Support Grist
Support nonprofit, independent environmental journalism.
Donate to Grist.
Fill 'er Up: A Grist special series on biofuels
Main Dish

What About the Land?

A look at the impacts of biofuels production, in the U.S. and the world

By Julia Olmstead
05 Dec 2006
Tools: print | email | discuss | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS
Nothing but blue skies from now on?
Nothing but blue skies from now on?
Photo: house.gov
Great news! We can finally scratch "driving less" off our list of ways to curb global warming and reduce our dependence on foreign oil! Biofuels will soon not only replace much of our petroleum, but improve soil fertility and save the American farmer as well!

Sound too good to be true? Well, yes. But you could be excused for buying the hype.

Ethanol and biodiesel are being promoted as cures for our energy and environmental woes not just by flacks for corporations like Archer Daniels Midland, BP, and DuPont, but by many eco-minded activists and some prominent environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council as well.

As intuitive as it may seem that fuel from plants would be more benign than petroleum-based fuels, the ecological impacts of biofuel production are more complicated, and wider-reaching, than an environmentalist might first imagine.

The Balancing Act
Do biofuels use more energy than they give? Find out.
For years, some critics have claimed that corn-based ethanol has a negative "net energy balance" -- that is, that ethanol requires more energy to produce than it delivers as fuel. But as biofuel production efficiencies have improved, critics have turned their focus to broader sustainability issues.

"Even if corn and soy biodiesel have positive energy balances, that's not enough," says Andy Heggenstaller, a graduate student at Iowa State University researching biofuel crop production. "Large-scale production of corn and soybeans has negative ecological consequences. If biofuels are based on systems that exacerbate soil erosion and water contamination, they're ultimately not sustainable."

Stalk in Trade


Corn is one of the planet's most energy-intensive crops. Industrial corn production requires huge quantities of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers (derived primarily from natural gas) and petroleum-based pesticides like atrazine, a known endocrine disrupter. Soybeans need less nitrogen, but farmers douse bean fields with other nutrients and with chemicals like Roundup to keep them pest-free.

You can't make a biofuel omelet without breaking ags.
You can't make a biofuel omelet without breaking ags.
Photo: nrel.gov
The effects of corn and soybean production in the Midwest include massive topsoil erosion, pollution of surface and groundwater with pesticides, and fertilizer runoff that travels down the Mississippi River to deplete oxygen from a portion of the Gulf of Mexico called the dead zone that has, in the last few years, been the size of New Jersey.

As ethanol use pushes corn prices higher, farmers are increasingly abandoning the traditional corn-soybean rotation to what's known in farm country as corn-on-corn. High prices have encouraged farmers to plant corn year after year, an intensification that boosts fertilizer and pesticide requirements.

Water use has also become a concern as corn production expands into drier areas like Kansas, where the crop requires irrigation. The ethanol boom has sent water demands skyrocketing, putting pressure on already suffering sources like the Ogallala aquifer.

And according to a recent report by the World Resources Institute, stepped-up corn ethanol production means not only increases in soil erosion and water pollution, but increases in greenhouse-gas emissions. "If your objective is reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, you need to be aware of what's happening in the agricultural sector," says Liz Marshall, coauthor of the WRI study.

Fill er Up
An introduction to Grist's special series on biofuels.
Can My Car Do That? Find out which cars can run on ethanol and biodiesel.
The Big Three. The numbers behind ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, and biodiesel in the U.S.
What About the Land? A look at the impacts of biofuels production, in the U.S. and the world.
Give Green, Go Yellow. How cash and corporate pressure pushed ethanol to the fore.
More articles on biofuels.
Ethanol proponents say the fuel emits up to 13 percent fewer greenhouse gases than gasoline. But an increase in emissions on the farm could cancel out benefits from emission decreases at the tailpipe.

A Kinder, Gentler Crop?


These environmental concerns have led researchers like Heggenstaller to join a wave of interest in a new generation of biofuels, the much-hyped but yet-to-be-seen-on-the-market cellulosic ethanol. Cellulosic differs from grain ethanol in that the fuel comes from the fiber in the plant, rather than the starches in the grain. Any type of plant material can be a source of cellulose, and even cow manure could be processed into fuel.

Fans of cellulosic ethanol are interested in perennial grasses like prairie native switchgrass and towering miscanthus, which require much lower quantities of fertilizers and pesticides than corn and eliminate the need to plow fields annually, a major cause of soil erosion. They say these crops could produce much greater quantities of biomass than corn, and on lands less suitable for crop production.

Indeed, if biofuels are going to make a substantial dent in meeting our fuel needs, processors will need to look beyond corn. If all the corn currently grown in the U.S. were turned into ethanol, it would replace only 15 percent of our annual gasoline demand. (By way of comparison, we could eliminate 15 percent of our gasoline demand by increasing average fuel efficiency of U.S. cars by just four miles per gallon -- an attainable goal using on-the-shelf technology.)

Soy has problems of its own.
Soy has problems of its own.
Photo: nrel.gov
Due to soybeans' relatively low oil yield, soy biodiesel production in the U.S. has already been written off as marginal by most researchers. So many academic and industry leaders are intensely optimistic about the transition to cellulosic sources.

"There's no doubt cellulosic ethanol can supply our energy needs," says Emily Heaton, manager of Energy Crop Product Development at Ceres, Inc., a California-based plant biotechnology company that's working to develop high-yield biomass crops. She agrees with projections from the U.S. Department of Energy that say fuel from perennial grasses could replace more than a third of our petroleum needs by 2030. "We'll be producing more than a billion tons of biomass a year in an environmentally sustainable way," Heaton says.

But even the advent of cellulosic ethanol -- which is not expected to come on line for at least several more years -- could mean more corn, according to Charles Brummer, a professor of plant breeding at the University of Georgia who works with switchgrass and other perennial biomass plants. Corn stalks and other residues from the corn harvest could be used to make cellulosic ethanol just as readily as switchgrass.

"Farmers will produce what makes money," Brummer says. "As long as farm programs support corn production, we're not going to see them growing much of anything else."

Meanwhile, in the Rest of the World


The hype over biofuels in the U.S. and Europe has had wide-ranging effects perhaps not envisioned by the environmental advocates who promote their use. Throughout tropical countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil, and Colombia, rainforests and grasslands are being cleared for soybean and oil-palm plantations to make biodiesel, a product that is then marketed halfway across the world as a "green" fuel.

Socking it to an African palm in Myanmar.
Socking it to an African palm in Myanmar.
Photo: myanmar.gov.mm
In Southeast Asia, and increasingly in the Amazon, plantations of the African oil palm have become wildly lucrative. After monocropping the palms on recently cleared rainforest land, growers press the palm fruit and kernel for oil that can be used in both food and industrial applications, including -- and increasingly -- as biodiesel.

The palm oil industry is booming: global exports increased more than 50 percent from 1999 to 2004. To meet the growing demand, producers in Malaysia and Indonesia have ramped up production by clearing thousands of square miles of rainforest for new plantations.

In Indonesia, rainforest loss for oil palms has contributed to the endangerment of 140 species of land animals, while in Malaysia animals like the Sumatran tiger and Bornean orangutan have been pushed to the brink of extinction. Fish kills have become common in waterways surrounding plantations and palm-oil mills, as soil erosion from the cleared land and mill effluents have left waterways clogged with sediment and unviable.

The boom hasn't been limited to Southeast Asia. In one of the most disturbing examples of the biofuel hype's hidden effects, right-wing paramilitary groups in Colombia -- a country mired in a four-decade-old civil war -- have in recent years begun planting oil palm plantations over wide swaths of the territory they control. These areas of tropical forest, which lie in the northwestern coastal region known as the Chocó and rank among the planet's key storehouses of biodiversity, have been almost entirely expropriated through violence, including massacres of Afro-Colombian and indigenous communities that have forced those populations out of the region.

Farther south, another biodiversity hotspot is being rapidly cleared to plant a biodiesel crop. Nearly 80 percent of Brazil's Cerrado region -- a woodland savanna mix -- has been cleared for agricultural production, mostly for soybeans, according to a Conservation International report.

Despite being home to thousands of endemic plant and animal species, the Cerrado has been promoted as "the last agricultural frontier" by green-revolution hero and Nobel Peace Prize winner Norman Borlaug. Low land and labor costs and high yield potential have sent investors from as far away as Iowa scrambling to buy up these Brazilian grasslands, frequently in collaboration with U.S. agribusinesses like Archer Daniels Midland, whose first Brazilian biodiesel production facility is currently in the works.

Tad Patzek, a professor in UC-Berkeley's Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering who's known primarily as a critic of corn ethanol, says what's happening in tropical ecosystems is much more serious than the biofuel situation in the U.S. "We've already destroyed the prairie, and the topsoil in the Midwest is going, going, gone," Patzek says. "But the expensive noise we're making here is being translated there into the total obliteration of the most precious ecosystems on earth."

Tools: print | email | discuss | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS
Julia Olmstead is a graduate student in plant breeding and sustainable agriculture at Iowa State University and a graduate fellow with the Land Institute in Salina, Kan., and a freelance writer on agricultural and environmental issues.
< Previous | Next >
Comments: (13 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Username: Password:

Forgot your password? Enter your username and click:

Energy balance = red herring

Thank you to Julia Olmstead for the introduction to the concept of energy balance in biofuels.  I suggest not focusing too strongly on this, though.  Whether or not a biofuel uses slightly more or slightly less fossil energy to grow, process and distribute than just burning the fossil fuel in the first place is certainly interesting.  

However as an energy engineer, the larger question for me is: if we're not even sure if its impact is positive or negative, then how much of our time and money is it worth?  If going to all the trouble of making corn-based ethanol yields only a 10% reduction in fossil fuel use (and concommitant environmental, political, and economic risks) then why not throw our weight behind something else? We could be spending our scarce dollars on supply options that payback the fossil energy used to make them many times over, rather than only coming out ahead by a few percent.

Or with the same amount of investment (especially counting the vast subsidies to corn farming) we could be getting (for instance) much more efficient vehicles, reducing carbon emissions, oil imports, etc without using up sizeable portions of our land, water, soil, and other valuable resources.

The most recent studies (e.g. Dan Kammen's work at UC Berkeley) have suggested that yes, using corn-based ethanol in your car emits a wee bit less global warming pollution than just burning gasoline.  Kammen's group then goes on to point out that ethanol can be much more beneficial if made from cellulosic sources.  Again, this points out that with the limited funds we have to spend on improving our energy outlook, we should spend them carefully on the things that get us the most benefit for our buck.  Compared to the other options out there, corn-based ethanol does not fit that description.

Biodiesel BINGO on cleantechblog.com

I recently drove the brae biodiesel bus -- a converted Thomas International shorty schoolbus -- from Denver to Maine.  (brae is my energy consulting firm.  The bus, her name is Gertie, short for Gertrude.)

I wrote about the merry adventure -- the search for biodiesel -- on cleantechblog.com.  The five-part piece, titled Biodiesel BINGO, describes my trek through Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania (where the fuel filter finally clogged), New York and then Maine (where my last 5 gallons of Denver Biodiesel's waste veggie oil coagulated. I didn't want to part with it, so now it's frozen.)

The long journey had a purpose.  It was not a shot across the states in a loaned Flex Fuel vehicle to tout the wonders of biofuels.  I was not burning fuel simply to prove the merits of biodiesel:  I'm an energy consultant and was on my way to Maine to work on a home performance/energy efficiency program created by Maine's Governor Baldacci.

The Friday before Thanksgiving, I dined with a venture capital guy (a friend of my brother) at a fancy Mexican restaurant on Manhattan's Upper West Side.  He's invested in a few clean energy technologies that are getting lots of recognition and market play.  He condescended about the biodiesel biobus (I had some choice words about the MBA and JDs at one of his investor start-ups, so I had it coming.)

At the end of the evening and the end of one margarita, I proclamed "ethanol is a scam."  He agreed, delighted.  "Yes," he said, "ethanol IS a scam."  We parted, friendly-like, in our mutual disregard for ethanol.

I'm partial to the waste veggie oil that my local guys in Denver made for the Biodiesel Coop. That is a whole other fuel than the Archer Daniel Midland/Cargill biodiesel that I found promoted across the industrial farm belt.  That biodiesel?  Well, it's a scam, too.

Brazil and Biofuels

Interesting article!  I share the concerns expressed about runaway monocultures in pursuit of the biofuels bandwagon, and plan a blog soon on this issue in the Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) context (my own focus).  Given the history of agri-business and land use development in the region, particularly in the Amazon, it's hard to be optimistic.

Interesting to me is how the Brazilian government's just-released energy plan up to 2030 downplays the role of biofuels, other renewable sources (wind, solar, micro hydro), energy conservation and energy efficiency measures, while stressing expanded nuclear, coal, natural gas and Big Hydro.  This vision differs dramatically from the one put forth by NGOs in Sept.-Oct., sparking a public row with the government's energy planning people.  Details at http://www.temasactuales.com/temasblog/?p=62

IF the people lead, the leaders will follow?

So, we three of us so far agree: Ethanol is a scam.  It is energy in-efficient to produce.  It requires just about as much energy ( generally in the form of petro fuel) as we can obtain from it.  Corn is a heavily subsidized mono-culture, not very good for the lands that are paved ove with its production.  The fact that ehtahanol is so well supported in the tax code, legislatively, etc. must be a testament to how poorly our government has been working.  Farm industry lobbyists ( ADM, Cargill ) have been effective in Washington, although the science does not support it. Both sides of the aisle have been complicit: Obama is an ethanol supporter.

Maybe cellulosic ethanol will be better.  But its still a fuel of the future.

I support biodiesel as an alternative fuel. I get "500 miles per acre" in my SVO-converted truck.  By that I mean, an acre of a typical oi-seed crop (canola) produces enough fuel for me to drive 500 miles.  Granted, there is not enough cropland to grow enough to transport the whole country around, but biofuel algea seems a promising solution to this. ( Then I would get about 160,000 miles per acre!)

But here is my real question: Why, since we all peasants/ energy-and-fuel geeks can recognize that ethanol is not the way forward, is it so well promoted, compared to biodiesel?  Auto manufacturers can make Flex fuel cars ( which require  extensive re-engiineering), but can't figure bring themselves to support using any more than B5 in their engines?  (New Holland and Case IH being the exceptions- they recommend B20). Even this Grist series of articles seems to fail to call bull$&!t on ehtanol.

If the people can see that the emperor has no clotes, why can't the leaders? Even the leaders of of the left-leaning media?


Actually, I didn't say it was a scam per se...

...at least not in the Brazilian context.  I am simply worried what might be done in LAC countries in the name of pursuing ethanol (or any other biofuel, for that matter) production.

In what I said before on Brazil, note I carefully used the word "biofuels," not "ethanol," because the Brazilian energy plan foresees use of several different types of biofuel, not just ethanol (the latter seems to be the fixation of Washington).  These include biodiesel (up to 28 mil. l/d by 2030), diesel made with vegetable oils (H-Bio) (up to 244 mil. l/d by 2030), and "sugarcane products" (i.e., bioethanol and combusting bagasse for power generation).

Laws promoting greater use of biodiesel are already in place in Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay and Peru, and a bill is pending in Colombia.  

The Grist article noted concern about the palm plantations in Colombia aimed at biofuel production.  The state-owned hydrocarbons company, Ecopetrol, just announced that it's getting into biodiesel production utilizing palm oil.

The sugar giant Südzucker, which runs one of the biggest bioethanol plants in the world in Europe, just announced that it investing in major bioethanol and biodiesel production in Chile using wheat and beetroot -- but is demanding a more favorable regulatory regime and crop guarantees in return for the investment.  These kind of sweeheart deals rarely work out to be a good deal for the host country.

Argentina adopted a biofuel law earlier this year, and comprehensive biofuel bills (covering bioethanol, biodiesel, biomethanol, bio-dimethyl ether, synthetic biofuels, biohydrogen & PVO) are pending in Costa Rica.  A similar bill was proposed last year in Mexico.

Jimurl

Biodiesel has advantages, but it also has its disadvantates. It takes five times more acres to make the same energy as corn ethanol if you use soybeans. Palm oil is wrecking the planet. Nobody makes it from algae, so, why promote using biodiesel from food crops? Why not support funding for research into algae and wait rather than pillage and hope?

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
RE: Can my car do that?

Flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs) are no panacea, at least not the ones made in the United States. Of the fifty-eight 2007-year models of cars, SUVs and pick-up trucks rated by the EPA that can run on blends of up to 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline (E85), only eight, or 14% have engines smaller than 4.6 litres (www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/compx2005f.jsp).

These are gas-guzzlers no matter what fuel you put in them, though that doesn't stop the EPA from classifying them as "cars that don't need gasoline". (Who ever said that government agencies don't have a sense of irony?)

The main reason Detroit is manufactoring them, of course, is not because the automakers suddenly developed a "green" conscience, but to exploit the so-called "dual-fuel loophole". Introduced in the 1988 Alternative Motor Fuels Act, and extended for five years in 2005, this loophole gives manufacturers generous credits against their corporate average fuel-economy (CAFE) standards for every FFV they sell, thus enabling them to avoid costly penalties or (heaven forbid) sell more fuel-efficient cars. The crazy thing about this policy is that the automakers earn this credit even if the FFVs they sell never actually consume a drop of ethanol.

Perhaps the most cynical chapter in this long-running story is the the recent announcement by General Motors that, within three years, all versions of its Hummer SUV will be FFVs.

Yes, you read that right: flex-fuel Hummers.

A Hummer H3 4WD would get about the same fuel economy operating on E85 as a GMC Sierra Classic 1500 4WD. Thus, according to U.S. EPA ratings and assumptions (e.g., 15,000 miles driven in a year), even if it ran exclusively on E85 (most probably won't), the H3 would still consume 185 gallons of gasoline (15% of its E85 consumption) in a year -- that's 3/5 as much as the 300 gallons that a Honda Civic Hybrid would consume over 12 months running exclusively on gasoline.

GM doesn't publish fuel consumption ratings for the larger, gas guzzling Hummer H2, as it is in a class by itself. However, unofficial reports on the web (e.g., http://trucks.about.com/cs/suvreviews/a/hummer_fuel04.htm...) suggest its mileage is around 10 miles per gallon running on pure gasoline. With that kind of performance, and assuming the usual 25% fuel-economy penalty one gets when operating a flex-fuel engine on E85, an H2's annual consumption of gasoline as a flex-fuel vehicle would be around 320 gallons -- i.e., more gasoline even than would be consumed by the aforementioned Honda Civic Hybrid. And that is not counting all the petroleum and other energy inputs that would go into making the 2125 gallons of ethanol that it would also consume.

Doesn't sound like much of a fuel savings to me.

Incidentally, the cost to the federal taxpayer associated with the tax credit paid on that ethanol would be $1080 per vehicle, per year, or over $10,000 over the life of the vehicle.

Of course, if you get a kick out of burning up other people's money, an even better choice would be to buy an International Harvester CXT, and keep it filled with biodiesel. With Uncle Sam providing a $1.00/gallon tax credit for every gallon of biodiesel made from virgin vegetable oil (mainly soy), not only will "Crowds gather and camera's flash ... and children look up in awe at the 9-foot high cab" (www.internationaldelivers.com/site_layout/XTFamily/cxt.asp), but you can drive in the knowledge that your tax dollars are hard at work.

These are only my personal opinions.

Yikes

"...the cost to the federal taxpayer associated with the tax credit paid on that ethanol would be $1080 per vehicle, per year, or over $10,000 over the life of the vehicle."


In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
alternatives to food-crops-as-fuel

"Nobody makes it from algae, so, why promote using biodiesel from food crops? Why not support funding for research into algae and wait rather than pillage and hope?"

Actually, lots of people are making it from algae, and we should indeed support them with further funding.  Algae have the additional benefits of remediating of other waste problems such as water and air contamination (see efforts by MIT spinoff greenfuelonline.com).  They even fix their own nitrogen, allowing for the reduction of NOx.  The main hurdle is that the high oil-yielding species aren't robust enough to be grown in open ponds.  Rather, they need to be grown and harvested in a closed system.

I'd like to see permacultures all over the place for both food and non-food uses.  I have the utmost respect for the work of the Land Institute.  It's also good to have some clarity against quick-fix schemes.  Nevertheless, I think butanol from cellulose is really very promising.  It also takes money from major corporations to get things accomplished, so I'm glad that DuPont and BP are at least willing to get their feet wet.  The return on energy invested for any biofuel will max out at around 3:1, which pales in comparison to petroleum's 50:1.  Still, that's a net positive, and we need to look forward with hope rather than despair.

BioFuel Dems Drain Public Funds


Now we see why the powers that be rigged the 2006 election: So that Barrack Obama could become a shill for the biofuels industry and funnel money to agribusiness.

Yes, they weren't content poisoning our bodies with corn syrup and causing obesity, diabetes and heart problems...now they want to put their corn in our cars!  

Yeah, gummy fuel injectors are the future...forget about the six years that George Bush has funded the real next economy, Hydrogen.  Take a giant leap backward with Hillary and send your dollars to ADM.


My comment was not meant to be taken

literally. Algae is not being used to mass produce a marketable product, and is not on the cusp of doing so. It remains a research project. Bodiesel made from food crops will not facilitate the development of other forms, like algae. Biodiesel does not have an equivalent argument that ethanol made from corn will lead to ethanol made from cellulose. I would be happy to see something like algae replace food crops.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
perspectives on energy balance

According to the theory developed by the late H.T. Odum (widely regarded as the father of systems ecology), Tad Patzek is quite correct in allocating ALL the input eMergy (yes, that's the proper term here; see Odum for details)of biofuel production to the fuel produced. (And it all goes equally to every co-product, too!)  This is one of several ways in which conventional wisdom fails as a reliable guide for properly evaluating alternative fuel schemes. Another is in treating all energy types(both input and output) as kcal-for-kcal equivalent, something we'd never do with the monetary currencies of different countries, for example.  Thus, Pimentel and Patzek have been unfairly criticized for taking necessary human labor into account.  In fact, what appear to be an insignificant number of kcal of human work are worth (i.e., equivalent to) a great many kcal of petroleum energy, and in large measure have been developed from it! This is kind of understanding required for coming to terms with the crucial concepts of eMergy, energy transformity and energy quality. And, while we're on the subject of system inputs, let's be clear that among them is money.  Since money flowing through the economy is itself backed by eMergy flow, the eMergetic equivalent of tax breaks, price supports, discounts, etc. must also be accounted for.

I invite anyone who thinks ethanol (or any other biofuel)sustainably delivers positive net eMergy on some given scale (and scale does matter!) to put it to the following simple (but admittedly difficult) test:  Develop a system FROM SCRATCH that produces/builds EVERYTHING it needs to operate (machinery, goods, services, etc., etc.)using only what it produces (e.g., the fuel)or the eMergy equivalent thereof(on an equal exchange basis), AND does better than just break even. I say "from scratch" to make sure you take ALL input eMergy into account.

If, as some contend,  ethanol produced from agribusiness corn has a real eMergy yield ratio of 3:1, that ethanol should be a PRIMARY energy source more than capable of "self-subsidy" in the sense above. Let's see it.

 

eMergist

clarification on "perspectives ..."

When I say "produces/builds everything it needs to operate..." I mean that the system must use only the biofuel it yields (or the eMergy eqivalent thereof gotten in direct or indirect exchange)as the FEEDBACK (after any number of downstream transformations into goods, machines, services, labor, etc.) required to engage with basically "free" (i.e. uncosted)natural inputs in ALL the processes for producing the fuel itself.  Such "free" inputs would be sunlight, rain, atmospheric gases, other natural resouces like metal ores, groundwater, etc. If artificial irrigation is required for growing the biomass, the biofuel (or its exact equivalent) must supply the feedback energy to provide it. Ditto for all added fertilizer.

I should also clarify my comment on money. Regardless of what is actually paid out by the system for materials, goods, services, etc., the total eMergy input already gages most of the REAL monetary value.  However, I suspect that there may be cases where significant value-added is not measured DIRECTLY by eMergy.  It would take very careful analysis to find out for sure.

I'd appreciate any insightful feedback as I continue to wrestle with these ideas.

 

eMergist

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Username: Password:

Forgot your password? Enter your username and click:

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?


Also in Grist

The Week's Most Popular



From the Archives
Can My Car Do That?, by Kate Sheppard. Find out which cars can run on ethanol and biodiesel.
Get Pumped. All the resources you need to hop on the biofuels bandwagon.
The Big Three, by Maywa Montenegro. The numbers behind ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, and biodiesel in the U.S.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Jobs Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcasts
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra® | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2007. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks