Riots in Haiti--Is Nicaragua Next?

that's a big, make that huge, facility, that would work so well in Nicaragua. They could use Lake Managua, couldn't screw it up any worse. ;) Thanks for the info

-Doug

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate

The byproducts are not the only concern, which is one of the points of the article referenced. If you think the corn used to make ethanol is a "major foodstuff" then you are mistaken. In fact, the corn used to this end was specifically modified for non-human consumption purposes and it is inedible, which is why it needs to be processed into ethanol, HFCS, or used on beef farms (hence the phrase "corn fed beef", which sounds better than what is really going on around those farms: http://www.kingcorn.net/).

Of course, it could be argued that they should be planting food to eat and not food to feed animals that will become food for some other animal. But, that might be another debate, or the other side of the same one. The fact that sugarcane is not a major foodstuff does not automatically exempt cane-producing countries from the debate about using food to make fuel (allegedly, they just use the good land to make a non-food to make fuel). If the land used to produce the non-food cane was instead used to produce a foodstuff, then the debate might not seem so one-sided. As it is right now, some countries grow cane and tout the fact that they are not part of the food-fuel-price problem. The problem is they could perhaps plant something else. The argument against using the "food" corn as fuel (and there are great arguments against this and the whole ethanol-as-savior plan is idiotic) doest work on one level since that corn cannot be directly consumed by humans anyway. The Iowa corn farmer is as entitled to the "this isn't food were using to make fuel" argument as is the cane producer in Brazil.

Of course it is hypocritical for countries that have eliminated the bulk of their forest resources to try to pressure Brazil into not doing them same. But, stating this doesn't do much by way of the food-fuel debate. However, the people clamoring for increased Brazilian cane might not be able to long-term maintain the concluding sentence: "they found a solution and now Brazil is the better for it".

Eliminating forests to grow sugar cane to fuel cars in not necessarily a great long-term plan and it is debatable if Brazil, 40 years from now, will be better for having done so. The costs of in-country ethanol are not really the only thing to look at, partly because trade restrictions bar Brazil from selling much of it (so stockpile or reduce price?). Cost analysis is further complicated given that Petrobas is a state company and the entire enterprise and many tied to it are all subsidized.

The combination of eliminating much of the forest and replacing it with cane that would be burned results in a giant double hit (so much more pollution it is hard to measure and no filter). Brazil used to brag about helping reducing emissions in various countries like Sweden (their laws require 6% ethanol use) but they don't mention that parts of Brazil were on health alert several times every year due to cane burning (if you gassed up on ethanol in one of these regions your first hand experience might not have been so positive). Brazil may or may not be better off in trade-off like this. The Brazilian answer under new laws is to industrialize the process and accomplish some ends via new fertilizers. This will create a great deal of unemployment and introduce chemicals into lands no longer buffered by forest-based lands. It may or may not be a good idea.

Everything Brazil does is backed up by the fact that they have their own access to their own oil. Brazil might not be a good model for very many other countries because they have the acreage, climate, cane (far superior to corn), and massive petroleum reserves.