• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

If You Value The Environment, Don't Vote McCain

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
I already have other issues with McCain's voting record, so the fact that he doesn't value protecting our environment doesn't bother me. What does bother me is that a career lawmaker couldn't be bothered to even vote on the issues. Taking the coward's way out, he chose to not have an opinion, rather than take a stand that would show the American people where his priorities are.

Text

Members of Congress who were seriously ill or died during their term did better than John McCain on the 2007 National Environmental Scorecard just released by the League of Conservation Voters.

McCain was the only member of Congress to skip every single crucial environmental vote scored by the organization. Carl Pope, Executive Director of Sierra Club, had this to say:

Every other Member who received a zero from LCV last year at least had the temerity to show up and vote against the environment and clean energy time after time. And unlike John McCain, I doubt any of them would claim to be environmental leaders or champions on global warming.

The other Senators to score zero with McCain were: Roberts of Kansas, Vitter of Louisiana, Cochran of Mississippi, Bond of Missouri, Inhofe of Oklahoma, and Cornyn of Texas.

Something tells me we'll be hearing a lot more about energy security from candidate McCain, and a lot less about global warming.
 
He deserves a lot of credit for being against biofuel, although now he's going along with it to satisfy the corn lobby.
Biofuel is possibly the biggest threat to biodiversity right now, especially since it's a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Even as a liberal, environmentalist, and professional geographer, I'd give McCain a higher score than Obama and Clinton.
 
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
He deserves a lot of credit for being against biofuel, although now he's going along with it to satisfy the corn lobby.
Biofuel is possibly the biggest threat to biodiversity right now, especially since it's a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Even as a liberal, environmentalist, and professional geographer, I'd give McCain a higher score than Obama and Clinton.

Why? Please explain.
 
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
He deserves a lot of credit for being against biofuel, although now he's going along with it to satisfy the corn lobby.
Biofuel is possibly the biggest threat to biodiversity right now, especially since it's a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Even as a liberal, environmentalist, and professional geographer, I'd give McCain a higher score than Obama and Clinton.

Thank you for that. Burning food crops so we can continue to drive makes no sense to me. Virtually all the affects are negative from environemental to significant increases in the prices of basic foodstuffs like bread, eggs, milk, cheese and butter. These price increases have a disproportionate affect on the poor.
 
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
He deserves a lot of credit for being against biofuel, although now he's going along with it to satisfy the corn lobby.
Biofuel is possibly the biggest threat to biodiversity right now, especially since it's a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Even as a liberal, environmentalist, and professional geographer, I'd give McCain a higher score than Obama and Clinton.

Thank you for that. Burning food crops so we can continue to drive makes no sense to me. Virtually all the affects are negative from environemental to significant increases in the prices of basic foodstuffs like bread, eggs, milk, cheese and butter. These price increases have a disproportionate affect on the poor.

Feed the poor to the hungry??
 
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
He deserves a lot of credit for being against biofuel, although now he's going along with it to satisfy the corn lobby.
Biofuel is possibly the biggest threat to biodiversity right now, especially since it's a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Even as a liberal, environmentalist, and professional geographer, I'd give McCain a higher score than Obama and Clinton.

Thank you for that. Burning food crops so we can continue to drive makes no sense to me. Virtually all the affects are negative from environemental to significant increases in the prices of basic foodstuffs like bread, eggs, milk, cheese and butter. These price increases have a disproportionate affect on the poor.

Feed the poor to the hungry??

I am not sure what your question is. I do not like to see corn used to make fuel just so we can put it in a car and burn the bio-fuel there. Corn is a food crop. Diverting large quantities of corn drives up the price of basic foodstuffs. That price increase has a disproportionate affect on the poor as they have to use more of their income to buy food.
 
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
He deserves a lot of credit for being against biofuel, although now he's going along with it to satisfy the corn lobby.
Biofuel is possibly the biggest threat to biodiversity right now, especially since it's a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Even as a liberal, environmentalist, and professional geographer, I'd give McCain a higher score than Obama and Clinton.

Thank you for that. Burning food crops so we can continue to drive makes no sense to me. Virtually all the affects are negative from environemental to significant increases in the prices of basic foodstuffs like bread, eggs, milk, cheese and butter. These price increases have a disproportionate affect on the poor.

How does that (as in only that) make McCain a better environmentalist than Obama and Clinton?
 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
I already have other issues with McCain's voting record, so the fact that he doesn't value protecting our environment doesn't bother me. What does bother me is that a career lawmaker couldn't be bothered to even vote on the issues. Taking the coward's way out, he chose to not have an opinion, rather than take a stand that would show the American people where his priorities are.

Huh?

McCain is the one sponsoring anti-MMGW legislation.

I think it's a cap-n-trade thing.

The website you linked was loading slower than my patience allows. Can't really comment on their compalints about him. He missed some votes? What votes? Does their scoring range go into negatives. I mean voting "no" must surley be worse in their opinion than just not voting, right?

Fern
 
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
He deserves a lot of credit for being against biofuel, although now he's going along with it to satisfy the corn lobby.
Biofuel is possibly the biggest threat to biodiversity right now, especially since it's a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Even as a liberal, environmentalist, and professional geographer, I'd give McCain a higher score than Obama and Clinton.

Thank you for that. Burning food crops so we can continue to drive makes no sense to me. Virtually all the affects are negative from environemental to significant increases in the prices of basic foodstuffs like bread, eggs, milk, cheese and butter. These price increases have a disproportionate affect on the poor.

How does that (as in only that) make McCain a better environmentalist than Obama and Clinton?

It means McCain is standing up the big corp farming lobby. Losing a lot of votes.

Not only is biofuel bad for the previously listed reasons, but the fertilizer runoff from these corn farms goes down the Mississippi river into the Gulf of Mexico where it kills all sealife for miles around. A giant "dead spot".

Fern
 
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
He deserves a lot of credit for being against biofuel, although now he's going along with it to satisfy the corn lobby.
Biofuel is possibly the biggest threat to biodiversity right now, especially since it's a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Even as a liberal, environmentalist, and professional geographer, I'd give McCain a higher score than Obama and Clinton.

Thank you for that. Burning food crops so we can continue to drive makes no sense to me. Virtually all the affects are negative from environemental to significant increases in the prices of basic foodstuffs like bread, eggs, milk, cheese and butter. These price increases have a disproportionate affect on the poor.

How does that (as in only that) make McCain a better environmentalist than Obama and Clinton?

It means McCain is standing up the big corp farming lobby. Losing a lot of votes.

Not only is biofuel bad for the previously listed reasons, but the fertilizer runoff from these corn farms goes down the Mississippi river into the Gulf of Mexico where it kills all sealife for miles around. A giant "dead spot".

Fern

I'm not 'for' the biofuels. To be honest I haven't read enough on the topic to have an educated opinion right now. I just don't see how simply saying McCain being against biofuels makes him a champion for the environment.
 
Originally posted by: Fern
The website you linked was loading slower than my patience allows. Can't really comment on their compalints about him. He missed some votes? What votes? Does their scoring range go into negatives. I mean voting "no" must surley be worse in their opinion than just not voting, right?
Site loads fast for me.

In the 2007 National Environmental Scorecard released today by the League of Conservation Voters, John McCain receives a score of ZERO. McCain was the only member of Congress to skip every single crucial environmental vote scored by the organization, posting a score lower than Members of Congress who were out for much of the year due to serious illnesses--and even lower than some who died during the term. By contrast, the average Member of Congress scored a 53 in 2007. McCain posts a lifetime score of only 24.

McCain: 0 (24 lifetime)
Clinton: 73 (87 lifetime)
Obama: 67 (86 lifetime)


The choice is clear if you have any desire to see environmental issues protected for the next four years.
 
Can't say it really surprises me. As far as party lines go isn't a (R) being pro-environment sorta like a (R) being pro abortion?
 
Originally posted by: Robor
isn't a (R) being pro-environment sorta like a (R) being pro abortion?

Overpopulation with poor environmental regulation = China
Low population with good environmental regulation = count me in
 
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
He deserves a lot of credit for being against biofuel, although now he's going along with it to satisfy the corn lobby.
Biofuel is possibly the biggest threat to biodiversity right now, especially since it's a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Even as a liberal, environmentalist, and professional geographer, I'd give McCain a higher score than Obama and Clinton.

Thank you for that. Burning food crops so we can continue to drive makes no sense to me. Virtually all the affects are negative from environemental to significant increases in the prices of basic foodstuffs like bread, eggs, milk, cheese and butter. These price increases have a disproportionate affect on the poor.

How does that (as in only that) make McCain a better environmentalist than Obama and Clinton?

It means McCain is standing up the big corp farming lobby. Losing a lot of votes.

Not only is biofuel bad for the previously listed reasons, but the fertilizer runoff from these corn farms goes down the Mississippi river into the Gulf of Mexico where it kills all sealife for miles around. A giant "dead spot".

Fern

I'm not 'for' the biofuels. To be honest I haven't read enough on the topic to have an educated opinion right now. I just don't see how simply saying McCain being against biofuels makes him a champion for the environment.

I'm not, but I'm basing my opinion on environmental protection being one of his personal issues. I don't know what his complete voting record is but I know he voted against drilling in the ANWR. All the candidates support alternative energy sources like solar and wind, so he's not at any disadvantage there. My biggest worry is that he continues his rightward trend even when it goes against his ethics and honor.
 
Originally posted by: superstition
Originally posted by: Robor
isn't a (R) being pro-environment sorta like a (R) being pro abortion?

Overpopulation with poor environmental regulation = China
Low population with good environmental regulation = count me in

I don't think abortion is generally considered population control. More like 'fixing a mistake'. I would say population control is birth control. My point is the (R) party isn't generally considered pro-environment. Looks like McCain fits the mold in this case.
 
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
his ethics and honor.
Those went out the window once he realized he had a shot at becoming POTUS.
 
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

I'm not 'for' the biofuels. To be honest I haven't read enough on the topic to have an educated opinion right now. I just don't see how simply saying McCain being against biofuels makes him a champion for the environment.

Now wait a minute. I never said he's a "champion for the enviroment".

I'm pointing out that he's sponsoring/creating the anti-MMGW legislation.

I commented on the biofuels.

I'm curious how he rates a zero.

BTW: I got to the site. Looks like a "no" vote and a missed vote are treating similarly.

While I don't care for McCain, giving him a zero doesn't seem honest.

Fern
 
Originally posted by: Fern
While I don't care for McCain, giving him a zero doesn't seem honest.
Isn't that the GOP motto? You're with us or you're against us.

If you're not voting to protect the environment, how is that not the same as voting against protecting the environment?
 
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

I'm not 'for' the biofuels. To be honest I haven't read enough on the topic to have an educated opinion right now. I just don't see how simply saying McCain being against biofuels makes him a champion for the environment.

Now wait a minute. I never said he's a "champion for the enviroment".

I'm pointing out that he's sponsoring/creating the anti-MMGW legislation.

I commented on the biofuels.

I'm curious how he rates a zero.

BTW: I got to the site. Looks like a "no" vote and a missed vote are treating similarly.

While I don't care for McCain, giving him a zero doesn't seem honest.

Fern

I understand... My original reply was to Throckmorton who said they put McCain above Obama and Clinton based on the biofuel issue.
 
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
He deserves a lot of credit for being against biofuel, although now he's going along with it to satisfy the corn lobby.
Biofuel is possibly the biggest threat to biodiversity right now, especially since it's a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Even as a liberal, environmentalist, and professional geographer, I'd give McCain a higher score than Obama and Clinton.

Thank you for that. Burning food crops so we can continue to drive makes no sense to me. Virtually all the affects are negative from environemental to significant increases in the prices of basic foodstuffs like bread, eggs, milk, cheese and butter. These price increases have a disproportionate affect on the poor.

How does that (as in only that) make McCain a better environmentalist than Obama and Clinton?

It means McCain is standing up the big corp farming lobby. Losing a lot of votes.

Not only is biofuel bad for the previously listed reasons, but the fertilizer runoff from these corn farms goes down the Mississippi river into the Gulf of Mexico where it kills all sealife for miles around. A giant "dead spot".

Fern

I'm not 'for' the biofuels. To be honest I haven't read enough on the topic to have an educated opinion right now. I just don't see how simply saying McCain being against biofuels makes him a champion for the environment.

Here's a recent article discussing corn based ethanol.

Cliff notes: Food prices are rising for a lot of things from cattle to dairy products. because "we're burning crops to make fuel"
A Princeton U study concluded that ethanol causes more environmental harm than fossil fuel. "corn-based ethanol almost doubles greenhouse-gas output over 30 years when considering land-use changes."

There have been many other studies which suggest that corn based ethanol produces very little to nil savings in energy due to the energy required for production. Whereas sugar based ethanol is far more efficient. The political power of the farm lobby dictates biofuel policy and thats wjere McCain is getting his clues from. He cannot afford to annoy the farm lobby if he wants a shot at the presidency.


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...hive&sid=aUIPybKj4IGs#



Ethanol Demand in U.S. Adds to Food, Fertilizer Costs (Update3)

By Alan Bjerga

Feb. 21 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. plans to replace 15 percent of gasoline consumption with crop-based fuels including ethanol are already leading to some unintended consequences as food prices and fertilizer costs increase.

About 33 percent of U.S. corn will be used for fuel during the next decade, up from 11 percent in 2002, the Agriculture Department estimates. Corn rose 20 percent to a record on the Chicago Board of Trade since Dec. 19, the day President George W. Bush signed a law requiring a fivefold jump in renewable fuels by 2022.

Increased demand for the grain helped boost food prices by 4.9 percent last year, the most since 1990, and will reduce global inventories of corn to the lowest in 24 years, government data show. While advocates say ethanol is cleaner than gasoline, a Princeton University study this month said it causes more environmental harm than fossil fuels.

"We are mandating and subsidizing something that is distorting the marketplace,'' said Cal Dooley, a former U.S. congressman from California, who represents companies including Kraft Foods Inc. and General Mills Inc. as president of the Grocery Manufacturers Association in Washington. "There are no excess commodities, and prices are rising.''

The energy bill requires the U.S. to use 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022, of which about 15 billion gallons may come from corn-based ethanol. The nation's current production capacity is about 8.06 billion gallons.

Alternative Energy

Oil prices tripled since the end of 2003, causing the government to consider alternative fuels. Now, the competition for corn is leading to higher costs for food companies, raising prices for everything from cattle to dairy products.

Corn doubled in the past two years, touching a record $5.29 a bushel today in Chicago. The price of young cattle sold to feedlots gained 8.7 percent in the past year, reaching a record $1.1965 a pound on Sept. 6 on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Average whole milk rose 26 percent to $3.871 a gallon in January from a year earlier, the Department of Labor said yesterday.

"For thousands of years, humans grew food and ate it,'' said Andrew Redleaf, 50, chief executive officer of Whitebox Advisors LLC, a Minneapolis hedge fund that manages $3 billion. "Now we are burning crops to make fuel.''

Whitebox bought three U.S. grain depots in the past year to profit from the growth in demand.

Updated Forecast

Farmers will have to increase planting of corn for ethanol by 43 percent to 30 million acres by 2015 to meet the government's requirements, said Bill Nelson, a vice president at A.G. Edwards Inc. in St. Louis. This year, growers outside the Midwest are focused on more profitable crops such as soybeans and wheat, the USDA said today in a crop forecast.

Corn planting will fall 3.8 percent this year to 90 million acres as farmers sow 12 percent more land with soybeans and 6 percent more with wheat, Joe Glauber, USDA acting chief economist, said today at the department's annual conference in Arlington, Virginia. The USDA said Feb. 8 that world corn reserves would drop for the seventh year in the past eight.

Increased planting has caused some fertilizer costs to double. Diammonium phosphate, a nutrient used on corn fields, reached $792.50 a ton on Feb. 15 from $297 a year earlier, USDA data show.

Greenhouse Gases

Researchers led by Timothy Searchinger at Princeton University said their study showed greenhouse-gas emissions will rise with ethanol demand. U.S. farmers will use more land for fuel, forcing poorer countries to cut down rainforests and use other undeveloped land for farms, the study said.

Searchinger's team determined that corn-based ethanol almost doubles greenhouse-gas output over 30 years when considering land-use changes. Bob Dinneen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association in Washington, said the study used a flawed model and overestimated how much land will be needed.

Ethanol is important in reducing emissions, ending energy dependence on the Middle East and creating jobs in rural areas, Dinneen said today at the USDA conference.

"There are still some who want us to choose between food and fuel,'' said Dinneen, whose organization represents ethanol producers including Archer Daniels Midland Co. "I don't think we have to choose.'' Research shows cellulosic ethanol made from grasses and crop waste may contribute 21 billion gallons by 2022, and farmers will be able to boost yields, he said.

Food Costs Rise

U.S. food costs, which account for about a fifth of the consumer-price index, rose 0.7 percent in January, the Labor Department said Feb. 20. They will increase as much as 4 percent this year, Glauber said in remarks at the forum.

"Food prices through 2010 will rise greater than the overall inflation rate,'' because of rising energy and commodity costs, he said.

Ethanol's contribution to inflation is limited, USDA economist Ephraim Leibtag said in an interview. A 50 percent jump in corn prices in 2007 from the 20-year average only added 1.6 cents to the cost of an 18-ounce box of Kellogg Co. Corn Flakes cereal, Leibtag said. The cost is less than 2 percent per box, JPMorgan Chase & Co. estimates.

Ethanol's boom helps restrain government spending on farm subsidies, said House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, a Minnesota Democrat. The USDA expects taxpayers to spend $941 million on the two main subsidy programs tied to price this year, down from $9.1 billion in 2006.

Smithfield, Tyson

For food companies, demand for ethanol translates into lower profits and job cuts.

Smithfield Foods Inc., the largest U.S. hog producer, said Feb. 19 it will cut output by as much as 1 million animals a year, or 5 percent, because feed costs are too high. The company is based in Smithfield, Virginia.

Tyson Foods Inc., the largest U.S. meat company, forecast an increase in grain costs this year of more than $500 million. Springdale, Arkansas-based Tyson also reported a 40 percent drop in first-quarter profit and said it will close a beef plant in Kansas, firing 1,800 workers.

Ethanol "has caused a domino effect,'' CEO Richard L. Bond said in a statement Jan. 28. "For the foreseeable future, consumers will pay more and more for food.''



 
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
He deserves a lot of credit for being against biofuel, although now he's going along with it to satisfy the corn lobby.
Biofuel is possibly the biggest threat to biodiversity right now, especially since it's a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Even as a liberal, environmentalist, and professional geographer, I'd give McCain a higher score than Obama and Clinton.

Thank you for that. Burning food crops so we can continue to drive makes no sense to me. Virtually all the affects are negative from environemental to significant increases in the prices of basic foodstuffs like bread, eggs, milk, cheese and butter. These price increases have a disproportionate affect on the poor.

How does that (as in only that) make McCain a better environmentalist than Obama and Clinton?

It means McCain is standing up the big corp farming lobby. Losing a lot of votes.

Not only is biofuel bad for the previously listed reasons, but the fertilizer runoff from these corn farms goes down the Mississippi river into the Gulf of Mexico where it kills all sealife for miles around. A giant "dead spot".

Fern

I'm not 'for' the biofuels. To be honest I haven't read enough on the topic to have an educated opinion right now. I just don't see how simply saying McCain being against biofuels makes him a champion for the environment.

Here's a recent article discussing corn based ethanol.

Cliff notes: Food prices are rising for a lot of things from cattle to dairy products. because "we're burning crops to make fuel"
A Princeton U study concluded that ethanol causes more environmental harm than fossil fuel. "corn-based ethanol almost doubles greenhouse-gas output over 30 years when considering land-use changes."

There have been many other studies which suggest that corn based ethanol produces very little to nil savings in energy due to the energy required for production. Whereas sugar based ethanol is far more efficient. The political power of the farm lobby dictates biofuel policy and thats wjere McCain is getting his clues from. He cannot afford to annoy the farm lobby if he wants a shot at the presidency.


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...hive&sid=aUIPybKj4IGs#



Ethanol Demand in U.S. Adds to Food, Fertilizer Costs (Update3)

By Alan Bjerga

Feb. 21 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. plans to replace 15 percent of gasoline consumption with crop-based fuels including ethanol are already leading to some unintended consequences as food prices and fertilizer costs increase.

About 33 percent of U.S. corn will be used for fuel during the next decade, up from 11 percent in 2002, the Agriculture Department estimates. Corn rose 20 percent to a record on the Chicago Board of Trade since Dec. 19, the day President George W. Bush signed a law requiring a fivefold jump in renewable fuels by 2022.

Increased demand for the grain helped boost food prices by 4.9 percent last year, the most since 1990, and will reduce global inventories of corn to the lowest in 24 years, government data show. While advocates say ethanol is cleaner than gasoline, a Princeton University study this month said it causes more environmental harm than fossil fuels.

"We are mandating and subsidizing something that is distorting the marketplace,'' said Cal Dooley, a former U.S. congressman from California, who represents companies including Kraft Foods Inc. and General Mills Inc. as president of the Grocery Manufacturers Association in Washington. "There are no excess commodities, and prices are rising.''

The energy bill requires the U.S. to use 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022, of which about 15 billion gallons may come from corn-based ethanol. The nation's current production capacity is about 8.06 billion gallons.

Alternative Energy

Oil prices tripled since the end of 2003, causing the government to consider alternative fuels. Now, the competition for corn is leading to higher costs for food companies, raising prices for everything from cattle to dairy products.

Corn doubled in the past two years, touching a record $5.29 a bushel today in Chicago. The price of young cattle sold to feedlots gained 8.7 percent in the past year, reaching a record $1.1965 a pound on Sept. 6 on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Average whole milk rose 26 percent to $3.871 a gallon in January from a year earlier, the Department of Labor said yesterday.

"For thousands of years, humans grew food and ate it,'' said Andrew Redleaf, 50, chief executive officer of Whitebox Advisors LLC, a Minneapolis hedge fund that manages $3 billion. "Now we are burning crops to make fuel.''

Whitebox bought three U.S. grain depots in the past year to profit from the growth in demand.

Updated Forecast

Farmers will have to increase planting of corn for ethanol by 43 percent to 30 million acres by 2015 to meet the government's requirements, said Bill Nelson, a vice president at A.G. Edwards Inc. in St. Louis. This year, growers outside the Midwest are focused on more profitable crops such as soybeans and wheat, the USDA said today in a crop forecast.

Corn planting will fall 3.8 percent this year to 90 million acres as farmers sow 12 percent more land with soybeans and 6 percent more with wheat, Joe Glauber, USDA acting chief economist, said today at the department's annual conference in Arlington, Virginia. The USDA said Feb. 8 that world corn reserves would drop for the seventh year in the past eight.

Increased planting has caused some fertilizer costs to double. Diammonium phosphate, a nutrient used on corn fields, reached $792.50 a ton on Feb. 15 from $297 a year earlier, USDA data show.

Greenhouse Gases

Researchers led by Timothy Searchinger at Princeton University said their study showed greenhouse-gas emissions will rise with ethanol demand. U.S. farmers will use more land for fuel, forcing poorer countries to cut down rainforests and use other undeveloped land for farms, the study said.

Searchinger's team determined that corn-based ethanol almost doubles greenhouse-gas output over 30 years when considering land-use changes. Bob Dinneen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association in Washington, said the study used a flawed model and overestimated how much land will be needed.

Ethanol is important in reducing emissions, ending energy dependence on the Middle East and creating jobs in rural areas, Dinneen said today at the USDA conference.

"There are still some who want us to choose between food and fuel,'' said Dinneen, whose organization represents ethanol producers including Archer Daniels Midland Co. "I don't think we have to choose.'' Research shows cellulosic ethanol made from grasses and crop waste may contribute 21 billion gallons by 2022, and farmers will be able to boost yields, he said.

Food Costs Rise

U.S. food costs, which account for about a fifth of the consumer-price index, rose 0.7 percent in January, the Labor Department said Feb. 20. They will increase as much as 4 percent this year, Glauber said in remarks at the forum.

"Food prices through 2010 will rise greater than the overall inflation rate,'' because of rising energy and commodity costs, he said.

Ethanol's contribution to inflation is limited, USDA economist Ephraim Leibtag said in an interview. A 50 percent jump in corn prices in 2007 from the 20-year average only added 1.6 cents to the cost of an 18-ounce box of Kellogg Co. Corn Flakes cereal, Leibtag said. The cost is less than 2 percent per box, JPMorgan Chase & Co. estimates.

Ethanol's boom helps restrain government spending on farm subsidies, said House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, a Minnesota Democrat. The USDA expects taxpayers to spend $941 million on the two main subsidy programs tied to price this year, down from $9.1 billion in 2006.

Smithfield, Tyson

For food companies, demand for ethanol translates into lower profits and job cuts.

Smithfield Foods Inc., the largest U.S. hog producer, said Feb. 19 it will cut output by as much as 1 million animals a year, or 5 percent, because feed costs are too high. The company is based in Smithfield, Virginia.

Tyson Foods Inc., the largest U.S. meat company, forecast an increase in grain costs this year of more than $500 million. Springdale, Arkansas-based Tyson also reported a 40 percent drop in first-quarter profit and said it will close a beef plant in Kansas, firing 1,800 workers.

Ethanol "has caused a domino effect,'' CEO Richard L. Bond said in a statement Jan. 28. "For the foreseeable future, consumers will pay more and more for food.''

Thanks for the quick education! 🙂 :thumbsup:

Edit: You know you're going to get in trouble with the Duque family on Cane now! 😉
 
Originally posted by: superstition
I don't think abortion is generally considered population control.

Abortion is a form of population control.

I guess it could be considered that but I put it in the same category as the death penalty.

Vasectomy, tubal ligation, the pill, IUD, condoms, etc, etc are birth (population) control. I don't think many women consider the cost and risk of abortion a logical method of birth control.
 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Fern
While I don't care for McCain, giving him a zero doesn't seem honest.
Isn't that the GOP motto? You're with us or you're against us.

If you're not voting to protect the environment, how is that not the same as voting against protecting the environment?
because you only need a majority of senators voting assuming a quorum is present, not a majority of senators total.
 
Back
Top