Farm economics and Crazy Christians
More political real-world goodness from angry_biscuit on a Monday morning. The first link is to an article he posted about biodiesel (and by association, ethanol) via an interview with Willie Nelson's wife, Annie Nelson, who is politically involved with the movement. She hit on one thing I think is interesting: Keeping community biodiesel and ethanol cooperatives locally-owned. Petroleum companies are already negotiating with farmers to buy out their small refining and filling stations, offering many times what the farmers paid into capital costs. For anyone who thinks they're going to "stick it" to the companies by switching to biodiesel or ethanol, this is important to note.
I don't say NOT to use either fuel, because obviously it's a better thing than 100 percent petrol-based gasoline - just know that within a few years, Chevron and Quaker State may still be getting your money. And if the big companies get into it, the temporary pricing bounty corn and soybean farmers are enjoying will go the way of tobacco farms, which from a solely-economic POV (not getting into the smoking argument, that is), have dwindled from a bunch of little farms that gave farmers some supplemental income, to a few huge ones because tobacco companies want to pay suppliers less but keep charging more per pack to the customer for higher profits.
Of course, ethanol has its drawbacks, too. The refining process, if not properly monitored and filtered, does contribute to air pollution (coal is often used for the corn processing, and there's a hell of a stench from the corn itself). But then again, so does the burning of sulfuric diesel fuel and 100-percent gasoline in an idling engine.
*is farm economics geek*
Also, some religious meanderings from a scholar, a topic I know much less about because I'm not Christian or religious. I'd say the people most in danger of this sort of thing are the moderate Christians, since it's basically the zealots versus non-Christians at this point in the purest sense of conflict. I'd hate to be the moderates trapped in the middle of having to explain to one side why they're not crazy, and to the other why they SHOULDN'T have to be crazy. But then again, I'm a liberal centrist, so I'm already kind of used to that. *G*
I don't say NOT to use either fuel, because obviously it's a better thing than 100 percent petrol-based gasoline - just know that within a few years, Chevron and Quaker State may still be getting your money. And if the big companies get into it, the temporary pricing bounty corn and soybean farmers are enjoying will go the way of tobacco farms, which from a solely-economic POV (not getting into the smoking argument, that is), have dwindled from a bunch of little farms that gave farmers some supplemental income, to a few huge ones because tobacco companies want to pay suppliers less but keep charging more per pack to the customer for higher profits.
Of course, ethanol has its drawbacks, too. The refining process, if not properly monitored and filtered, does contribute to air pollution (coal is often used for the corn processing, and there's a hell of a stench from the corn itself). But then again, so does the burning of sulfuric diesel fuel and 100-percent gasoline in an idling engine.
*is farm economics geek*
Also, some religious meanderings from a scholar, a topic I know much less about because I'm not Christian or religious. I'd say the people most in danger of this sort of thing are the moderate Christians, since it's basically the zealots versus non-Christians at this point in the purest sense of conflict. I'd hate to be the moderates trapped in the middle of having to explain to one side why they're not crazy, and to the other why they SHOULDN'T have to be crazy. But then again, I'm a liberal centrist, so I'm already kind of used to that. *G*