naturist’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I have two problems with this article.

  While the author's point about palm oil vs rainforests, and the concept of "sustainable" palm oil imported from third world countries is certainly valid, he falls off the wagon on two scores: firstly, the ONLY reason soy oil is used in the US to make biodiesel is that it is a cheap waste product from the production of the soy meal that is the real reason soybeans are grown at all. Only a moron would contend that soybeans are a viable crop to grow if oil is the proposed main product. Thus the argument that making biodiesel is necessarily in competition with growing food is spurious at best.

  There are, in fact, many, many crops far better to the purpose, all of which produce far more oil per acre, and many of which do not require the use of prime farmland or petro-chemical fertilizers for that matter.

  Secondly, the author seems to take the tack that it is futile to seek to replace petroleum, so why even bother. The futility of such a world view is sad to behold. And totally unjustified.

  But such pesimism leads me to ask why the author doesn't get up off his butt and contribute to the solution instead of merely complaining about why this is no solution.On Biodiesel is wack posted 2 years, 11 months ago 7 Responses