At a moment when corn should be almost waist-high here in Iowa, the country's top-producing corn state, more than a million acres have been washed out and destroyed.Beyond that, agriculture experts estimate that 2 million acres of soy beans have been lost to water, putting the state's total grain loss at 20 percent so far, with the threat of more rain to come.
"The American farmer, we feed the world," Mr. Timmerman said. "We're going to be short on corn and we're going to be short on soybeans."
He continued, "It's heart-wrenching."
More:
Jim Fawcett, a crop specialist at the Iowa State University's agricultural extension service, has been hosting emergency meetings with farmers around the state. With standing water comes concerns about manure storage, pollution, livestock safety, soil erosion, mold and fungus and other plant diseases."We know there's going to be less of a crop now than there could have been months ago," he said. "There will be some fields where there's no crop. If the flooding continues, we won't have any growing season to work with. For corn, time has run out."
Seems to me that Congress should suspend the ethanol program, right away. Personally, I'm against the program, period, but if ever there was a moral imperative to quit burning corn in cars and use what corn we're going to manage to get out of the ground this year to feed people, it's now.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
All of it, MI, needs further research and investigation. And it is possible that nothing we find is going to give us the bang for the buck of the various forms of petroleum.
But we also have to remember, the issue isn't (for me at least) that of petroleum isn't good enough as a fuel. Not even the carbon emissions issue.
Its that we're gonna run out some day. So, it isn't necessarily 'algae or petroleum'.
Its, 'There is no more petroleum, what will we use instead?'
And, of course, secondly, I've also said over and over that one thing may not be the answer. (Even with oil, it isn't the one and only thing we use now. Nothing is. We've always run on a variety of energy sources, from hydro to thermal, from oil to coal, natural gas and nuclear).
It could very well be dozens of different options, each fitting into its own niche. And this could be a very good thing. First, for that capitalist idea of true competition. Solar guys too expensive? Think they have a lock on you because you can't use anything else? Tell that to the wind, water, biodiesel, or who knows what else we come up with if we really put a little true effort into it.
Secondly, if something happens so that one no longer works as well, like the crop problems with corn, etc, we have other things to fall back on. We can see the dangers of extreme dependence on one energy source now. We certainly do NOT need to go that route again.
All the options (and new ones we might find) need more research. Hell, there's probably research we could've done to make petroleum use more efficient that we didn't bother to do.
And it is entirely possible that NOTHING will beat, or even meet the energy capacity of petroleum. But there are first, other measures of how good a fuel is (as long as, of course, the energy gotten isn't TOO low, it is fuel, after all), such as being renewable. (And, once again, I'm not talking about a treehugger thing. I'm talking about renewable as meaning 'as long as we make it, it doesn't RUN OUT'. I think that's a merit in anyone's book.)
We aren't out of oil yet. We have time. We just have to figure out what we do with the time, the money and the intellectual resources we have left at our disposal.
Waste it denying the inevitable (and sorry, it is. People may disagree on how long its going to take, but in the end, all fossil fuels are finite). Or searching to squeeze the last few drops out, or take a little of that time, and try to figure out what, if anything, is gonna be next.
Because, if its nothing, then we'll have a whole new meaning for the phrase 'going medieval'.
Karen Brown wrote:
Well, if we can take that money from the ag subsidies we already give, and simply switch it over, why not? Its like.. what, four month's bill for the Iraq war?
Karen Brown, if you take that money from other ag subsidies, you find you have other problems. There are serious abuses in the system, but unfortunately, saving pennies can cost dollars.
Well, I'm talking about things other than the money involved. It also saves pennies to waste dollars if we don't make needed changes, even if it costs in the short term to do so.
Would there be the money in the system if the serious abuses were addressed?
Karen,
You keep saying that "all these other things need looking into". They are being looked into, intensively, as well as hundreds more that you neglect to mention. Venture capital is flowing, profusely. Companies are scrambling to find competent technical personnel. I'm looking over dozens of opportunities myself at the moment.
Problem is, the solutions in large measure remain elusive. Many promising energy conversion technologies are constantly being given 2nd and 3rd and twentieth looks, only to be put once again on the back burner because the 2nd law of thermodynamics shows that they are too inefficient at the macro level to work economically. Or there are other negative environmental impacts when trying to amass enough raw material to scale them up to a level where they have an impact. Ever consider how much aluminum goes into the framing and support structures for solar panels?
For the last 30 years (the length of my career as an electrical engineer) most of the brightest and best minds went into any field except energy. As a result, we have PC's internet, cell phones, etc. Now that is all changing, energy is finally an enticing field once again for EEs. Simliar things are happening in related technical disciplines, I'm sure. New university degree programs are being formulated. But we won't likely see the results we all hope for, for a generation. Maybe there will be some great breakthroughs ahead, we just don't know.
None of the politicians could prevent these changes from happening even if they wanted to, just like they can't prevent the housing bubble crash. They can help some, but only at the margins. They can obstruct, and they will continue to do so. 99-44/100's of everything I see in Washington, from both sides of the leadership, is pure posturing. I choose to ignore it for now, it's a waste of time. Be patient, good things come to those who wait, though probably not from our government. Many of the good things (eek!) will come from large corporations. The majority will likely come from today's startups, that in 20 years will be the new Wal-marts and GMs and Exxons and ADMs that we so love to hate.
The large corporations were the ones dragging their feet for so long, because, to be honest, innovation, as you noted, is risk. And why risk if that same inertia is netting you record profits?
As for the resources, such as aluminum for the supports, I would guess just different, but likely no more than is used for the current setup.
I have no choice but to wait, but I won't hold my breath on companies invested in the current situation doing anything before it is absolutely necessary.
In the end, we'd better hope they, or SOMEONE succeeds. Because the current setup is, and always was, temporary.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.