Comments Julia Olmstead has made

Fidel

Wow, thanks Ron for the heads up on Fidel's ethanol commentary. I read through his op-ed (here for all you Spanish-readers; I haven't found an English translation anywhere), and thought I'd pick out another quote (my own translation):

In our country, land that could by dedicated to ethanol production is better used to grow food to feed our population and for environmental protection.

Every country in the world, rich or poor, with no exceptions, could save itself fuel and billions of investment dollars exchanging all its incandescent lightbulbs for fluorescent bulbs, something Cuba has acheived in every home in this country. This would be a meaningful action against global warming that would not starve to death millions of people around the world.

Breastfeeding isn't always an option

(please note: I'm still nursing my two-year-old)

Under ideal circumstances, breast is best, but not everyone can do it. We need to be sure there are safe systems for feeding formula (or juice or water or whatever, because even my breastfed son drank/drinks things other than milk from bottles and cups) to our babies.

We use small Sigg aluminum bottles (they come in cute kid-friendly designs) to avoid plastic. But for all I know, there are probably issues with the aluminum as well.On Meany in a Bottle posted 2 years, 8 months ago 5 Responses

Other options for Kenya?

I can't wait to read the debate about this.

As I am no Kenya expert, I can't really analyze the situation. I have more questions than answers, in fact, such as:

How much of Kenya's export agriculture is made up of the crops small farmers produce? Are they getting much of a share of the income this produces? What would this look like under a biofuels scheme?

I'd like to know how much this will affect small farmers vs. agribusiness and corporate exporters. My (cynical) gut tells me that Kenya's impoverished citizens (more than half the population, and rising), are probably involved in subsistance agriculture mostly, and the export crops are being produced on a much larger scale. Perhaps this is different for the fair-trade markets.

Our friend Vinod Khosla has talked at times about turning Africa and Latin America into fuel-producers for the global North. This sounds to me like good old colonialism at its best.

Rather than deepening Kenyan farmers' dependence on foreign markets by turning them into biofuel producers (and subsequently increasing their vulnerability to prices swings and, oh yes, changes in consumer preferences and perceptions that might cause biofuel imports to be suddenly banned), we should be supporting "food sovereignty" policies there that would develop national food production and market capacities.  
On A message from Kenya and Biopact posted 2 years, 9 months ago 48 Responses

Um, I disagree

We would give our eye teeth to get a 20% improvement in vehicle efficiency (1 mpg is estimated to cost hundreds of dollars per vehicle to reduce carbon emissions), but won't take an easy 20% improvements from corn ethanol (Argonne National Labs data). Why?

If our focus is a 20% reduction (as a start, right?) in vehicle energy use, there are lots of ways to get there that don't involve increasing the Gulf of Mexico's hypoxic zone, topsoil loss, and the pollution of groundwaters here in the cornbelt. We know how to NOT make giant, inefficient cars. We have hybrid and electric technology just begging for improvement and expansion. There are lots of models (Europe, for one) for public transportation systems to study and replicate.

I think what you're trying to say is that we should improve efficiency AND use biofuels. But that's short-sighted and I think misguided. Right now, biofuel demand is worsening Midwestern environmental problems. It's wreaking havoc on precious tropical ecosystems as native forests are destroyed to make way for oil palm plantations. And most dangerously, it's a mirage that's preventing us from making real changes that would make our societies substantially less dependent on fossil fuels.

Let's keep biofuels local, and work on other ways to truly reduce energy consumption in this country.On Venture capitalist says cellulosic rules posted 2 years, 10 months ago 10 Responses

Por que corn?

I think it's interesting to ask the question "why corn ethanol?"
And also, "why corn syrup?"
And maybe, "why corn plastics?"  

Because corn ethanol really address our energy needs?
Because we need an alternative to sugar?
Because, um, I have no idea...

We're creating these products because we produce way too much corn. Why? Because corn is subsidized -- farmers are paid to grow it.

Why do we subsidize it? Because there is huge money for agribusiness in selling all the inputs to corn production (chemicals, seed, etc.), and they are a really powerful lobby.

In Mexico, where farmers do not get subsidies for corn production (right, Ron?), the effect of this has been to push most of them out of business.

And now, yes, farmers are getting record prices for corn due to ethanol demand. In the very short term, that's good for farmers. But in the longer term, it's only going to do farmers more harm. Here in Iowa, farmers are starting to plant corn year after year. Without even bringing up the environmental impact of this practice (well okay, if you're interested), the corn crop this year is going to be huuuuge. And even bigger in 2008. And very quickly, the bubble will pop and prices will drop. Will farmers be any better off? Probably not. Will they have used that extra income to diversify their crops? Why would they, when corn prices are so high? They'll go back to corn and soy (our other subsidized favorite here in the midwest). And the cycle continues...

I'm not against paying farmers fair prices for what they produce (even if that means our food prices increase), and I'm not against government payments to support farmers. But those payments should be to help farmers diversify, something that would not only help the environment, but make farming a more secure business, here and outside the U.S., too. I certainly am against encouraging excessive corn production so that agribusiness giants like ADM and Cargill can profit.On Rising tortilla prices in Mexico point to a usual suspect posted 2 years, 10 months ago 23 Responses

A bit of both, no?

I agree with you, ebaerren, that individual choices to reduce our footprints are important, both because we actually are making an impact that way (albeit a very small one) and because it's important, I think, to live your values as best you can.

I think Pollitt is right, however, when she says "the world will never be saved by highly educated, privileged people making different upscale consumer choices." The majority of the world's population does not have the luxury of choosing free-range over factory-farm meat, CFL over incandescent bulbs, etc. Even if we limit the discussion to this country (which itself has a large undereducated, impoverished sector that probably can't put a priority on growing their own food when they are working two jobs to keep food on the table), it seems doubtful, based on the empirical evidence of how many SUVs you see on the roads and the wanton love of inefficient suburban living, that significant change will ever come solely from voluntary, individual choices to conserve.

We need organized efforts to push for the enactment of policies that mandate conservation. You yourself say that "if everyone insisted that government invest in public transportation, we'd depend less on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions." Don't you think we'd get much further overall if we worked to get these things mandated? So yes, rather than spend my money on organic food, I probably would be wise to give it instead to an organization working to get toxic pesticides banned federally. Or even better, joining in and working myself to change our politics.On Your lifestyle won't save the world posted 2 years, 10 months ago 15 Responses

Me too

I also have trouble understanding L.B.'s vision.

Let's see: we know he hates corn ethanol and hunger, too. He doesn't seem to mind subsidies but fears the havoc "urban food riots" could wreak on our stock portfolios. Hmm.

What gets me most though is that he seems, at least from his analysis in this latest missive, to have some wacky ideas about the root causes of hunger in the third world. Low global grain prices, which have been the standard for decades now, haven't seemed to do much to alleviate hunger. If we're talking about what hurts the impoverished (and particularly small farmers) I would say that artificially low corn prices (here are your subsidies again, Ron) have been much more harmful than the threat posed by ethanol.  On More from Lester Brown on ethanol and food costs posted 2 years, 10 months ago 10 Responses