America has?
If you’re going to quote the market, then please have the decency to have a level playing field to start with, or the honesty to at least mention the subsidies you’re paying to get the farmer to produce the fuel in your post.
By Cranky Liberal on Jun 22, 2008 | Reply
I understand the week dollars effect on oil but the price of oil is not likely to go down substantially in years to come. SUPPLY is limited and decreasing daily. The only long term supply solution is change products.
There is no amount of oil in the United States that would supply our future energy needs. A stronger dollar would make it easier short term on the average family but will never ever solve the problem. It’s like that big bag of popcorn at the movie theater. You start off eating it and it seems like its unlimited..soon though your at the bottom of the bag. All gone except the damage to your arteries.
By Cranky Liberal on Jun 22, 2008 | Reply
Paul
I know we pay a subsidy for corn based biofuels. Your right to point it out. It still doesn’t change my point. Why is it OUR obligation to feed the poor instead of finding a solution to the fuel issue instead of the oil producing nations responsibility to kick their excessive profits back into feeding them?
Counties subsidize stuff all the time - including food for the poor.
By steve on Jun 22, 2008 | Reply
I never finish the popcorn…
And I cannot finish the drink without peeing before the end of the movie. I totally missed the “surprise” during th Sixth Sense…
It’s all about the Red Vines…
By Paul Watson on Jun 22, 2008 | Reply
Cranky,
Because you’re America. Therefore EVERYTHING is your obligation. Didn’t you know that?
By Paul Watson on Jun 22, 2008 | Reply
As a more serious afterthought: because America and Europe are the ones who flooded the developing countries’ markets with cheap, subsidised crops, thus bankrupting their farmers and crippling their ability to feed themselves. That would seem to place some sort of obigation on us to at least not make the problem worse.
By Windspike on Jun 22, 2008 | Reply
Found this interesting op-ed article toady. I posted this as a comment on my prior post as well, but thought it would be germane to the conversation here:
Glad to have you back in full Cranky mode, CL. What are the folks in Montego Bay saying about the good ol’ USA, btw?
By Mateo Giovanni on Jun 22, 2008 | Reply
I disagree with the use of food for fuel. That is the Power Broker Game. I live in Central America. All you’d have to do is cross the border into Mexico. All the detroit dinosaurs that say it’ll take years to develop more economical engines already exist here, and in most of the world!!!! 30 to 60mpg!!! Just not in OUR countries Pentagon Controlled media do you hear of such things. I see these, and drive these cars daily. Also, Look at my blog besides water4gas, Japan has just made a car that needs any kind of water to run even dirty puddle water, and it will run!!
I do like your vertical vertical farming idea. People aren’t farmer’s anymore billionaires stole the farmer’s land during the 80’s!
Peace and Freedom
By rube cretin on Jun 22, 2008 | Reply
cranky,
my friend, you really need to go back to work and recover from your vacation. i have reviewed the info on the vertical gardening and must admit that i am not impressed. If ever there was an energy intensive project this one fits the bill. Inspect the energy required to construct and maintain the facility. Do you have any friends who grow weed indoors? Ask them what the cost is for such an operation. Just one of the factors in the cost of weed which is several thousand times that of corn. As a lifelong farmer i can tell you this abortion is a looser. By the way what were you smoking in Montego?
By Mateo Giovanni on Jun 22, 2008 | Reply
Rube Cretin,
I don’t like the idea of food for fuel. I don’t know about massive skyscraper farms, but in the Northwest where I used to live. I had a green house to grow crops in the winter. I had taken 24″ colverts, and cut them in two. I was able to grow vegetables with four of these in a column, and I had eight rows. So to some degree the idea has plausability.
Peace and Freedom
By Jet Netwal on Jun 23, 2008 | Reply
There are LOTS of individual farmers left, CL. My family grows corn in Indiana, and has for 7 generations. Are they they only game in town, hardly. Are they a blip. No to that as well. They are good farmers, though, because that’s what it takes to survive in an industry composed of small and large elements.
As for the rest of your “rant” on corn for biofuel, I think you’ve missed a major point. By commiting to one source so early in the game, you’re essentially saying that the market can’t drive this bus. Why not encourage development of a variety of alternatives and see what works best? Ethanol doesn’t pipe worth a shit, so why demand a state like Florida, whose corn production capapbility is laughable, pay more because we’ve “decided” corn is the way.
I think that allowing R&D’s the time to develop altenatives is a far better option than insisting on corn as the winner. Beyond the idea that using corn for fuel will raise the price of meat, dairy, eggs and packaged good that use powdered milk and eggs (picture nearly every processed food you can think of) through the roof, corn is a nitrogen intense crop that strips the soil. It should be rotated, and when it isn’t, farmers must buy (Hi pesticides and fertilzer lobbyists!) major boosters and protectors to those crops and fields in order to continue to produce this crop on them. These are expensive products to use, and they will impact on the final corn price, which raises that price at the pump. Bend over, Cranky.
If you aren’t bothered by the moral implications of using food for consumption while people starve, fine. We differ. But touting corn as the solution without understanding the industry is foolhardy. Corn is the least viable option for biofuel, and to be blunt, farmers would be fine growing anything if there’s a market to sell it. Especially if they can produce to replace a finite resource without stripping THEIR finite resource, the earth that grows it.
Ideally, farmers should be looking at a crop rotation that provides a variety of fuel resources while replacing the soil nutrient impact of each crop. Further, these crops don’t need to be produced out of our breadbasket in the Midwest. Depending on the nutritive needs of the crops (hemp, etc.) other land would be a better choice.
By Lisa on Jun 23, 2008 | Reply
Tom you could have vacationed here and got the the same results:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jqqdvvDVA5bOCSPhUCEZPfCoX7nQD91F72L80
By admin on Jun 23, 2008 | Reply
Rube
Your wrong on vertical farming. You must have no idea how much energy a real farm runs.
Paul:
Im not saying we shouldnt help the poor. We Do subsidize food for poor countries. If you want to talk about restraining the abuse of agribusiness then I’m all for that conversation - but my point is that you can’t hold ONE commodity to a higher standard than the other. The logical end to the food obligation line of thought is that we should use all possible land to produce as much food as possible because if we don’t we are causing someone to go hungry somewhere. That of course is absurd.
Jet
I understand the science behind corn ethanol quite well. I even state its a lousy fuel. However it has opened the floodgates to alternate fuel research in this country. That’s why switchgrass and other plants are now being grown as an alternative to corn. They technology isn’t quite there yet for cellulose based biofuel but it is getting very close.
What happens though when switchgrass or other higher yield plants are ready for primetime? Will we force farmers to grown food instead of fuel? Why not have them all grow whatever crop will provide the world with the highest nutritional yield and make us all eat that?
Out of curiosity, why did American farmers choose to plant 8% less corn this year than last if there is this ravenous new ethanol industry ready to snap it all up?
Has ethanol caused the price of corn to go up? Yes. So has less supply, greater demand for meat, floods, smaller yields, higher oil prices etc. Without ethanol prices would still be soaring (they are actually so high now that ethanol plants can’t afford to buy corn and stay competitive).
Still NONE OF THIS is the point. The issue is why is it OUR obligation to grow cheap food and not the oil industries obligation to subsidize cheap fuel for farmers, or buy food for the poor? Why is it OUR food that needs to be an open resource for the worlds needy instead of their oil? You can’t grow crops without fuel Jet, you know it and I know. I’m just asking for consistency. It’s either Everyone’s issue to worry about or no ones. It can’t just be ours.
By Jet Netwal on Jun 23, 2008 | Reply
What happens though when switchgrass or other higher yield plants are ready for primetime? Will we force farmers to grown food instead of fuel?
As I mentioned, what should happen is that these crops be grown where it’s suitable to grow them. That means more land goes into production, not reallocating the same land for fuel production. This means that we’ll have a subset of farming, fuel farmers if you will, who are producing these crops in tandem with food producers. The screamers will be the beef industry, who will lose range land to fuel farmers. Expect a short term rise in beef during the transition, but corn prices should stabilize as the fuel farmers get up to speed.
Why not have them all grow whatever crop will provide the world with the highest nutritional yield and make us all eat that?
Soil science. Not everything grows everywhere.
Out of curiosity, why did American farmers choose to plant 8% less corn this year than last if there is this ravenous new ethanol industry ready to snap it all up?
Water water everywhere. We got our corn in, but a lot of Midwestern farmers didn’t. Look for soybeans to come out of those fields. Farming isn’t widget manufacturing, Cranky. You don’t get to discern a grandiose business plan and hit the links. Depending on the soil you’re working, drainage in your area, temperature, wind, precipitation, etc., you may have to change up your strategy, occasionally in mid, er, field.
Has ethanol caused the price of corn to go up? Yes. So has less supply, greater demand for meat, floods, smaller yields, higher oil prices etc. Without ethanol prices would still be soaring (they are actually so high now that ethanol plants can’t afford to buy corn and stay competitive).
In Detroit, the big three are scrambling to build a new line to meet the howling demand for high mpg cars. Problem is, it takes three years to take a car from paper to production. The market changed so fast the industry is incapable of producing anything to meet the demand in real time. Corn has been in production in quantities to meet demand and sell at a profit. Now the market changes drastically, and the demand for corn skyrockets. Like the auto industry, producers are not in a position to spin on a dime. Unlike the auto industry, corn farmer’s production has a limited useful life. You can’t sit on it for years waiting to get your price. Not only is there an understandable reluctance to “bet the farm” on going all corn, all the time, but investing in additional land, prepping it for production and investing in the equipment to ulitize it are expensive and high risk maneuvers for farmers to take on an industry that could easily shift just as fast in another direction as it did towards corn.
Corn farmers are in hog heaven right now (sorry). My mom is making a mint on her corn and probably will for five years. (As an aside, she is still rotating corn with soybeans, because that is the best thing for her land.) She is not running out to buy more land. She looks at the fat years as a balance to the lean. Those will come again. They always have, and farming is all about balance.
By Jet Netwal on Jun 23, 2008 | Reply
Whoops. When I pasted my comment over, I missed the second part.
____________________
Still NONE OF THIS is the point. The issue is why is it OUR obligation to grow cheap food and not the oil industries obligation to subsidize cheap fuel for farmers, or buy food for the poor? Why is it OUR food that needs to be an open resource for the worlds needy instead of their oil? You can’t grow crops without fuel Jet, you know it and I know. I’m just asking for consistency. It’s either Everyone’s issue to worry about or no ones. It can’t just be ours.
Leadership, for one. Kindness, for another. We can just be the global assholes, I suppose. Bush has sent us well down that path. Shall we embrace his legacy? Personally, I think that the best solution is to reach multiple solutions. How can strengthen our farm production capabilities? What can we do to both export our excess and limit our import of oil? How can we build fuel production infrastructure and the jobs it will produce?
You can’t dictate the oil industry’s behavior. You can force change through market pressure. Instead of digging in your heels and pouting that since they aren’t doing something first you don’t want to play, wouldn’t simply changing the dynamics be more likely to get you what you want? If you prefer to sit around and wait for the oil companies to play nice, do so. I expect you’ll be disappointed.
By rube cretin on Jun 23, 2008 | Reply
admin,
But i do know how much energy modern farming requires since i have been doing it my entire life in one form or another. I looked at the diagrams of the subject project and will wager it is very energy intensive way to grow food. . Maintaining the temperature, light, and nutrient requirements is a very difficult thing in an artificial environment. This maintenance requires enormous amounts of energy. Just look at the structures. Plants would get only a few hours of natural sunlight and the required remainder would have to presumably be provided by artificial methods. Look at the water tanks at the top of the tower. This suggest hydroponics to me. Very energy intensive. My friend, plants growing is natural soil with the proper amount sunlight and nutrients have been evolving 100’s of millions of years. Hard to improve on natures plan. Only in the past century has cheap petroleum allowed intensive agriculture. This proposal is a guaranteed energy looser IMO. Vertical gardening is practiced most effectively in the permaculture environment and it is there that it will make its greatest contribution. This is just another iteration of hope building propaganda being fed to the delusional american public. It needs to be carefully analyzed from it’s energy return on energy investment (EROEI) If this thing gains any attention it will be, and my best estimate at first glance, it is a born looser!