…On the subject of “whether or not to grow more corn for Ethanol production and it’s global impact.

The debate has recently surfaced about whether or not grow more corn for the production of ethanol for fuel to replace petroleum.

I have four points to make on this.

1)  It is ridiculously short-sighted to grow more of anythin we are already growing on what would be called a “mass” scale, especially when it comes to corn. Why? Well, there are 144,000 edible fruits and vegetables on the planet of which FOURTY FOUR are cultivated and distributed on any kind of “grand” scale. WHY ARE WE BEING SO BORING ABOUT THE FOOD WE CHOOSE TO CULTIVATE TO GROW!!?.

2) The two agricultural products produced in the greatest quantity on planet Earth currently, are:

CORN

and

BANANNAS.

It really ought to be RICE

and

Banannas.

Why is It CORN?

Because most of the corn that is grown for food is made into HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP.

Sugar.

This product is jammed into MOST PROCESSED FOODS.

In the quantities that it exists in our food, it is UNHEALTHY for us and we don’t want it in our food, and a large percentage of us are victimized because do not even know we do not wish to have it in our foods!! It is unhealthy and even toxic.

Eliminate this from the food production chain and divert the corn production to ethanol production.

3) We do not have to use corn for fuel production to make fuel, WHY?

BECAUSE- if you make CELLULOSIC ethanol from the HEMP plant, also known as MARIJUANA, (the kind that does not get you high, though. More like the “leafy NO HIGH” version of pot) the fuel to feed ratio is 95% as compared to anything else you could use (ie. petroleum,corn,sugar,switchgrass, whatever…) which are all at about 45-64%. in the range of less than half.

WTF people!!!

TIME TO STEP UP TIME TO STEP UP!!!!

CARPE’ DIEM CARPE’ DIEM CARPE’ DIEM

ETHANOL MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY COSTLY THAN GAS & DIESEL

ENN – Some biofuels cause more health problems than petrol and diesel, according to scientists who have calculated the health costs associated with different types of fuel. The study shows that corn-based bioethanol, which is produced extensively in the US, has a higher combined environmental and health burden than conventional fuels. However, there are high hopes for the next generation of biofuels, which can be made from organic waste or plants grown on marginal land that is not used to grow foods. They have less than half the combined health and environmental costs of standard gasoline and a third of current biofuels.

The work adds to an increasing body of research raising concerns about the impact of modern corn-based biofuels.

Several studies last year showed that growing corn to make ethanol biofuels was pushing up the price of food. Environmentalists have highlighted other problems such deforestation to clear land for growing crops to make the fuels. The UK government’s renewable fuels advisors recommended slowing down the adoption of biofuels until better controls were in place to prevent inadvertent climate impacts.

Using computer models developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency, the researchers found the total environmental and health costs of gasoline are about 71 cents (50p) per gallon, while an equivalent amount of corn-ethanol fuel has associated costs of 72 cents to $1.45, depending on how it is produced.