http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business

It just ain't right.
--

modom
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On 2008-07-18, modom (palindrome guy) > wrote:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business

more login crap

modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
>
> It just ain't right.
> --
>
> modom
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

I do agree that the totally clueless and unplanned grinding up of food
to make ethanol to keep the SUVs going wasn't such a great idea:

"“The industry is going to implode,” Mr. Stevens said. He blamed the
government’s ethanol mandates for making fuel compete with food for the
harvest of the nation’s farmland. “Politicians were in a rush to do
something, and it became a terrible snowball.”"

notbob wrote:
> On 2008-07-18, modom (palindrome guy) > wrote:
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
>
> more login crap

They relaxed it quite a bit. You can put anything in as credentials for
registration and they don't do confirmation emails anymore.

George wrote:
>
> modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
> >
> > It just ain't right.
> > --
> >
> > modom
> > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>
> I do agree that the totally clueless and unplanned grinding up of food
> to make ethanol to keep the SUVs going wasn't such a great idea:

Ethanol has nothing to do with keeping SUVs going, it's all about yet
another example of a poorly thought out plan pushed by a loud mouthed
environmentalist minority that once again causes more harm than good.

Previous examples have been oxygenate additives to gas i.e. MTBE and the
resulting massive pollution, banning Freon based on junk science and the
resulting switch to refrigerants that are toxic, less efficient and far
worse "greenhouse" gasses, as well as the huge impact of replacing
otherwise perfectly serviceable equipment.

Plenty more examples too, but those who point out all these
environmentalist caused disasters and point to the need to fully study
any possible drastic changes and validate the often junk science
supporting them get attacked as "deniers", or apologists for big
business or some such.

If our schools weren't failing hopelessly, perhaps these so called
environmentalists would have the critical thinking and scientific skills
to realize the error of so much of what they push.

On 2008-07-18, George > wrote:

> They relaxed it quite a bit. You can put anything in as credentials for
> registration and they don't do confirmation emails anymore.

I don't care if they instruct me to lie outright and feed the dog for me,
I'm not gonna jump thru their stupid hoops for the priviledge of reading
news I can get almost everywhe

http://tinyurl.com/5v2w66

nb

Pete C. > wrote:

>Ethanol has nothing to do with keeping SUVs going, it's all about yet
>another example of a poorly thought out plan pushed by a loud mouthed
>environmentalist minority that once again causes more harm than good.

I don't personally know any environmentalists who ever
favored ethanol.

It was mostly pushed by farmers.

Steve

notbob wrote:
>
> On 2008-07-18, modom (palindrome guy) > wrote:
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
>
> more login crap

Yep, that's what I got.

"Pete C." > wrote in message
...
>

>
> Ethanol has nothing to do with keeping SUVs going, it's all about yet
> another example of a poorly thought out plan pushed by a loud mouthed
> environmentalist minority that once again causes more harm than good.
>

No kidding! It's murder on small engines like those in lawnmowers.

"Pete C." wrote:
>
> Ethanol has nothing to do with keeping SUVs going, it's all about yet
> another example of a poorly thought out plan pushed by a loud mouthed
> environmentalist minority that once again causes more harm than good.

It's not environmentalists. It's the corn industry.
Follow the money. They're the ones making it.

modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
>
> It just ain't right.

Sure it is. Farmed fish isn't right. I suppose, though, that
given the condition of the seas, and the population of the world,
it may be necessary.

--
Jean B.

notbob wrote:
> On 2008-07-18, modom (palindrome guy) > wrote:
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
>
> more login crap

Does bugmenot work?

--
Jean B.

Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> "Pete C." wrote:
> >
> > Ethanol has nothing to do with keeping SUVs going, it's all about yet
> > another example of a poorly thought out plan pushed by a loud mouthed
> > environmentalist minority that once again causes more harm than good.
>
> It's not environmentalists. It's the corn industry.
> Follow the money. They're the ones making it.

The farmers only jumped on the bandwagon once they found that they could
actually make a profit for a change.

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:42:07 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2008-07-18, modom (palindrome guy) > wrote:
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
>
>more login crap

This may be a violation of copyright, but for you...

LELAND, Miss. - Catfish farmers across the South, unable to cope with
the soaring cost of corn and soybean feed, are draining their ponds.
"It's a dead business," said John Dillard, who pioneered the
commercial farming of catfish in the late 1960s. Last year Dillard &
Company raised 11 million fish. Next year it will raise none. People
can eat imported fish, Mr. Dillard said, just as they use imported
oil.
As for his 55 employees? "Those jobs are gone."
Corn and soybeans have nearly tripled in price in the last two years,
for many reasons: harvest shortfalls, increasing demand by the Asian
middle class, government mandates for corn to produce ethanol and,
most recently, the flooding in the Midwest.
This is creating a bonanza for corn and soybean farmers but is
wreaking havoc on consumers, who are seeing price spikes in the
grocery store and in restaurants. Hog and chicken producers as well as
cattle ranchers, all of whom depend on grain for feed, are being
severely squeezed.
Perhaps nowhere has the rise in crop prices caused more convulsions
than in the Mississippi Delta, the hub of the nation's catfish
industry. This is a hard-luck, poverty-plagued region, and raising
catfish in artificial ponds was one of the few mainstays.
Then the economics went awry. Feed is now more than half the total
cost of raising catfish, compared with a third of the cost of beef and
pork production, according to a Mississippi State analysis. That makes
catfish more vulnerable. But if the commodities continue to rocket up
- and some analysts believe they will - other industries will fall
victim as well.
Keith King, the president of Dillard & Company, calculates that for
every dollar the company spends raising its fish, it gets back only 75
cents when they go to market.
"What's happening to this industry is sad, but being sentimental won't
pay the light bill," Mr. King said.
Dillard and other growers take their fish, still squirming, to
Consolidated Catfish Producers in the hamlet of Isola, where workers
run the machinery that slices them into filets. With fewer fish coming
in, Consolidated Catfish is resorting to layoffs.
One hundred employees were let go in the last month, and an additional
200 will be cut soon. President Dick Stevens predicts that by the end
of the year the company will have jobs for only 450, about half the
number at its peak. That might not be enough to keep the plant open.
"The industry is going to implode," Mr. Stevens said. He blamed the
government's ethanol mandates for making fuel compete with food for
the harvest of the nation's farmland. "Politicians were in a rush to
do something, and it became a terrible snowball."
Across the highway, one of the local feed mills, Producers Feed
Company, has already shut down. The ripple effects have begun: between
the grain mill and the fish plant was Peter Bo's Restaurant, locally
celebrated for, naturally, its catfish. Hanging on the door is a "for
rent" sign.
Some catfish producers recently switched to a feed based on gluten, a
cheaper derivative of corn, to reduce their costs. But corn gluten
transportation and prices were particularly hard hit by the Midwest
floods.
"As sick as we were over what happened to the Iowa farmers, we were
also sick over what was going to happen to us," Mr. Stevens said.
It is a feeling echoed by others who depend on corn and soybeans.
In the spring, hog farmers thought they were past the worst. Export
sales to China were strong. Corn appeared to level off. Some farmers
sought an edge by reformulating pigs' diets and reducing the weight at
which they sent the animals to the packer.
"And then corn goes up another buck, and you're back where you were,"
said Dave Uttecht, a producer in Alpena, S.D., who raises 70,000 pigs
a year.
"I'm a farmer. I'm used to peaks and valleys." Mr. Uttecht said. "But
this is like falling into the Grand Canyon."
Smaller herds will eventually put a floor under hog prices, and there
is already some liquidation going on. But in the short term, sending
more hogs to market will increase the supply of pork and push prices
down further. Every farmer is hoping his colleagues will liquidate
first.
"We're all waiting for someone else to blink," Mr. Uttecht said.
Hog farmers at least have the advantage that bacon and pork chops are
solidly rooted in American cuisine, and if you want either there is no
replacement.
In this and many other ways, catfish farmers are not so lucky.
Catfish started out as a local delicacy, widely celebrated in the lore
of the Deep South. Mark Twain saluted it in "Life on the Mississippi."
A character in Eudora Welty's story "The Wide Net" says after stuffing
himself, "There ain't a thing better."
Mr. Dillard, whose operation at its peak was one of the country's five
biggest catfish companies, came to the delta 50 years ago to farm
cotton. He put in some catfish ponds a decade later almost on a whim.
"I liked the way they tasted," he said. "Fried."
Other farmers had the same idea. At first the ponds were put on soil
too dry for cotton. When they proved a better crop, they took over
cotton ground, too. For a long time, everyone made money.
In 2005, according to the Agriculture Department, catfish farming was
a $462 million industry, far exceeding any other American farm-raised
fish. The industry employed more than 10,000 people at its peak,
almost all in Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Arkansas.
Times were too good, perhaps. In retrospect, the name probably should
have been changed. Chilean sea bass would not have eclipsed the
catfish if it were still known as the Patagonian toothfish, nor would
orange roughy have become so esteemed as the slimehead.
"We didn't focus on the market or on the product," said Mr. Stevens,
the processing factory president. "We're the first culprits here."
The industry's decline accelerated when producers from Vietnam and
China flooded the domestic market, putting a ceiling on prices.
Efforts by American producers to portray the imports as unclean and
potentially unsafe did not work. The campaign did, however, achieve a
measure of vindication last summer when the Food and Drug
Administration announced broader import controls on Chinese seafood,
including catfish, saying tests had shown the fish were contaminated
with antimicrobial agents.
Rising feed prices were the final straw for Dillard & Company, which
decided to close last January. Eighty of its 10- to 20-acre pools are
empty already. An additional 170 will follow as soon as their fish are
big enough to sell.
"It's easy. You just pull the plug," Mr. King said, surveying a pool
that was nearly dry. Nearby, half a dozen men were running their nets
through a pond, then hoisting the last of its catfish onto a truck.
"I've been doing this for 23 years," said one of the workers, Craig
Morgan. "I don't know what I'll do now. And there are a bunch of me's
out there."
It is unclear what can replace catfish as easily as catfish replaced
cotton. Attempts to make a tourist industry out of the fact that the
delta was the birthplace of the blues are still embryonic.
"If we don't do something, there will be nothing but tumbleweed here,"
Jimmy Donahoo, a former catfish farmer, said. He, like others in the
industry, thinks the producers should be supported by government
subsidies, just like other farmers.
At Dillard & Company, they are not waiting for help.
"You focus your resources where you can maximize your profits," Mr.
King said. All the empty ponds will be planted with soybeans and corn,
those two commodities for which there seems boundless appetite.
--

modom
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:04:03 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:

>modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
>>
>> It just ain't right.
>
>Sure it is. Farmed fish isn't right. I suppose, though, that
>given the condition of the seas, and the population of the world,
>it may be necessary.

Not sure about that. Catfish farming isn't practiced the same way
that, say, salmon farming is. For starters it's done in ponds in
Mississippi's Delta region up by Leland, not in pens off the coast of
Chile.
--

modom
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"Jean B." wrote:
>
> modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
> >
> > It just ain't right.
>
> Sure it is. Farmed fish isn't right.

So you'd also suggest we should subsist on nuts and berries foraged in
the wild? BS, farmed fish, farmed (ranched) cattle, farmed vegetables,
etc. are all quite right.

> I suppose, though, that
> given the condition of the seas

Certainly farming fish can relieve some of the pressure on wild stocks.

> and the population of the world,
> it may be necessary.

That population issue should resolve, at least temporarily, when we
finally get the next pandemic, be it bird flu or whatever.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:13:33 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>Mark Thorson wrote:
>>
>> "Pete C." wrote:
>> >
>> > Ethanol has nothing to do with keeping SUVs going, it's all about yet
>> > another example of a poorly thought out plan pushed by a loud mouthed
>> > environmentalist minority that once again causes more harm than good.
>>
>> It's not environmentalists. It's the corn industry.
>> Follow the money. They're the ones making it.
>
>The farmers only jumped on the bandwagon once they found that they could
>actually make a profit for a change.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060425.html

http://www.economist.com/world/la/di...ory_id=8780213

http://cornandsoybeandigest.com/biof...signs_act_rfs/

Environmentalists, my ass.
--

modom
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Mark Thorson wrote:
> notbob wrote:
>> On 2008-07-18, modom (palindrome guy) > wrote:
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
>> more login crap
>
> Yep, that's what I got.

I didn't. I got the article. It was interesting.

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

"modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:13:33 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Mark Thorson wrote:
> >>
> >> "Pete C." wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Ethanol has nothing to do with keeping SUVs going, it's all about yet
> >> > another example of a poorly thought out plan pushed by a loud mouthed
> >> > environmentalist minority that once again causes more harm than good.
> >>
> >> It's not environmentalists. It's the corn industry.
> >> Follow the money. They're the ones making it.
> >
> >The farmers only jumped on the bandwagon once they found that they could
> >actually make a profit for a change.
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060425.html
>
> http://www.economist.com/world/la/di...ory_id=8780213
>
> http://cornandsoybeandigest.com/biof...signs_act_rfs/
>
> Environmentalists, my ass.

What's your point? I didn't say the government didn't get involved and
then all those who found a way to profit from the stupid plan. That
doesn't change it's origins.

"Jean B." > wrote in message
...
> modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
>>
>> It just ain't right.
>
> Sure it is. Farmed fish isn't right. I suppose, though, that given the
> condition of the seas, and the population of the world, it may be
> necessary.
>
> --
> Jean B.

Catfish are freshwater fish. Farmed catfish are actually better than wild
caught catfish. Catfish are bottom feeders and tend to taste muddy when
wild caught. Nice, fat, corn-fed catfish on the other hand are yummy.
Especially alongside some hush puppies and cole slaw.

Ms P

Pete C. wrote:
> George wrote:
>> modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
>>>
>>> It just ain't right.
>>> --
>>>
>>> modom
>>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>> I do agree that the totally clueless and unplanned grinding up of food
>> to make ethanol to keep the SUVs going wasn't such a great idea:
>
> Ethanol has nothing to do with keeping SUVs going, it's all about yet
> another example of a poorly thought out plan pushed by a loud mouthed
> environmentalist minority that once again causes more harm than good.

Don't think so. The politicians were responding to the "pain" of their
constituents as fuel prices started to rise and it cost serious money to
fill up fluffed up trucks. So they seized on on the idea of ethanol as
"cheap fuel" with the help of the corn lobby. Only being as clueless as
they are they didn't consider that you actually have to plan on growing
more for the future not just cluelessly start grinding up the corn that
was grown for food and feed and handing out billions in subsidies..


>
> Previous examples have been oxygenate additives to gas i.e. MTBE and the
> resulting massive pollution, banning Freon based on junk science and the
> resulting switch to refrigerants that are toxic, less efficient and far
> worse "greenhouse" gasses, as well as the huge impact of replacing
> otherwise perfectly serviceable equipment.

Agree, those were drive by the concerns you noted.



>
> Plenty more examples too, but those who point out all these
> environmentalist caused disasters and point to the need to fully study
> any possible drastic changes and validate the often junk science
> supporting them get attacked as "deniers", or apologists for big
> business or some such.
>
> If our schools weren't failing hopelessly, perhaps these so called
> environmentalists would have the critical thinking and scientific skills
> to realize the error of so much of what they push.

Steve Pope wrote:
> Pete C. > wrote:
>
>> Ethanol has nothing to do with keeping SUVs going, it's all about yet
>> another example of a poorly thought out plan pushed by a loud mouthed
>> environmentalist minority that once again causes more harm than good.
>
> I don't personally know any environmentalists who ever
> favored ethanol.

Everything I read about the environmentalists says that they believe in
more efficiency and less consumption. Grinding up food to make more fuel
doesn't strike me as anything an environmentalists would want.


>
> It was mostly pushed by farmers.
>
> Steve

modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:04:03 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:
>
>> modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
>>>
>>> It just ain't right.
>> Sure it is. Farmed fish isn't right. I suppose, though, that
>> given the condition of the seas, and the population of the world,
>> it may be necessary.
>
> Not sure about that. Catfish farming isn't practiced the same way
> that, say, salmon farming is. For starters it's done in ponds in
> Mississippi's Delta region up by Leland, not in pens off the coast of
> Chile.

I'd have to look into the comparative nutritional benefits, etc.
to come up with a catfish-specific response. I will say that just
as farmed salmon is, to me anyway, noticeably inferior, catfish is
also... different. That is, if one enjoyed the old catfish
flavor. Which we did.


--
Jean B.

Pete C. wrote:
> "Jean B." wrote:
>> modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
>>>
>>> It just ain't right.
>> Sure it is. Farmed fish isn't right.
>
> So you'd also suggest we should subsist on nuts and berries foraged in
> the wild?

Obviously, that is not practical.

BS, farmed fish, farmed (ranched) cattle, farmed vegetables,
> etc. are all quite right.

That depends.... For one thing, how are those things produced?
How do the nutritional benefits compare? What has human
intervention introduced? Also, what is the impact on the environment?
>
>> I suppose, though, that
>> given the condition of the seas
>
> Certainly farming fish can relieve some of the pressure on wild stocks.

I agree--but again, I question what is in these things? How has
farming altered them? What is the impact on the environment?
>
>> and the population of the world,
>> it may be necessary.
>
> That population issue should resolve, at least temporarily, when we
> finally get the next pandemic, be it bird flu or whatever.

Or it will resolve as result of food and water shortages and other
disasters.
--
Jean B.

Ms P wrote:
>
> "Jean B." > wrote in message
> ...
>> modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
>>>
>>> It just ain't right.
>>
>> Sure it is. Farmed fish isn't right. I suppose, though, that given
>> the condition of the seas, and the population of the world, it may be
>> necessary.
>>
>> --
>> Jean B.
>
> Catfish are freshwater fish. Farmed catfish are actually better than
> wild caught catfish. Catfish are bottom feeders and tend to taste muddy
> when wild caught. Nice, fat, corn-fed catfish on the other hand are
> yummy. Especially alongside some hush puppies and cole slaw.
>
> Ms P

Erm, I am odd, but I preferred the old earthy taste. That was
kind-of the point of eating catfish. It had a certain flavor.
Also, you say "fat". I don't recall the farm-raised catfish
specifically, but other farm-raised fish tend to be "mushy"--I
assume because of the fat.

--
Jean B.

George wrote:
> Pete C. wrote:
>> George wrote:
>>> modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
>>>>
>>>> It just ain't right.
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> modom
>>>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>>> I do agree that the totally clueless and unplanned grinding up of food
>>> to make ethanol to keep the SUVs going wasn't such a great idea:
>>
>> Ethanol has nothing to do with keeping SUVs going, it's all about yet
>> another example of a poorly thought out plan pushed by a loud mouthed
>> environmentalist minority that once again causes more harm than good.
>
> Don't think so. The politicians were responding to the "pain" of their
> constituents as fuel prices started to rise and it cost serious money to
> fill up fluffed up trucks. So they seized on on the idea of ethanol as
> "cheap fuel" with the help of the corn lobby. Only being as clueless as
> they are they didn't consider that you actually have to plan on growing
> more for the future not just cluelessly start grinding up the corn that
> was grown for food and feed and handing out billions in subsidies..
>
>
>>
>> Previous examples have been oxygenate additives to gas i.e. MTBE and the
>> resulting massive pollution, banning Freon based on junk science and the
>> resulting switch to refrigerants that are toxic, less efficient and far
>> worse "greenhouse" gasses, as well as the huge impact of replacing
>> otherwise perfectly serviceable equipment.
>
> Agree, those were drive by the concerns you noted.
>
>
>
>>
>> Plenty more examples too, but those who point out all these
>> environmentalist caused disasters and point to the need to fully study
>> any possible drastic changes and validate the often junk science
>> supporting them get attacked as "deniers", or apologists for big
>> business or some such.
>>
>> If our schools weren't failing hopelessly, perhaps these so called
>> environmentalists would have the critical thinking and scientific skills
>> to realize the error of so much of what they push.

Maybe someone here can figure this out.... If the addition of
ethanol to our fuel tanks means our vehicles get fewer MPG, and we
need to refill more frequently, what are we gaining? It seems to
me that the numbers are not what we are led to believe. And that
doesn't even get into the corn being used for something other than
food and the ramifications of that.

--
Jean B.

"Jean B." wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote:
> > "Jean B." wrote:
> >> modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
> >>>
> >>> It just ain't right.
> >> Sure it is. Farmed fish isn't right.
> >
> > So you'd also suggest we should subsist on nuts and berries foraged in
> > the wild?
>
> Obviously, that is not practical.
>
> BS, farmed fish, farmed (ranched) cattle, farmed vegetables,
> > etc. are all quite right.
>
> That depends.... For one thing, how are those things produced?

The same way we're been farming for millennia.

> How do the nutritional benefits compare?

The same as any other source. I take it you're one of the folks who
believes the myth that "organic" produce is more nutritious than
conventional.

> What has human
> intervention introduced?

Efficiency.

> Also, what is the impact on the environment?

It supports overpopulation.

> >
> >> I suppose, though, that
> >> given the condition of the seas
> >
> > Certainly farming fish can relieve some of the pressure on wild stocks.
>
> I agree--but again, I question what is in these things?

Protein and nutrients.

> How has
> farming altered them?

It hasn't, that's a myth.

> What is the impact on the environment?

It supports overpopulation.

> >
> >> and the population of the world,
> >> it may be necessary.
> >
> > That population issue should resolve, at least temporarily, when we
> > finally get the next pandemic, be it bird flu or whatever.
>
> Or it will resolve as result of food and water shortages and other
> disasters.

Disasters like failing schools producing a population that lacks the
critical thinking skills to research and analyze actual facts, and
instead relies on unsubstantiated rumors.

George wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote:
> > George wrote:
> >> modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
> >>>
> >>> It just ain't right.
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> modom
> >>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
> >> I do agree that the totally clueless and unplanned grinding up of food
> >> to make ethanol to keep the SUVs going wasn't such a great idea:
> >
> > Ethanol has nothing to do with keeping SUVs going, it's all about yet
> > another example of a poorly thought out plan pushed by a loud mouthed
> > environmentalist minority that once again causes more harm than good.
>
> Don't think so. The politicians were responding to the "pain" of their
> constituents as fuel prices started to rise and it cost serious money to
> fill up fluffed up trucks. So they seized on on the idea of ethanol as
> "cheap fuel" with the help of the corn lobby. Only being as clueless as
> they are they didn't consider that you actually have to plan on growing
> more for the future not just cluelessly start grinding up the corn that
> was grown for food and feed and handing out billions in subsidies..

No, the start of the ethanol fiasco came from the environmentalist lobby
because ethanol burns cleaner. They just as always neglected to look at
the big picture to see the higher emissions from the production side as
well as the impact to food / feed prices.

The bio-diesel weenies who learn just barely enough to make the stuff
from waste oil they beg from a local restaurant are another problem
since they also mindlessly promote it as the solution to everything,
once again ignoring all the issues on the source side.

>
> >
> > Previous examples have been oxygenate additives to gas i.e. MTBE and the
> > resulting massive pollution, banning Freon based on junk science and the
> > resulting switch to refrigerants that are toxic, less efficient and far
> > worse "greenhouse" gasses, as well as the huge impact of replacing
> > otherwise perfectly serviceable equipment.
>
> Agree, those were drive by the concerns you noted.
>
> >
> > Plenty more examples too, but those who point out all these
> > environmentalist caused disasters and point to the need to fully study
> > any possible drastic changes and validate the often junk science
> > supporting them get attacked as "deniers", or apologists for big
> > business or some such.
> >
> > If our schools weren't failing hopelessly, perhaps these so called
> > environmentalists would have the critical thinking and scientific skills
> > to realize the error of so much of what they push.

"Jean B." wrote:
>
> >> If our schools weren't failing hopelessly, perhaps these so called
> >> environmentalists would have the critical thinking and scientific skills
> >> to realize the error of so much of what they push.
>
> Maybe someone here can figure this out.... If the addition of
> ethanol to our fuel tanks means our vehicles get fewer MPG, and we
> need to refill more frequently, what are we gaining?

Superficially, lower emissions, if you ignore the pollution generated on
the supply side.

> It seems to
> me that the numbers are not what we are led to believe. And that
> doesn't even get into the corn being used for something other than
> food and the ramifications of that.

Bingo! The initial environmentalist proponents of ethanol looked no
further than tailpipe emissions which are lower than gasoline. Those who
looked further upstream saw all the other issues of supply side
emissions and of course the impact to food / feed prices and the cascade
impact of that.

George wrote:
>
> Steve Pope wrote:
> > Pete C. > wrote:
> >
> >> Ethanol has nothing to do with keeping SUVs going, it's all about yet
> >> another example of a poorly thought out plan pushed by a loud mouthed
> >> environmentalist minority that once again causes more harm than good.
> >
> > I don't personally know any environmentalists who ever
> > favored ethanol.
>
> Everything I read about the environmentalists says that they believe in
> more efficiency and less consumption. Grinding up food to make more fuel
> doesn't strike me as anything an environmentalists would want.

Ethanol gives lower tailpipe emissions than gasoline. It was the
uneducated environmentalists who were promoting ethanol as reducing
pollution that started the problem since they lacked the education to be
able to look at the bigger picture.

>
> >
> > It was mostly pushed by farmers.
> >
> > Steve

"Pete C." wrote:
>
> So you'd also suggest we should subsist on nuts and berries foraged in
> the wild? BS, farmed fish, farmed (ranched) cattle, farmed vegetables,
> etc. are all quite right.

Farmed salmon is much higher in PCB's and toxic chemicals
than wild salmon.

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/1225.html

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9659C8B 63

"modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
>
> Not sure about that. Catfish farming isn't practiced the same way
> that, say, salmon farming is. For starters it's done in ponds in
> Mississippi's Delta region up by Leland, not in pens off the coast of
> Chile.

You don't have to go that far to see salmon farming.
It's a big business in Maine and Washington state.

"Pete C." wrote:
>
> "modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:13:33 -0500, "Pete C." >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Mark Thorson wrote:
> > >>
> > >> "Pete C." wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Ethanol has nothing to do with keeping SUVs going, it's all about yet
> > >> > another example of a poorly thought out plan pushed by a loud mouthed
> > >> > environmentalist minority that once again causes more harm than good.
> > >>
> > >> It's not environmentalists. It's the corn industry.
> > >> Follow the money. They're the ones making it.
> > >
> > >The farmers only jumped on the bandwagon once they found that they could
> > >actually make a profit for a change.
> >
> > http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060425.html
> >
> > http://www.economist.com/world/la/di...ory_id=8780213
> >
> > http://cornandsoybeandigest.com/biof...signs_act_rfs/
> >
> > Environmentalists, my ass.
>
> What's your point? I didn't say the government didn't get involved and
> then all those who found a way to profit from the stupid plan. That
> doesn't change it's origins.

Environmentalists are the new communists?

Pete C. wrote:
> "Jean B." wrote:
>> Pete C. wrote:
>>> "Jean B." wrote:
>>>> modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
>>>>>
>>>>> It just ain't right.
>>>> Sure it is. Farmed fish isn't right.
>>> So you'd also suggest we should subsist on nuts and berries foraged in
>>> the wild?
>> Obviously, that is not practical.
>>
>> BS, farmed fish, farmed (ranched) cattle, farmed vegetables,
>>> etc. are all quite right.
>> That depends.... For one thing, how are those things produced?
>
> The same way we're been farming for millennia.

Like with antibiotics and hormones?
>
>> How do the nutritional benefits compare?
>
> The same as any other source. I take it you're one of the folks who
> believes the myth that "organic" produce is more nutritious than
> conventional.

Sometimes. I do tend to gravitate toward organic produce. It's
also a matter of what is good for this planet.

>
>> What has human
>> intervention introduced?
>
> Efficiency.

True--but at what cost?
>
>> Also, what is the impact on the environment?
>
> It supports overpopulation.

Not following. Current agricultural etc. practices do support
overpopulation. That's a problem, which will come home to roost.
>
>>>> I suppose, though, that
>>>> given the condition of the seas
>>> Certainly farming fish can relieve some of the pressure on wild stocks.
>> I agree--but again, I question what is in these things?
>
> Protein and nutrients.

And what else?
>
>> How has
>> farming altered them?
>
> It hasn't, that's a myth.

I don't believe that.
>
>> What is the impact on the environment?
>
> It supports overpopulation.

And you think that's good?
>
>>>> and the population of the world,
>>>> it may be necessary.
>>> That population issue should resolve, at least temporarily, when we
>>> finally get the next pandemic, be it bird flu or whatever.
>> Or it will resolve as result of food and water shortages and other
>> disasters.
>
> Disasters like failing schools producing a population that lacks the
> critical thinking skills to research and analyze actual facts, and
> instead relies on unsubstantiated rumors.

I gather that's a comment directed at me. Well, we shall see....
--
Jean B.

Mark Thorson wrote:
> "Pete C." wrote:
>> So you'd also suggest we should subsist on nuts and berries foraged in
>> the wild? BS, farmed fish, farmed (ranched) cattle, farmed vegetables,
>> etc. are all quite right.
>
> Farmed salmon is much higher in PCB's and toxic chemicals
> than wild salmon.
>
> http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/1225.html
>
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9659C8B 63

Some want to ignore such things....

--
Jean B.

Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> "Pete C." wrote:
> >
> > "modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:13:33 -0500, "Pete C." >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >Mark Thorson wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> "Pete C." wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Ethanol has nothing to do with keeping SUVs going, it's all about yet
> > > >> > another example of a poorly thought out plan pushed by a loud mouthed
> > > >> > environmentalist minority that once again causes more harm than good.
> > > >>
> > > >> It's not environmentalists. It's the corn industry.
> > > >> Follow the money. They're the ones making it.
> > > >
> > > >The farmers only jumped on the bandwagon once they found that they could
> > > >actually make a profit for a change.
> > >
> > > http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060425.html
> > >
> > > http://www.economist.com/world/la/di...ory_id=8780213
> > >
> > > http://cornandsoybeandigest.com/biof...signs_act_rfs/
> > >
> > > Environmentalists, my ass.
> >
> > What's your point? I didn't say the government didn't get involved and
> > then all those who found a way to profit from the stupid plan. That
> > doesn't change it's origins.
>
> Environmentalists are the new communists?

Uneducated environmentalists *are* dangerous.

Jean B. wrote:

>
> Maybe someone here can figure this out.... If the addition of ethanol
> to our fuel tanks means our vehicles get fewer MPG, and we need to
> refill more frequently, what are we gaining? It seems to me that the
> numbers are not what we are led to believe. And that doesn't even get
> into the corn being used for something other than food and the
> ramifications of that.
>
Its pretty simple. Think back to the not too distant past when it seemed
most everyone needed to drive a fluffed up truck. As fuel prices rose
people started to scream about the cost and that the government should
"do something". Instead of fostering ways to improve efficiency and use
less fuel the politicians with the help of the corn lobby (follow the
money) seized on the idea of giving out huge subsidies to make ethanol
from corn as an "alternative fuel" so everyone could keep driving their
trucks as usual.

Some of the problems:

Since this vastly accelerated use was unplanned and it takes time to
prepare fields and grow crops the price of corn soared.

It is much more expensive to make ethanol than the cost of gasoline. So
the government needs to reach into our pockets to subsidize construction
and operation of the plants. Also they exempt it from road use taxes to
further artificially suppress the price so money for highway
construction is lost.

It is energy inefficient to make ethanol. The process sometimes has a
close to or net energy loss.

Ethanol is corrosive. So it can't be shipped via a normal pipeline.
Locally they truck it in from 200 miles away and then blend it when the
transport trucks are loaded.


Fuel economy is less as you noted.

"Jean B." wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote:
> > "Jean B." wrote:
> >> Pete C. wrote:
> >>> "Jean B." wrote:
> >>>> modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
> >>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It just ain't right.
> >>>> Sure it is. Farmed fish isn't right.
> >>> So you'd also suggest we should subsist on nuts and berries foraged in
> >>> the wild?
> >> Obviously, that is not practical.
> >>
> >> BS, farmed fish, farmed (ranched) cattle, farmed vegetables,
> >>> etc. are all quite right.
> >> That depends.... For one thing, how are those things produced?
> >
> > The same way we're been farming for millennia.
>
> Like with antibiotics and hormones?

Sure, whatever you want to believe...

> >
> >> How do the nutritional benefits compare?
> >
> > The same as any other source. I take it you're one of the folks who
> > believes the myth that "organic" produce is more nutritious than
> > conventional.
>
> Sometimes. I do tend to gravitate toward organic produce. It's
> also a matter of what is good for this planet.

I tend to gravitate away from "organic" as I consider it overpriced
hype. I will be getting my own garden going for next year, so it won't
be an issue anyway, and no, I won't be doing anything special for
"organic".

>
> >
> >> What has human
> >> intervention introduced?
> >
> > Efficiency.
>
> True--but at what cost?

Overpopulation.

> >
> >> Also, what is the impact on the environment?
> >
> > It supports overpopulation.
>
> Not following. Current agricultural etc. practices do support
> overpopulation. That's a problem, which will come home to roost.

All farming supports overpopulation, be it organic or conventional.

> >
> >>>> I suppose, though, that
> >>>> given the condition of the seas
> >>> Certainly farming fish can relieve some of the pressure on wild stocks.
> >> I agree--but again, I question what is in these things?
> >
> > Protein and nutrients.
>
> And what else?

Nothing that you don't also find in everything else on the planet.

> >
> >> How has
> >> farming altered them?
> >
> > It hasn't, that's a myth.
>
> I don't believe that.

Believe what you want. People have been believing in myths with no
supporting evidence for millennia...

> >
> >> What is the impact on the environment?
> >
> > It supports overpopulation.
>
> And you think that's good?

Nope, but all farming supports overpopulation. So does food aid, medical
aid and other forms of support for overpopulated regions that do nothing
to solve the underlying overpopulation and change the culture to a
sustainable self sufficient one.

> >
> >>>> and the population of the world,
> >>>> it may be necessary.
> >>> That population issue should resolve, at least temporarily, when we
> >>> finally get the next pandemic, be it bird flu or whatever.
> >> Or it will resolve as result of food and water shortages and other
> >> disasters.
> >
> > Disasters like failing schools producing a population that lacks the
> > critical thinking skills to research and analyze actual facts, and
> > instead relies on unsubstantiated rumors.
>
> I gather that's a comment directed at me. Well, we shall see....
> --
> Jean B.

> Maybe someone here can figure this out.... *If the addition of
> ethanol to our fuel tanks means our vehicles get fewer MPG, and we
> need to refill more frequently, what are we gaining? *It seems to
> me that the numbers are not what we are led to believe. *And that
> doesn't even get into the corn being used for something other than
> food and the ramifications of that.

It was one facet of becoming less dependent on foreign oil. Most
people in the corn belt agree that it isn't the total answer.

N.

George wrote:

> notbob wrote:
> > On 2008-07-18, modom (palindrome guy) > wrote:
> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
> >
> > more login crap
>
> They relaxed it quite a bit. You can put anything in as credentials for
> registration and they don't do confirmation emails anymore.


If I post an article I post I post not only the URL but also the whole
article, it's simply good manners. Some folks don't like clicking on links
or having to register at some site...

As for any "copyright" issues, that's a moot point, otherwise the NYT or
whomever would not have the "print this article" option alongside the
article...


--
Best
Greg