There’s No Place for Brazil’s Ethanol and Biofuels in a Real Green World

Sugarcane cutter in Brazil An assorted alliance of organizations published an open letter [1] this Thursday, January 15, in the U.S. and internationally, warning of the dangers of industrially produced biofuels (called agrofuels by critics).

The letter explains why large-scale industrial production of transport fuels and other energy from plants such as corn, sugar cane, oilseeds, trees, grasses, or so-called agricultural and woodland waste threatens forests, biodiversity, food sovereignty, community-based land rights and will worsen climate change.

With the new Obama Administration slated to take office Tuesday, the letter's originators warn that if Obama's "New Green Economy" runs on agrofuels it may trap the U.S. in a dangerous "Green Bubble" of unrealistic promises from an unsustainable industry.

Indications that the incoming Obama Administration may be ideologically wedded to continuing the agrofuel disaster are clear. President Obama's "New Green Deal" includes support for notoriously destructive agrofuel corporations, the creation of a pro-agribusiness cabinet that includes Tom Vilsack, Ken Salazar and Steven Chu, promotion of cellulosic fuel technologies, and references to increasing the Renewable Fuel Standard biofuel target.

Additionally, Obama, a former Senator from a corn-growing state, has indicated that the already troubled U.S. ethanol industry will receive a financial boost soon, despite mounting evidence that the industry simply cannot meet the demand for fuel in any just or sustainable way.

"This no longer about corn ethanol-turning any plants into fuel is simply not renewable," stated Dr. Rachel Smolker, co-author of the letter and Global Justice Ecology Project agrofuels specialist. "All plants, edible or not, require soils, water, fertilizers and land, all of which are in shortening supply.

"Yet these unsustainable technologies are commanding the vast majority of renewable energy tax incentives, at the expense of genuine cleaner energy solutions like conservation, efficiency, wind, solar, and ocean power. Additionally, because agrofuel crops rely on fertilizers, 44% of which are imported, they cannot even satisfy the calls for U.S. energy independence."

Corn and sugar based agrofuels have already come under extreme scrutiny due to their documented contribution to the food crisis, with venture capital investment in these so-called 'first generation biofuels' dropping to zero.

The open letter exposes the further problems that will result from the so-called 'second generation' of agrofuels. These problems range from wholesale destruction of the world's rainforests and other sensitive forests, to the forced displacement of entire communities to make way for agrofuel expansion, and the biosafety risks of gambling on novel technologies like Synthetic Biology and genetically engineered trees.

The letter also makes clear that agrofuels made from inedible plant feedstocks (cellulosic fuels) will continue to exacerbate the food crisis by monopolizing additional agricultural lands for the growing of agrofuel crops such as grasses and trees, instead of food crops.

The groups originating the letter have called on others to join them in preventing another ill-conceived push into agrofuels similar to that which last year raised food prices and hunger levels to crisis proportions.

"The last administration's enthusiastic foray into biofuels exacerbated global environmental destruction, land theft and hunger in just a very short space of time," explains Kathy Jo Wetter of the ETC Group. "Redoubling that biofuels push is a continuation of disastrous policies rather than the change we need."

The groups originating the letter include some of the same U.S. groups that issued a call in early 2007 for an immediate moratorium on further U.S. incentives for agrofuel development: Global Justice Ecology Project, Rainforest Action Network, Food First, Family Farm Defenders, and Grassroots International. Additional groups making this call include: ETC Group, Institute for Social Ecology, Heartwood, Dogwood Alliance, Energy Justice Network, and Native Forest Council.


Unsustainable Biofuels: Fueling Climate Change, Poverty and Environmental Devastation

As a diverse alliance of organizations concerned with climate change, agriculture and food policy, human rights and indigenous peoples rights and biodiversity protection, we (Global Justice Ecology Project, Institute for Social Ecology, Heartwood, Energy Justice Network, Grassroots International, Food First, Native Forest Council, Family Farm Defenders, ETC Group, Dogwood Alliance, Rainforest Action Network) issue this open letter in opposition to agrofuels (large scale industrial biofuels). If you would like to join us, please add your organizational signature to this letter.

We strongly oppose the rapid and destructive expansion of agrofuels; the large-scale industrial production of transport fuels and other energy from plants (corn, sugar cane, oilseeds, trees, grasses, waste etc.). Agrofuels are a false solution and a dangerous distraction and they must be halted.

Agrofuels are a "false solution":
Many prominent voices in the United States, including President-elect Obama, have voiced support for the large-scale production of agrofuels as a central strategy for solving the problems of energy supply and global warming. A growing body of scientific evidence, however, indicates that this is a tragic misconception and that continued pursuit of agrofuels will aggravate severely rather than resolve the multiple and dire consequences of the climate, energy, food, economic and ecological crises we face.

Like other dirty and dangerous technologies and devices being promoted by industry to supposedly address climate change-including "clean coal," carbon capture and storage [CCS], coal gasification, nuclear power, carbon offset markets, and ocean fertilization-agrofuels are a distracting "false solution" promoted for their potential to reap profits rather than their capacity to address problems effectively. [1]

Agrofuels worsen climate change and poverty:
A growing body of literature from all levels of society is revealing that, when all impacts are considered, agrofuels create more, not less, greenhouse gas emissions; deplete soil and water resources; drive destruction of forests and other biodiverse ecosystems; result in expanded use of genetically engineered crops, toxic pesticides, and herbicides; and consolidate corporate control over access to land. While claims are made that agrofuels will benefit the rural poor, in reality, indigenous and smallholder farmers are increasingly displaced. Industrial agriculture and the destruction of biodiversity, two leading causes of global warming, will be further facilitated by agrofuels. [2]

Next generation "cellulosic" fuels will not resolve the problems:
With recognition of the role of agrofuels in driving up food prices, there has been increasing attention to the social and ecological costs of corn and sugar cane derived ethanol. In response, there is now a massive push to develop non-food, so-called cellulosic fuels based on claims that these new feedstocks (grasses, trees, and "waste" products) will not compete with food production and can be grown on "idle and marginal" lands. The incoming Obama Administration is clearly positioning to advocate strongly on this platform. [3] Unfortunately, these claims do not hold up to scrutiny.

An enormous additional demand for trees, grasses and other plants, edible or inedible, will not avert the problem of land-use competition. Land that could be used for food crops or biodiversity conservation will be increasingly diverted into energy production. Demand for land for both agriculture and timber is already intense and escalating globally as water, soil and biodiversity dwindle and the climate becomes increasingly unstable. [4]

The scale of demand cannot be met sustainably:
Virtually all of the proposed cellulosic feedstocks (including dedicated energy crops such as perennial grasses and fast growing or genetically engineered trees, agricultural and forestry "wastes and residues", municipal wastes etc.) present serious ecological concerns on the scale required to maintain biorefinery operations and significantly contribute to U.S. energy demands. Furthermore, renewable fuels targets in the U.S. mandate the use of 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol per year, an amount that requires one third of the nations corn crop, and an additional 21 billion gallons a year of "advanced" agrofuels, the definition of which opens the possibility that demand will be met with foreign sources. The massive new demand for agrofuels is escalating deforestation and resulting in conversion of biodiverse and carbon-rich native forests and grasslands into biologically barren and carbon-poor industrial tree plantations and other crop monocultures. [5]

Land use changes resulting from industrial agriculture, including widespread deforestation, are major causes of climate change. Recent research finds that old growth forests sequester far more carbon than was previously estimated, (i.e. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change underestimated carbon stocks for temperate old growth forests by two-thirds). This means that deforestation has been a much larger causal factor in global warming than initially thought, and that intact natural forests are critical for sequestering carbon. It is imperative therefore that we protect remaining forests, grasslands and other carbon-rich ecosystems. [6]

The widespread application of biotechnology for agrofuel production, including genetically engineered (GE) feedstock crops such as GE grasses and GE trees, and plans to use synthetic biology and other genetic engineering techniques to alter and construct microbes, is an unacceptable and dangerous risk. [7]

Sustainability criteria cannot address the problems with agrofuels because they are incapable of addressing many complex and often indirect ecological and social impacts. Neither can they be implemented under globally diverse ecological, social and political situations. Similar efforts to develop criteria for soy, palm oil and timber, for example, have proven vastly inadequate. Finally, these efforts are based on the fundamental and flawed assumption that such massive demands can and should be met.

Agrofuels are not a renewable energy source:
While plants do re-grow, the soils, nutrients, minerals and water they require are in limited supply. The diverse and complex ecosystems that native plants belong to are also limited and not easily regenerated. Subsidies and incentives for renewable fuels should be focused on truly renewable options, like wind and solar energy. Instead, currently in the U.S. close to three-quarters of tax credits and two-thirds of federal subsidies for renewable energy are being wrongly invested in agrofuels. [8]

Agrofuels are a disaster for people:
As governments, investors and corporations recognize the increasing demand for and profitability of land for food, fiber and now energy, we are witnessing a veritable tidal wave of land grabbing on a global scale. This is disastrous for rural and indigenous peoples who are increasingly being evicted or displaced. If tariffs currently limiting international agrofuel trade are diminished or eliminated, social and ecological damages will escalate.

Social movements around the world, including the international peasant movement, Via Campesina, call for "food and energy sovereignty." Via Campesina, along with the independent International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), a long-term independent assessment of agriculture involving over 400 scientists and diverse stakeholders, point to the key importance of a return to locally controlled, diverse, ecologically sensitive, and organic agriculture practices as vital to both addressing climate change and poverty. In demanding a halt to the insanity of agrofuel expansion, we stand in solidarity with peoples around the world who are resisting the loss and destruction of their lands, and with the wildlife and biodiversity being driven to extinction for corporate profit. [9]

Real solutions must be given a chance.
There are numerous better options for addressing climate change. These are generally proven, do not involve risky technologies, return control of resources to local inhabitants rather than profiting irresponsible corporations, and are more equitable. [10]

These include but are not limited to:
* A massive focus on improvements in energy efficiency, public transport and reduced levels of consumption within the United States (and other affluent countries);
* A rejection of industrial agribusiness and biotechnology and a return to locally adapted and community controlled diverse agricultural practices with the goal of feeding people, not automobiles, while conserving soil and water, maximizing carbon sequestration and protecting biodiversity;
* Repeal of the 36 billion gallon per year Renewable Fuel Standard biofuel target in the Energy Independence and Security Act.
* Support for indigenous land rights and community stewardship initiatives as the major focus of efforts to preserve biodiverse ecosystems and the implementation of free and prior informed consent from indigenous peoples with respect to projects proposed on their ancestral lands and territories.
* Reducing demand for forest products and aggressively protecting remaining native forests and grasslands;
* Rejection of coal and nuclear technologies, which are inherently toxic and dangerous;
* Scaling up of decentralized and unequivocally renewable and cleaner wind and solar energies;
* Leaving fossil fuels in the ground, where they cannot contribute to climate change;
* Rejection of ineffective market-based approaches that commodify the atmosphere, biodiversity, and humanity itself.

Global Justice Ecology Project
Institute for Social Ecology
Energy Justice Network
Grassroots International
Food First
Native Forest Council
Dogwood Aliance
Family Farm Defenders
ETC Group
Rainforest Action Network


[1] A recent comprehensive review of a variety of technologies proposed for addressing climate change, including wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, tidal etc. found: "…cellulosic- and corn-E85 were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste…. biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts."1

Resources and information on the false solutions involving coal, nuclear, incineration, biofuels, natural gas and more are available at:
For information on ocean fertilization:
For a review of climate geo-engineering technologies: A. Ernsting and D. Rhugani. 2008. Climate geoengineering with "carbon negative" bioenergy.

Opposition to these "false solutions" is growing.2

[2] Climate: According to recent studies, when all direct and indirect land use change emissions are accounted for, agrofuels produce from 17 to 420 times MORE greenhouse gas emissions than would be saved by avoided use of fossil fuel. Another study revealed that emissions of nitrous oxide from increasing fertilizer use for biofuel crops reduces or even cancels out gains from offsetting fossil fuel use with agrofuels. 3,4,5

People: rural and indigenous peoples are increasingly displaced, often violently from their lands to make way for expanding industrial agriculture. Agrofuels are contributing to this.6,7 The global peasant farmers movement "Via Campesina" states: "small farmers feed the world, industrial agrofuels fuel hunger and poverty" (Jakarta, June 24th 2008: International Conference on Peasant Rights)8

The UN FAO reported that food prices have pushed the number of starving to more than one billion, 14% of the human population.9 A leaked memo from the World Bank stated that 75% of the food price increase could be attributed to diversion of food crops into fuel production.10 The FAO stated that mandated targets may need to be reconsidered. Reports on the impacts of cane ethanol in Latin America paint a grim picture of oppression and destruction.11

[3] Obama, a long standing advocate of corn ethanol has stated that he will increase the renewable fuel standard from the current level at 36 bG/yr to 60 bG/yr. His cabinet appointments include 1) Tom Vilsack (Secretary of Agriculture), known for his advocacy on behalf of biotechnology and his close relationship with Monsanto and support for corn ethanol 2) Steven Chu (Secretary of Energy) who was instrumental in establishing agrofuels as the major focus of Lawrence Berkeley Labs (which he directs) and overseeing the establishment of the Energy Biosciences Institute, a $500 mil partnership involving UC Berkeley (a supposedly public educational institution) and BP, along with the Lawrence Berkeley labs, the goal of which is research and development of cellulosic fuel technologies. 3) Ken Salazar (Secretary of the Interior) has been a major proponent of flex-fuel car production and cellulosic fuel development.12

[4] As demands for food and bioenergy expand, enormous land grabbing is underway with countries, corporations and investors buying up large amounts of arable land in a scramble to gain access to dwindling and profitable resources.13 For example, Daewoo, a South Korean company is seeking to acquire a 99-year lease on a million hectares of Madagascar's agricultural land, Kuwait is looking to acquire millions of hectares in Cambodia, and other investors are moving in on approximately 15 per cent of Laos's agricultural land.

Soil: In the U.S., some of the best agricultural soils occur in Iowa, but over the past century these have declined from an average of 18 to just 10 inches of depth over the past century due to erosion. Erosion rates exceeded soil regeneration rates on close to 30% of agricultural lands in the U.S. in 2001. This loss of topsoil and organic residues results in declining productivity. In an effort to stem the tide of erosion, the U.S. Conservation Reserve Program was introduced in 1985 and paid farmers to plant lands sensitive to erosion with grass or tree cover protection and to use no-till farming, terracing and contour strip farming. These CRP lands are shrinking due to incentives to produce agrofuel feedstocks. Removal of "wastes and residues" from agricultural and forested lands for agrofuel production depletes soil organic matter and nutrients and increases erosion.14

Water: Water resources in the U.S., including major irrigation sources such as the Oglalla aquifer and the Colorado river, are in decline. Agriculture is the largest use of freshwater, and biorefinery processes also require massive amounts of water.15 According to the International Water Management Institute (IWMI): freshwater usage worldwide has increased six-fold over the past 100 years, largely due to irrigation; water resources are dwindling; the price of water is predicted to double or triple over the coming two decades. Meanwhile, severe droughts are resulting in water shortages in Australia, India and South Central China. Droughts and ice melting at high altitudes are likely to result in declining water supplies in many regions of the world.16

[5] According to biotechnology industry estimates, a moderately sized commercial-scale biorefinery using agricultural residues would require harvesting a minimum of 500,000 acres of cropland. Electricity production through the burning of wood is increasing rapidly and creating huge demands for trees. For example, Prenergy Power Limited, of London, England is planning a 350 megawatt power plant, which will be fueled by approximately 3 million tons per year of woodchips imported, in part from the U.S.

Some bioenergy processes claim to utilize wastes and residues, but a recent industry market report stated: "….these operators, hungry for large volumes of wood, and frequently armed with government subsidies, are finding that the perceived overabundance of 'waste wood' in the nation's forests is simply not there. As a result, the increased demand for more traditional forms of woodfiber has already triggered wood price spikes and cross-grade competition in the tightest markets."17

Wood is under demand by expanding pulp and paper industry, timber products industry, rapidly growing chip and pellet production for heat and electricity, and now for liquid transportation fuels as well. This level of demand simply cannot be met sustainably. It is also driving the demand for faster-growing "designer" trees genetically engineered to enhance their ability to be transformed into energy. This in turn is threatening native forest ecosystems with genetic contamination.

[6] Deforestation in the Amazon is directly correlated with the market price of soy, a biofuel feedstock. When farmers in the U.S. switched from soy to corn production to meet the demands for corn ethanol, the price of soy rose, and deforestation increased.18 The push for more land to grow energy crops has resulted in the elimination of set-aside lands in the EU and a reduction of CRP lands in the U.S. The loss of these critical habitats is reducing pollinator and bird populations dramatically.19,20

A recent long-term study of forest carbon in old growth temperate forest (AUS) found that carbon storage was far greater than previously assumed. The IPCC default values for example were one-third the value observed, highlighting the enormous impact of deforestation and the critical relevance to climate change of preserving forests.21

[7] Agrofuels have become the major focus of biotechnology R&D. In addition to a suite of new GE feedstock developments, companies like Arborgen in the U.S. are developing GE tree varieties with 1) reduced lignin content 2) disease, insect and stress resistance, 3) fast growth, 4) cold tolerance, 5) modified oil content (jatropha and oil palm) and 6) sterility – all characteristics deemed profitable for agrofuel and pulp applications. Given that trees spread their pollen and seeds across huge distances and/or have many wild relatives in native forest ecosystems, cross contamination between GE trees and native trees is inevitable and entails unpredictable, potentially disastrous implications for forest ecosystems, wildlife and forest dependent human communities.22

The newly emerging technique of "Synthetic Biology" is focused on developing microbes that can efficiently produce enzymes for fuel production. If genetic modification has raised biosafety concerns, those pale in comparison to the safety and ecological risks of synthetic organisms. Unlike earlier genetic engineering where genes are sourced from existing organisms, synthetic DNA sequences may have no known analogue in nature, and numerous pathways are combined.

The consequences of contamination by such organisms are entirely unpredictable. Currently, the push for microbes for agrofuel production is driving the Synthetic Biology industry forward, making the ability to build dangerous and deadly microbes including bioweapons, cheaper, easier and harder to control.23

[8] True renewables such as wind and solar are losing out in competition with agrofuels. Ethanol accounted for three-quarters of tax benefits and two-thirds of all federal subsidies provided for renewable energy sources in 2007. This amounted to $3 billion in tax credits in 2007, more than four times the $690 million made available to companies trying to expand all other forms of renewable energy, including solar, wind and geothermal power. It is estimated that by 2010, ethanol will cost taxpayers more than $5 billion a year — more than is spent on all U.S. Department of Agriculture conservation programs to protect soil, water and wildlife habitat.

[9] Almost weekly new reports are made of abuses and violence in the context of land conflicts over the expansion of industrial monocultures and access to land and resources, and social movements working in resistance. Below are just a few of the more recent examples.24,25,26,27,28

These include:

* The civil society organizations in Latin America who protested the International Biofuels Conference, demanding food and energy sovereignty;
* The recently freed "sugar slaves" working in Brazil's ethanol industry;
* The indigenous peoples in the village of Suluk Bogkal, in Riau province in Sumatra who were fire bombed on December 18th 2008 when they resisted eviction from their lands to make way for a pulpwood plantation under Sinar Mas;
* The friends and families of Paraguayan smallholder farmers violently murdered when they resisted eviction to make way for the expansion of soy monoculture;
* The Tupinikim and Guarani in Brazil, who spent twenty years fighting to regain control of their ancestral lands which were taken over by the pulp industry for industrial eucalyptus plantations;
* The over one billion people now suffering from chronic undernourishment while food crops are diverted into fuel for automobiles;
* The diverse plants and animals moving precariously closer to extinction as their habitats are destroyed for conversion to agrofuel monocultures and industrial tree plantations;

People's access to land and the right to feed themselves is fundamental. Via Campesina along with many other social movements around the world call for food and energy sovereignty, not agrofuels.29 Numerous calls for moratoria have been made worldwide, including one from organizations in the U.S.

Declarations of opposition to agrofuels:

[10] A growing global alliance of individuals and organizations is demanding real solutions to climate change based on principles of justice and equity. This position is based on the understanding that the root causes of climate change are the same as the root causes of poverty and injustice. One cannot be addressed without the other and doing so is the only effective path towards a sustainable future.30,31


1 M.Z. Jacobson. Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution and energy security. Energy and Environmental Science Dec 2008
2 Climate Justice groups warn of false solutions to climate change at Convention on Biological Diversity
3 Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., and Hawthorne, P., 2008, "Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt", Science, 319, pp. 1235-1238.
4 Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R. A., Fengxia Dong, Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., Tokgoz, S., Hayes, D., and Tun-Hsiang Yu, 2008, "Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change", Science, 319, pp. 1238-1240
5 P.J. Crutzen, A.R. Mosier, K.A. Smith, and W. Winiwarter (2008) 'N2O
release from agro-biofuel production negates global warming reduction by
replacing fossil fuels', Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 8(2): 389-95
6 Cotula, L., Dyer, N., and Vermeulen, S., 2008. Fuelling exclusion: the biofuels boom and poor people's access to land. IIED, London
7 Biofuelling poverty. Oxfam briefing, November 2007
8 Via Campesina:
9 Nearly a Biillion People Worldwide are Starving, UN Agency Warns: Julian Borger and Juliette Jowitt. The Guardian, Dec 10 2008
10 Secret Report: Biofuels Caused Food Crisis: Internal World Bank study delivers blow to plant energy drive. Guardian, July 3 2008. A. Chakrabortty
11 Fuelling Destruction in Latin America: the real price of the drive for agrofuels. Friends of the Earth International: September 2008.
R. Bryce, Dec 29 2008. Obama, Vilsack and Salazar: The Ethanol Scammers Dream Team. Energy Tribune
13 Seized: The 2008 Land Grab for Food and Financial Security: GRAIN
14 Wes Jackson and Wendell Berry: A 50 year Farm Bill. NYT, Jan 4 2009
15 "Water Implications of Biofuels Production in the United States," the October 2007 Report in Brief, at this site of The National Academies:
16 Peter McCornick. (International Water Management Institute) Demand For Biofuel Irrigation Worsens Global Water Crisis. Keynote address at "Linkages Between Energy and Water Management for Agriculture in Developing Countries." Hyderabad, India, January 2007.
17 RISI's Wood Biomass Market Report dispels myth of 'overabundant waste wood' myth.
18 W.F.Laurance. 2007. Switch to corn promotes Amazon deforestation. Science. Vol. 318, no. 5857
19 Increasing Corn for Biofuel Production Reduces Biocontrol Services in Agricultural Landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 105 no. 51 Landis, D.A., Gardiner, M. M., van der Werf, W. and Swinton, S.M.
20 S. Kirchoff and J. Martin. Americas Grasslands vanishing amid agricultural boom. USA today April 25, 2008
21 Green Carbon: The role of natural forests in carbon storage_Part 1. A green carbon account of Australia's south-eastern Eucalypt forests, and policy implications. Brendan G. Mackey, Heather Keith, Sandra L. Berry and David B. Lindenmayer 2008
22 Petermann, A. and Tokar, B. 2007. Cellulosic fuels, GE trees and the contamination of native forests. In: R. Smolker, et al. The True Cost of Agrofuels: Impacts on Food, Forests, People and Climate.
23 Extreme Genetic Engineering: an introduction to synthetic biology. ETCgroup
24 Civil Society Declaration at International Biofuels Conference in Sao Paolo, Brazil, November 2008
25 T. Phillips. Brazilian taskforce frees more than 4500 slaves after record number of raids on remote farms. The Guardian, January 3 2009
26 T. Phillips. Brazilian taskforce frees more than 4500 slaves after record number of raids on remote farms. The Guardian, January 3 2009
27 Paraguay Sojero, on the impacts of soy monoculture on peasant farmers
28 Tupinikim and Guarani peoples reconquer their lands, World Rainforest Movement bulletin: issue 122, September 2007
29 Position papers: "Agrofuels: small farmers feed the world, industrial agrofuels fuel hunger and poverty" and "Small scale farmers are cooling down the earth"
30 Radical New Agenda Needed to Achieve Climate Justice: Climate Justice Now! Poznan, December 2008
31 Patrick Bond: From False to Real Solutions for Climate Change. Monthly Review. June 1, 2008


  • Show Comments (28)

  • Dick Glick

    And here is a biomass solution that is a Real Renewables
    Ultra-large scale ‘Methanogenetic Anaerobic Fermentation’ is the basis
    not from manure —
    but from biomass grown specifically as feedstock
    very low price and
    very low overhead
    I’ve been actively pursuing renewable energy since 1979
    doing sustainable things when I directed the FSU Institute for Future
    a 1994 DOE grant was approved, but not funded —
    as Colorado declared that ‘anaerobic fermentation was proven!’
    Well it is so —
    To do what is needed to promote and support the only technology that can make a renewables —
    energy and fertilizer
    The Corporation for Future Resources’, (CFR’s) technology
    involves growing trees that are
    harvested while they continue to growing
    thereby continuing to produce a significant reduction in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
    Beyond producing
    renewable natural gas that enters into U. S. pipelines
    a significantly important compost-fertilizer is produced
    that does not, in its complete applications, need non-renewable fertilizer.
    Beyond that,
    the land in mid-Florida used for citrus is mostly sand,
    so that the compost-fertilizer contains very slow release carbon, again, adds to its value;
    the compost-fertilizer would be tailored for citrus.
    We’ve had interest in this area
    from the senior member of one of the major citrus property owners;
    from his perspective he would now organic citrus for sale.
    One of Hoitink’s (Cornell Agricultural Scientist)
    papers deals with compost-fertilizer replacing the need for using methyl bromide to sterilize ‘strawberry fields’.
    A CFR focus is Polk County, FL
    area that uses bromide for that purpose and because of this, in part, they stop producing strawberries
    when the California berries appear on the market as the Florida stuff costs more to produce then the stuff from California;
    a possibly major use of our solids to produce “Organic Strawberries”
    Just a brief idea of what CFR can do — I Florida perhaps as much as 1 quad equivalent of renewables — U.S. as much as 10 quad — going to, in more tropical areas in the world — without interfering with existing forests or agriculture — as much as 800 quad equivalent — with, additionally, positive impact on world food quality and quantities — without negative eco-impacts.

    Best, Dick Glick

  • Brian J. Donovan

    Renergie Looks Forward to Working Closely with the Obama-Biden Administration
    Louisiana Enacts the Most Comprehensive Advanced Biofuel Legislation in the Nation

    Governor Bobby Jindal has signed into law the Advanced Biofuel Industry Development Initiative, the most comprehensive and far-reaching state legislation in the nation enacted to develop a statewide advanced biofuel industry. Louisiana is the first state to enact alternative transportation fuel legislation that includes a variable blending pump pilot program and a hydrous ethanol pilot program.

    The legislature found that the proper development of an advanced biofuel industry in Louisiana requires implementation of the following comprehensive À¢€œfield-to-pumpÀ¢€Â strategy developed by Renergie, Inc.:

    (1) Feedstock other than corn;
    (2) Decentralized network of small advanced biofuel manufacturing facilities;
    (3) Variable blending pumps in lieu of splash blending; and
    (4) Hydrous ethanol.

    Renergie looks forward to working closely with the Obama-Biden administration to:
    (a) reduce U.S. dependency on imported oil;
    (b) repeal the ethanol import tariff;
    (c) maximize the environmental benefits of ethanol-blended transportation fuels; and
    (d) create jobs in rural areas of the United States by growing ethanol demand, specifically hydrous ethanol demand, beyond the 10% blend market.

    Please feel free to visit Renergieˢ۪s weblog ( for more information.

  • NelsonNancy

    reply this topic
    Set your own life time easier take the personal loans and all you need.

  • João da Silva

    [quote]CuiabÀƒ¡, Mato Grosso, Brasil[/quote]

    Thanks Anderson. I think that you meant [b]R$2,30[/b]/liter for gasoline. Still both the fuels are cheaper in your state.

  • Anderson

    written by JoÀƒ£o da Silva, January 19, 2009

    during some months of the year i pay R$ 1,00 for ethanol

    the least i have paid for gasoline was R$ 230,00

    a liter

    Which state do live. Would love to move in there, provided your Governor buys me a Flex car. R$230/Liter of Gasoline in Brasil? Unheard of.

    CuiabÀƒ¡, Mato Grosso, Brasil

  • Double-Dot

    Triple Dot
    Esteemed Triple Dot,

    [quote]just ask Costa about Ch C[/quote]

    No need to ask Costa. Every single blogger in this site knows that Ch.C has a short memory span.His numbers may be good,but he lacks any expertise in “Human Sciences”. He also forgets that the “Brain Power” is not just the Monopoly of the “Moose Headed” Swiss.Not that I expect him to know who this Mr.Moose is.

    He may even think that we are talking about Roger Moose. 😀 😉


  • João da Silva

    [quote]during some months of the year i pay R$ 1,00 for ethanol

    the least i have paid for gasoline was R$ 230,00

    a liter

    Which state do live. Would love to move in there, provided your Governor buys me a Flex car. R$230/Liter of Gasoline in Brasil? Unheard of.

  • Anderson

    Ethanol not Efficient?
    I dont understand when JUNKIE CH I C says ethanol is not efficient

    when my car uses 99.99% ethanol.

    i pay R$ 1,45 for ethanol while gasoline is R$ 278,00

    during some months of the year i pay R$ 1,00 for ethanol

    the least i have paid for gasoline was R$ 230,00

    a liter

    i know tax puxes the gasoline prices up, but believe it or not, ethanol still is cheaper.

  • tripledot

    The Cure ( A band from the ’80’s BTW)
    ..just ask Costa about Ch C

  • Double-Dot

    The cure for Ch C
    [quote]You are so self-absorbed or stupid o Swiss Jackass that you continue to fail to comprehend what I am saying. [/quote]

    He is not exactly stupid nor a Jackass ( not bad for a Swiss).BUT…..BUT……you are right. He is so self absorbed that he doesn’t pay attention to what others say and gets into trouble. Many others before you have tried to “cure” him without much success. So good luck to you. 😀

  • ch.c.

    What about Brazilians COMPANIES ?????????
    Sorry sorry sorry…..Fiat, GM, Ford, NestlÀƒ©, Syngenta, Monsanto ETC ETC…in Brazil….. are not BRAZILIANS COMPANIES.
    i am talking about Brazilians OWNED COMPANIES !
    What do/can they produce that is valuable ?????? Not much…at best…and for sure !

    Lets face it……Brazil is a backward country….not even as advanced as China in many respects.

    China has over 30 LOCALLY OWNED CARS MANUFACTURERS. BRAZIL….ZERO ! Simple as that.
    India has a few large drugmakers companies (also cars manufacturers…by the way) in their STOCKS INDEXES ! BRAZIL…ZERO ! Simple as that.
    Same for Softwares makers in India !
    And this despite Brazil is more wealthy than these 2 countries on a per capita basis !
    More wealthy…yessss…but not more DEVELOPED…IN MANY WAYS !
    Meaning more wealthy…but in 10-15 years….Brazil will be EASILY BE LESS wealthy than China…even on a per capita basis !!!!
    And same for India….in 20-30 years !

    More simple AND FAIR there is NOT !

    And to the idiot on MATH or MATHS :
    As long my math or maths are better than yours, no doubt I have an edge on those whose math or maths pretend
    that 2 PLUS 2 DOESNT EQUAL 4 !
    How do I know this for sure ?
    Simple :
    1) look at my country ACTUAL GDP per capita…against those who pretend it is math not maths !
    2) Even further at my NON DISCLOSED PERSONAL WEALTH…..against those who pretend it is math not maths !
    3) Because who really cares outside of secretaries if it is math or maths ????? Not me. I am not a secretary !
    4) those having a better math or maths have no doubt a better common sense than those underlining the correct spelling
    but incorrect math or maths common sense !

    😀 😉 😀 😉 😀 😉 😀 😉 😀 😉 😀 😉 😀 😉 😮 😛 😀 😉 😀 😉 😀 😉 😀 😉

  • ch.c.

    sugar cane vs corn is 8 times more efficient which is a proven scientific fact, not a Brazilian piece of propaganda.
    This I know ! Everyone knows and knew !
    What about the “Brazilian proven scientific maths” that sugarcane ethanol is oil competitive at US$ 35.- per barrel ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
    Thus far proven scientifically WRONG and mathematically….A PURE BRAZILIAN LIE……UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE !

    Please clarify…if you can !

    1) I remind you that this was THE ARGUMENT NUMBER ONE…to develop the sugarcane ethanol industry….in Brazil : PRICE
    COMPETITIVENESS TO OIL ! Not the sugacane/corn ethanol ratios maths !
    2) If corn and soyabeans biofuels are so bad, as per the Brazilians critics of corn ethanol, why then Brazil by 2010 will use 15 % of their corn for ethanol and 10 % of their soyabeans for biodiesel productions ????????????????????????? And growing in the future years, of course !

    I repeat, that I am in favor of 50 % LOWER SUGAR AND GRAINS PRICES…THAN TODAY LOW PRICES !
    And I dont care if these prices ARE/WILL BE governments subsidized.
    At least those emerging foods importing countries, could have their population NOT BE UNDER NOURRISHED OR STARVING.
    And with well feeded people, people could then go to school or work to build the infrastructures of/in their societies.

    Do you really believe that Robbing Hook and the Bimbo Next Door agree with me…or eventually with you if you agree somewhat with me ??????
    I also reminds you that the Bimbo Next Door, is 100 % sure that increasing her EXPORTS TAXES ON GRAINS….AT TIMES
    Argentina maths are as good as Brazilians maths.

    As to the idiot talking on University licences found in toilet paper rolls in my country, that NON educated junkie and idiot
    better eats that paper after use !
    – of the 200 World Best University, Brazil with a population of 196 millions, has only ONE ranked within
    the 200 World Best ! RANKING : 196th out of 200
    – of the 200 World Best University, Switzerland with a population of 7,8 millions, has SIX ranked
    within the 200 World Best University ! Rankings start at 24th !
    – Switzerland GDP per capita is TEN TIMES higher than Brazil and we have nothing in the grounds, unlike Brazil.
    Everything in our brains….contrary to Brazilians !
    – Switzerland has the World Highest Numbers of patents…on a per capita basis ! Which proves the previous points !
    Where does Brazil stands ? Welllll…at their correct ranking : near the queue…as usual.
    – Switzerland with a population 25 times smaller than Brazil, has HIGHER TOTAL EXPORTS than Brazil !
    – Nearly the same for IMPORTS…. AS FOR EXPORTS !
    – On the Doing Business Ranking, Switzerland is ranked 14th, Brazil 125th out of 185 or so ! But listening to Brazilians PROWESS
    No doubt you feel better. Better as usual….but unproven as usual !
    – On the Country Competitiveness, Switzerland is ranked between FIRST AND SIXTH….depending of the years. What about Brazil ??? laugh…laugh…laugh !
    – Last but not least, on the World Liveliest Cities, Switzerland has 4 cities…..out of the FIRST 10…as per the latest rankings !
    What about Brazil ?????? laugh…laugh…laugh…!
    – Switzerland has 100 % of paved roads, Brazil 5 % ! Brazil has even a lower percentage of paved roads than most African Countries with far less “Wealth” than Brazil ! Yesssss…Brazil is a A LOW TIER THIRD WORLD COUNTRY….on paved roads infrastructure.

    As to the toilet paper rolls, no doubt they were coming from pulp mills from Aracruz. And we did put the value added to transform this pulps into Swiss Premium toilet paper rolls ! As per the above FACTS !
    As to the detergents found in Brazil, with a SP University licence, no doubt the detergents were imported, mixed with sands in Brazil, so that every imported pack suddenly and magically produce 2 OR 3 packs for sale…with the Brazilians expertises and know how !
    Dont forget the Brazilian mentality of…cheating, betraying, lying and hiding the sad truth !

    Give an advanced tool to a Brazilian, and he will transform it to non usable rusty tools !
    Give a non usable rusty tool to a Swiss, and he will transform it to a valuable advanced and precision tool.
    Such as WATCHES where the only imports were either iron ore, steel or other basic metals.
    We will make our own advanced alloys, make our own precision parts, build our own precision watches, and then

  • The cure for Ch C

    You are sooo funny CH C!
    You are so self-absorbed or stupid o Swiss Jackass that you continue to fail to comprehend what I am saying.

    If you bothered to READ, you would have seen that I said ETHANOL in any form is not the optimal solution. Only that sugar cane vs corn is 8 times more efficient which is a proven scientific fact, not a Brazilian piece of propaganda. Wind, Solar and Sea power should be the energies of the future.

    As I said, if you want to bash Brazil for ethanol, you better be bashing the US as well because their ethanol programs are far worse than Brazils.

    I could go on provoking you endlessly to embarrass yourself but I have better things to do with my life than trying to have a valid argument with a racist moron.

    You continue to say your aren’t racist, yet NUMEROUS posts you generalize Brazilians as stupid, cheating liars. That’s what racism is…generalizing a people based on their colour or nationality. Sorry you aren’t self-aware enough to realize that.

    After this, I won’t waste anymore of my time reading ANY of your comments, but here are some parting facts to prove just how out of touch you are:

    First numbers are for Brazil, second the US. Pay particular attention to the greenhouse gas emissions. If you don’t believe me, there are numerous international sites where you can find the stats.

    Productivity per hectare [82][1][58][83] 6,800-8,000 3,800-4,000
    Energy balance (input energy productivity) [3][58][8] 8.3 to 10.2 times 1.3 to 1.6 times
    Estimated greenhouse gas emission reduction [6][58][84] 86-90%(2) 10-30%(2) % GHGs avoided by using ethanol instead of gasoline, using existing crop land.
    Estimated payback time for greenhouse gas emission[85] 17 years(3) 93 years(3)

    You also have the writing skills of a twelve year old. Bad English, ridiculously one-sided opinions, using only the numbers that help your arguments (if you can even call them that) while completely ignoring any of the good aspects of Brazil.

    By the way, the word is MATH, not MATHS. How can you call others idiots when you can’t even write? I’m sure that English is not your first language…maybe you’d be better off creating a Swiss site about Brazil.

    I though I saw on some other post that you have a Coffee Farm in Brazil? If that is true, then you really are a scumbag. You hate Brazil, yet you are fine with profiting from it?

    Wow, you really need some time in the shrinks chair! Have a nice life Jackass!


  • Double-Dot

    Esteemed Triple Dot,

    It is so good to hear from you after a long time and to know that you are alive and kicking (somebodyÀ‚´s butt).

    [quote](….some scholars have found their university degrees……wrapped in candy bars!!!!) [/quote]

    The latest news from Europe is that it is possible to get a degree wrapped around rolls of toilette tissues too (Preferably in a 6 Roll pack).

    [quote]”Green” Obama will end up sucking the Great Alberta tar sands dry!!!!!!!!!!!![/quote]

    Rest assured that the Mounties will not allow it to happen.

    BTW, how is life in the Gulags set up by Rt.Honorable Harper?

  • triple dot

    (….some scholars have found their university degrees……wrapped in candy bars!!!!)

    The future energy use arguement will all come down to lobbyists with the deepest pockets..

    “Green” Obama will end up sucking the Great Alberta tar sands dry!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • João da Silva

    [quote]Do I am racist ? Hmmmm…against idiots in general….yess I am !
    Do I am racist against Brazilians in particular ? yessssss…against the tens of millions idiots there !

    I don’t think you are a racist. BUT……BUT……you don’t pay proper attention to what people say. In a way, you are “Moose Headed” 😀

    Cheers 😉

  • ch.c.

    the point is not about profits but EFFICIENCY !
    then Ethanol from sugarcane or corn are NOT EFFICIENT AT ALL !
    Since you need 30 % more ethanol than gasoline to gave the same BTUs !

    Idiots like you will remain idiots…for life ! Guaranteed !

    And just go back to THE Brazilian lies between 2004-2007, they clearly talked about Sugarcane ethanol COMPETIVITY
    against OIL ! Not efficiency.
    Your maths, came out at US$ 35.- sugarcane ethanol was PRICE COMPETITIVE TO OIL.
    Which clearly means ABOUT PROFITS AND NOT EFFICIENCY !

    Just go back to your thousands of statements on that subject, from both your cheating politicians, cheating ethanol producers, and cheating brazilians sugarcane producers !!!!!

    And also caress their navel….on their unproven prowess.

    AND AS STATED, WHEN OIL PRICES WERE WELL ABOVE US$ 70.- and even at well over 100.-, COSAN LOST MONEY !!!!!!

    Do I am racist ? Hmmmm…against idiots in general….yess I am !
    Do I am racist against Brazilians in particular ? yessssss…against the tens of millions idiots there !

    Are educated Brazilians not idiots ? Unproven so far !
    A brazilian site, trying to get Brits expats to invest in Natal real estate :
    ” Reports have been revealed that costs of À‚£5 per sq m are available in the country, meaning a 1,000 sq m site would cost À‚£20,000.”

    Great basic maths. ISNT IT ? But Brazilians maths……for sure !

    Well that is typically Brazilians maths for those with a SP University licence, found in detergent packs !
    No doubts they came out from the same University than those who figured out that sugarcane ethanol was competitive to oil
    at US$ 35.- per barrel.
    Or the same University where Robbing Hook studied ! Which one ? I forgot the name…but brazilians should know !!!!!


  • ..

    [quote]ALL of my information is researched based on NON-BRAZILIAN statistics and news. [/quote]

    Phrom “The Western Star” ? Gut info and stat.

    [quote]Further, you fail to even show the ability to either read or understand posts from others.

    The sujeito unter investigaÀƒ§Àƒ£o has abilty bastante limitada. Danke Herr.CÀƒº(re)

  • The cure for Ch C

    one more thing
    As usual, anyone who expresses and opinion that differs to your completely biased views is labeled a junkie and gets their facts from Brazilian media.

    ALL of my information is researched based on NON-BRAZILIAN statistics and news.

    Unfortunately for you, it is hard to grasp that an intelligent, Non-Brazilian with opinions different to yours could be anything other than what you call either a junkie or an idiot. You have proven with your posts again and again that you cannot participate in logical debating and can only resort to rants based on economic numbers which fail to provide the big picture.

    Further, you fail to even show the ability to either read or understand posts from others.

  • ..

    [quote]You really are pathetic…I’m not even Brazilian you freakin idiot![/quote]

    Dis must be u den:


  • The cure for Ch C

    You really are pathetic…I’m not even Brazilian you freakin idiot!

    Once again your arguments are weak, completely onsided and show your true racist colours.

    I’m neither red or blue faced because the opinions of someone like you are completely irrelevant to me. But I seem to be doing a good job at winding you up. You seem to need this site to try and build some sort of self-worth. I can see you screaming out for attention with your posts. What’s the matter…Mommy and Daddy didn’t love you?

    1. You completely missed my argument (not suprising since you clearly don’t understand anyone else’s point of view but your own). The point was not about profits, but of the EFFICIENCY for the discussed ethanol types. Bascially, corn ethanol requires almost as much energy to produce as it provides. That is a scientific FACT. Just go look at Wikipedia to see the comparisions between US and Brazil ethanol (backed by statistics from numerous documents). If you don’t believe Wikipedia is the truth, then its not hard to find this information on scientific or government sites (non-Brazilian).

    2. I laid out facts about the rising prices of foods that you can look up for yourself. If I wasn’t SURE about it, I wouldn’t have written it. All you could offer in reply was worthless insults about Brazilians that you use over and over on this site which proves once again your HATE for all things Brazil and therefore gives your opinions ZERO crediblity.

    Once again you continue to embarrass yourself…what you get out of it, I have no idea.

    As for what I’m good at, I’m VERY confident I’m good at far more things than a negative, hateful, wanna be website hero like you 😉

    PS I’ve already contacted this website about your Hate Speak (you’ll need to look it up for a definition or you can ask somebody more intelligent than you…shouldn’t be hard).

    Have a nice day Swiss Jackass!

  • ch.c.

    Hmmmmmm…to the junkies
    1) YOUR “Sugar Cane ethanol is 8 TIMES more efficient than Corn ethanol.”
    – Great ! so why offer such low salaries to these slaves alike workers ?
    – Great ! then why are this production not been 100 % mechanized already if so great ! No one can say it is because of money needed. Money was plentiful during 2003-2007 ! Cosan got US$ 1 billion late in 2007. Not as debts, but as venture capital.
    Why have they then bought more land, more existing mills, instead of buying MORE MECHANICAL HARVESTERS ?
    – Dear idiot, the surgarcane ethanol is so profitable as you said that Cosan stock price went from Brl 60.- in early 2006 to BELOW 10.- a few weeks ago. And this while oil was more than doubling !!!!! Strange wasnt it ?
    – Dear Dumbass, your sugarcane ethanol was supposed to be profitable at Us$ 35.- oil equivalent ! Right or not ?
    Then why was Cosan LOSING MONEY WHEN OIL WAS OVER US$ 100.- ?????????????????????????????????????????

    2) YOUR “the average price of corn has increased by some 60 percent, soybeans by 76 percent, wheat by 54 percent, and rice by 104 percent in the past YEAR.”

    – are you so sure ? You bet ? how much ?
    – why are then Brazilian farmers complaining with tears…for the low prices ? Crocodile tears ?
    – why are then Mato Grosso grains farmers having so many TRACTORS, HARVESTERS…..SEIZED ????????

    You dont trust me ? right ?
    Then instead of watching your TV Novelas, why dont you watch TV Rural, at TV Globo ?
    You have hundreds and hundreds of short videos available for free. For your basic education !
    Sorry Dumbass…they are Brazilian NEWS.`
    Sorry Dumbass…they dont come out of my imagination…these facts !

    You may as well look at Cosan site, and look at their quarterly and annual reports !
    Is this not a fair source of how things are going REAL LIFE, REAL FACTS, REAL NUMBERS…INSTEAD OF YOUR BRAINS FILLED WITH
    About your dried Feijado in your brains : Brazilians farmers are even complaining that Feijado prices went down by 31 %
    in brazilian currency over the past year. 1 week old news !
    May be you should buy some more and fill your brains with more feijados to support its price !
    You could then dance salsa in rythm by shaking your head.
    What else could you be good at ? Not much….for sure !

    Red faced ? Blue faced ? Red & Blue faced ?
    In my view you should be Red-Blue & Pale faced.

    And once more, if BRAZIL is so critical about corn and soyabeans ethanol, why by 2010 will they use 15 % of corn production and 10 % of soyabeans to produce biofuels ????
    I just remind you dear Total-Idiot, that these grains dont produce the same fuel !
    Corn ethanol is for gasoline while soyabeans is for diesel !

  • The cure for Ch C

    if you are going to bash Brazil, better bash the US too
    As usual, your comments are completely biased and without basis in hard facts.

    1. Sugar Cane ethanol is 8 TIMES more efficient than Corn ethanol.

    2. Barak Obama (as much as I like him) plans to increase corn-based ethanol production which is already at 0 of the corn harvest in the US.

    You said ‘- if corn ethanol is taking that much out of foods, why then grains prices are SO LOW?’

    3. the average price of corn has increased by some 60 percent, soybeans by 76 percent, wheat by 54 percent, and rice by 104 percent in the past YEAR.

    4. the leading importer of Brazilian ethanol….the US!

    Ethanol is not the solution in any form, but do some research and you will find Sugar Cane ethanol is preferable to Corn.

    You continue to embarrass yourself…why don’t you shut up for awhile.

  • ch.c.

    Furthermore “If we want to change the biofuels movement we need to change the way BRAZILIANS farmers grow everything”
    Mechanical Sugarcane harvesters exists for several decades.
    Australia has mechanized their sugarcane harvest 100 % since 1980.
    In 2008 Brazil were not even at 40 % !
    Meaning using hundreds of thousands of slaves alike workers, obliged to cut 10 to 12 tons of sugarcane per day for a very very little salary and under INhuman conditions.

    Thus to change the biofuel movement, Brazil better change their harvesting style…FIRST !
    Biofuels FROM BRAZILIAN SUGARCANE could then be more accepted in developed nations.

    – if corn ethanol is taking that much out of foods, why then grains prices are SO LOW ? Are you in favor of EVEN LOWER
    PRICES ? Yessssss… then I vote for you ! I am afraid that Robbing Hook and the Bimbo Next door and all their farmers WONT !
    – if corn and soyabeans biofuels is so much criticized by Robbing Hook AND YOURSELF, why then by 2010….15 % of BRAZILIAN CORN AND 10 % OF BRAZILIAN SOYABEANS….WILL BE TRANSFORMED TO…BIOFUELS…IN BRAZIL ???????

    Dear junkie PabloKoh,
    Do you even know what you are talking about, after all ???????
    Welll you did not prove it so far, except with a vague description and unproven facts, concerning the Brazil you defend.
    Thus stop watching your TV Novelas and stop listening to your Robbing Hook cheatings, lyings and hidings.

    In my opinion, food should be affordable to everyone on earth. Thus I am in favor of per bushel US$ 2.- for corn, US$ 5.- for soyabeans, and US$ 4.- for wheat, and Us$ 8.- (per hundred pounds) for rice ! And Viva the governments subsidizes. Robbing Hook also provides subsidizes anyway.
    MORE GRAINS SUBSIDIZES WOULD BE GOOD. And if Robbing Hook and his gangs cant afford, they could start to reduce what they steal through corruption. That Would make more money available for subsidizes. No doubt !

  • harrison

    Noise not News
    This letter mocks the serious issues we face as a nation and a world. Opinons are thrown around as if they bear the weight of fact. Whatever organization signed this letter has clearly no interest in sitting at the table and forging real solutions. The authors appears to be self-promoting idealogs positiong themselves for handouts from the uniformed. What a shame!

  • ch.c.

    The way the American farmer grows food today is unsustainable !
    1) What about the fuel used in Brazil for the transportation of 570 millions tons of sugarcane to the mills. Around half of it
    is used to produce ethanol of around 20 billion liters. And from the mills to the mixing station and then finally to pump stations.

    2) What about the fuel used in Brazil for the transportation of grains from Mato Grosso to port, MOSTLY BY TRUCKS 1200 KILOMETERS AWAY, AND MOSTLY IN NON PAVED ROADS ?????
    Grains transportation costs from Mato Grosso to port is US$ 130.- PER TON….if you did not know !

    3) Same is true for ALL goods transported IN BRAZIL, where their percentage of paved roads is 5 % !
    More fuel per 100 kms is consumed in non paved roads than in paved roads….by definition.

    Better yet since the Mato Grosso soil is not as fertile as people think, the region needs TWICE AS MUCH FERTILIZERS PER HECTARE
    than in Parana !

    Great fuel efficiency….isnt it ?

    Last but not least, then from ports, grains need to be shipped by cargos……of course, needing further fuel…by definition !

    Yessss I agree, it would be more fuel efficient if grains are grown in THE IMPORTING COUNTRIES !
    So much more….fuel efficient…growing cheap stuffs at the nearest consumption proximity.
    Worth the investments, even if with some subsidizes from developed nations.

    Ohhhhhh la la. Ohhhhh la la……Robbing Hook and the Bimbo Next Door dont feel well…..suddenly !
    Should they then prepare their bankruptcy as usual, or Brazil takes off 3 zeroes of their currency also as usual ?????

    Last but not least….. on pollution :
    A cattle produces far more pollution than a car if you did not know, and Brazil has around 200 millions cattles…if you did not know !

    thus your ” We need to promote systems to reduce energy inputs into our food supply.”

    Yess…tell Brazil to start building paved roads, railways, river ports and barges.
    And then only feel free to criticize the OTHERS…as usual !
    Typical of Brazilian mentality !

  • PabloKoh

    Growing food is the problem!
    Let’s just come right out and say it. The way the American farmer grows food today is unsustainable. Plain and simple. That is the problem. If we want to change the biofuels movement we need to change the way the American farmer grows everything. The fuel used per per person to grow food for a year is more fuel than is used to provide transportation per person for that same year. We need to promote systems to reduce energy inputs into our food supply. If we solve this problem the biofuel systems will fall into place.

  • ch.c.

    Excellent !
    but Brazil will obviously disagree that “All plants, edible or not, require soils, water, fertilizers and land, all of which are in shortening supply.”

    And Robbing Hook will even disagree that sugar is highly calorific !
    In my view, he should look at the tens of millions Americans Bibendums that I nickname “Cubic Meter HumanoÀƒ¯ds”.
    Therefore instead of transforming sugarcane into ethanol, why not into even lower price sugar…affordable to the
    ONE billion of under nourrished citizens on the planet ???????

    And in copying the generous USAID with corn & rice & wheat, Brazil could form BRAZAID AND DONATE millions tons of sugar, soyabeans and corn. This would be good ALSO for Brazilians farmers, since they would be paid anyway by the government the same way U.S. farmers are.

    Ohhhh la la, Robbing Hook has again headaches hearing the words…DONATION !

    Viva America, Viva Obama, Viva USAID.
    Boooooo to Brazil, Booooo to Lulaaaaa !!!!!

    😮 😮 😮 😮 😮

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

comment *

  • name *

  • email *

  • website *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


You May Also Like

Brazil’s Lula and Iraq

President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva made a public statement lamenting the onset of ...

Can Santa’s Reindeers Survive Brazil’s Hot Christmas?

Even in the scorching heat of Rio’s summer, Santa makes his appearance to bring ...

Brazil’s Petrobras Wax Poetic on Bolivian Sovereignty

Petrobras released Thursday morning, May 11, an official note from the Brazilian Ministry of ...

30,000 in Brazil Forced to Leave Home Due to Rains. Army Called.

Rains in northern Brazil have caused the level of the Acre River to rise ...

EU and Mercosur Betting They Will Soon End Stalemate for Accord

The European Union seeks to reach an associative agreement with Mercosur in May 2006, ...

Brazilian Sentenced to Jail in US for Selling Fake Green Cards

A Brazilian man residing in Arlington, Massachusetts, was sentenced Thursday, February 9, in federal ...

Sarkozy Attacks Protectionism in Visit to Brazil

France's President, Nicolas Sarkozy, in a visit to Brazil, defended this Monday, December 22, ...

Embraer 190 Declared Air Worthy by Brazil

Embraer, Brazilian aircraft manufacturer, received the certification from the Aerospace Technical Center (CTA), of ...

Brazilian Indians Demand More Respect from Authorities

On July 27, there was a public hearing to discuss projects affecting indigenous lands. ...

Brazil’s Tim Offers Turbo Mail

TIM Brasil has launched TIM Turbo Mail, a new service that enables  customers to ...