I think the best solution would be to make a biofuel from tobacco. It would be especially good if it used stems and stalks as well, as you said. If this were successful it would condemn smokers to longer lives free of lung cancer and emphysema!

Castro wrote that more than 3 billion people in the world (almost half the world's population) were condemned to die prematurely of hunger or thirst because of United States plans to convert corn and other "foodstuffs" into fuel for cars. And he says his figures are cautious, not exaggerated.

REPLY: There is just no satisfying these people. Cut back your carbon emmission to save the planet...Ok, we ill use corn for fuel....Can't do that...That will reduce the crop for food....Ok then....Nuclear energy....Woops, can't do that...Remember TMI in 1979?..."Hell No, We Won't Glow"......If 3 billion people worldwide are going to die prematurely of hunger and or thirst, it's because those people are living under leaders like Castro and their ideology, which I might ad, has never worked, does not work, and will never work (much to the dismay of you Al Gore apologists out there)....NOT because of anything the United States does or does not do.....

"Castro wrote that more than 3 billion people in the world (almost half the world's population) were condemned to die prematurely of hunger or thirst because of United States plans to convert corn and other "foodstuffs" into fuel for cars. And he says his figures are cautious, not exaggerated.
"

I really can't blame Castro for these absurd claims because he is just an evil Communist dictator and he probably got his information from Al Gore.

"I really can't blame Castro for these absurd claims because he is just an evil Communist dictator and he probably got his information from Al Gore." Well, I agree Castro is an evil dictator, but what does Al Gore have to do with it?

Back to the topic, I believe Castro just has to keep silence. He has never done anything to reduce pollution in Cuba. He has never done anything to improve living conditions in the island... and all he has been doing is complaining and blaming the US or other countries on any of the many problems he can't work out. He doesn't know that Global Warming is a problem that should be adressed by the world as a whole.

And about the lack of food Castro is talking about, I think THAT is in fact an exaggeration!

Sorry, Anonymous, I didn't mean to use your name. I just forgot to write down my name, Emiliano in the comment above posted.

It always amazes me that anytime some anti-american thug 'blasts' the US, the US media sops it right up as news. Well, no, it doesnt actually amaze me, given that the media overall tends to share his views.

If Castro was smart, he'd welcome biofuels. His country has the potential to reap many rewards from sugar production for ethanol. He cant sell to the US, obviously, but Canada and Europe would buy his supply up. He could have an energy cash cow, just like his best bud Hugo.

Mind you, he'd just use the money to build palaces and make his own life nicer, while leaving his people in squalor. But still...

Wow, the Anti-Environmentalist Right and Fidel Castro have both found common ground -- they both hate ethanol.

Laura,

As much as I disagree with everything that Fidel stands for, he does have very valid point. Biofuels is a Amerian FEEL GOOD program. Experts on the topic are not being heard. According to UC Berkeley geoengineering professor Tad W. Patzek, "In terms of renewable fuels, ethanol is the worst solution, it has the highest energy cost with the least benefit."

Ethanol is produced by fermenting renewable crops like corn or sugarcane. It may sound green, Patzek says, but that's because many scientists are not looking at the whole picture. According to his research, more fossil energy is used to produce ethanol than the energy contained within it.

Patzek's ethanol critique began during a freshman seminar he taught in which he and his students calculated the energy balance of the biofuel. Taking into account the energy required to grow the corn and convert it into ethanol, they determined that burning the biofuel as a gasoline additive actually results in a net energy loss of 65 percent. Later, Patzek says he realized the loss is much more than that even.

"Limiting yourself to the energy balance, and within that balance, just the fossil fuel used, is just scraping the surface of the problem," he says. "Corn is not 'free energy.'" All told, he believes that the cumulative energy consumed in corn farming and ethanol production is six times greater than what the end product provides your car engine in terms of power. "One farm for the local village probably makes sense," he says. "But if you have a 100,000 acre plantation exporting biomass on contract to Europe , that's a completely different story. From one square meter of land, you can get roughly one watt of energy. The price you pay is that in Brazil alone you annually damage a jungle the size of Greece ."

Biofuels as an alternative is not real and Fidel, being a ditator, doesn't have to worry about being politically correct...it is what it is. Somewhat refreshing don't you think?

Dave

Who really cares what Fidel says? He's a 2 bit dictator on a 2 bit island in the Carribean.

Dave, the problem with your assertion is that Brazil has already proven beyond any doubt that ethanol can be used to supplement oil as a fuel. Its not perfect, but then again, neither is gasoline. No fuel is perfect.

The sticky details arent if it can be used, but if it can be produced in a cost efficient way - which it can, given time. Everyone's hung up on corn being used to create the ethanol... but thats only an issue if you ignore the alternative processes that create ethanol from non-food plants.

I thought Castro died. I mean the enquirer said it. Why are we writing about the statements of a dead guy?

Mark:

Hmmm...I fail to see any Anti-environmentalist rights making statements that they hate ethanol. I have seen them say that they don't feel ethanol is a great solution to the problem, but hate, not so much. I really think that the intent of his comment was to demean the US since apparently, if it were not for the US, 3 billion would have died already.

MG,

Brazil has not proved anything.

They use 4 billion gallons of gasoline a year. Of that less than 25% is ethanol.

The USA consumes 143 billion gallons of gasoline a year.

Do the math.

Brazil grows sugar cane for ethanol. Brazil has the tropical climate that is required for the productive culture of sugarcane and has the largest sugar cane crop in the world. It is the largest exporter of ethanol in the world. High government sales taxes on gasoline, as well as government subsidies for ethanol, have cultivated a profitable national ethanol industry.

Sugarcane fields are traditionally burned just before harvest, in order to remove the leaves and kill snakes. Therefore, in sugarcane-growing parts of the country, the smoke from burning fields turns the sky gray throughout the harvesting season. As winds carry the smoke into nearby towns, air pollution goes critical and respiratory problems soar.

Can you say CO2? Sounds a little contradictory to me.

Doesn't sound like Brazil has anything figured out.

Dave

I never thought I would see the day where I thought Fidel had a good point. The 3 billion is unrealistic but the effect of bio-fuels on world's food supply will create some problems. With bio-fuels am not seeing a substantial positive effect on the environment, or stable fuel prices. It seems to be a more "feel good" issue rather than a long term solution.

Brian,

If we could reduce engine pollution by using ethenol, that would be great. It would save many more people from lung cancer and emphysema than eliminating tobbacco ever could.

If car exhaust was bright orange, you would not be able to see across the street in any downtown city or town on a calm day. It is the "can't see it, so it's not affecting me" problem.

A human can smoke for 30 to 70 years, taking in primary, or first hand and also constant second hand smoke and eventually the cumulative effects will deteriorate that persons body, depending on the person, into some form of sickness or death.

On the other hand, a human cannot stay in a home garage with the big door open, while a car is running for more than 10 minutes without some form of slight lung and brain damage. With the door closed, you would die within the hour.

Daily doses of cumulative car exhaust will certainly do you far more damage, in a much shorter time than tobbacco. Both are bad for you, but exhaust is what you breath everytime you take a breath outside jogging, what your children breathe while playing at the school yard beside that busy street, and even slightly, when your asleep in your house, as no indoor air exchanger is 100% efficient, or you have a window open.

There was a young, former tennis star that died in his bedroom a few years back, when he unwittingly left the car running in the garage at the other end of the house. If he would have left 1,000 cigarettes burning in ashtrays in the garage instead, he would still be alive today.

Car exhaust is the real "invisible sickness maker" in todays world. Tobbacco doe's not even come close, but you can't tell that to the second hand smoke lobbyists.

>>Well, I agree Castro is an evil dictator, but what does Al Gore have to do with it?

Obviously Emiliano that went way over your head. I was mocking Al Gore's absurd, unscientific, wild exagerations.

Mark,

Seems to me that the environmentalists, not the anti's, are the one's against ethanol because of all of the "harmful" fertilizer that needs to be used to grow the crops and the diesel used in equipment. Nevermind that the diesel could be bio-diesel as well. I think you are creating confusion in your own ranks by your statement. I'm a right winger and am 100% for ethanol or any biofuel. I think it's time the American Farmer finally gets their piece of the pie.

One reason for food shortages in other countries is our enormous subsidies for corn. Because of the subsidies, corn is produced in much more bulk and is sold at a much cheaper price than it otherwise would be on the world market. Third world farmers can't compete with the extremely low prices of our corn, so many of those farmers are basically put out of business. Increasing the price of corn would actually offset this artificial lowering of its price from its subsidies and actually help third world farmers compete....thus, reducing starvation.

There are many problems with ethanol use in the US. Kudos to Brazil, but their model will not work here; Brazil has a much smaller urban population than the US, and only a fraction of that number makes widespread use of motor vehicles, unlike the US where every person of driving age owns one and uses it daily.

More importantly, ethanol will due nothing to reduce CO2 emissions because it is still a carbon based fuel, and because its energy content is much lower than gasoline a lot more has to be consumed to travel the same distance. On top of that a lot more energy is required to produce it than to refine gasoline from crude, and ultimately nothing is gained on the GHG front.

Ethanol's only value is in reducing the amount of foreign oil imported, but at great cost. The great cost is because when you factor in the daily operating costs to produce it, the capital investment needed to build both the plants and the means to transport and dispense it to the public, the true cost is in the $4.50 - $5.00 per gallon range - and that is a quote from a fuels hedge fund manager and industry analyst I heard interviewed on Bloomberg Radio. So if you're already crying over gas at $2.50 - $3.00 per gallon, just wait a few years - whether you pay for it at the pump or in federal taxes to subsidize it - you're gonna pay it ! And even if the future ethanol industry is maximized, at best the reduction of foreign oil imports is in the 15% - 20% range, so even on that front it is not a big help.

So why is there all this talk about ethanol being the future ? It is purely political. Yes, political, because the big agriculture states will vote either democrat or republican depending on which politician is promising the most help (subsidies) to the farming industry in their states. In other words, both political parties are pushing ethanol production hard to gain votes for the '08 election. For example, Hillary Clinton said publicly that she did not support ethanol production when the president first began pushing it a couple of years ago, but now that she is a candidate, and she needs to tip a few of those "red" farming states to the "blue" column, she is wholeheartedly endorsing it in her campaign speeches.

Many have blogged here in the past that AGW is not and should not be political; those people simply, sadly can not see the forest for all the trees........ The science behind it may or may not be political (depending on whether or not you believe any particular scientist is pushing his personal agenda along with his data,) but any attempt to address the problem will require legislation - legislation is politics ! Solutions will cost money - BILLIONS - who will pay ? Who will reap the windfall profits ? Politicians will make those decisions, and political careers will be made and broken by them ! Any notion that AGW is not politcal is based on sheer ignorance of how society works.

The real scandal here is that 1/3 of the world's population doesn't have access to electricity�including some people in America who don�t have access to cheap energy. Instead of focusing on biofuels, the US should strive in increase our energy independence by using our nation�s most plentiful and inexpensive energy resource: coal. Is it dirty? Yes�but technology is being developed to make it more efficient and with fewer emissions. Our top priorities should be meeting our rapidly growing demand and reducing our dependence on foreign fuels, because one thing is clear: access to affordable energy saves and improves lives everywhere.

As for Castro, hopefully these are the final ramblings of a deranged man�

Mark:

Food shortages in other countries has NOTHING to do with the US, subsidies or not. The subsidies are so that our producers can grow enough food to SHARE with the rest of the world. Food shortages are due to the fact that other countries have governments that confiscate their citizens food and wealth and shun development. In the meantime, their under educated citizens reproduce to the point that their societies cannot sustain the population. Teach these countries modern ways, educate the people, and get rid of dictatorial governments, and I guarantee, no one would go hungry.

I tend to agree with "Brian in the Everglades"; bio-fuels are only a short term solution. Furthermore, while I am not a fan of Castro nor for what he stands for, he may very well have a point. Unfortunately, Castro's remarks are not quite accurate.

I do not believe that biofuels in themselves will be responsible for the starvation of 3 billion people. Rather, it will likely be the impending worldwide disaster from the effects of Global Warming that cause such a famine.

If one would take a moment to read the recent reports on Global Warming, it will likely be the inevitable worldwide drought which causes this famine!

It is time that ALL of humanity wakes up to the signals which Mother Nature is giving us, because if we do not, we will also be on the endangered species list!

Gary,

I learn something new, every day. Thanks.

Greg,

I think Iran wants us on the endangered species list and is doing everything possible to ensure it. A few more weeks will tell the tale, so to speak.

Mark,

Are there other plants besides corn that could be used for biofuel that may be just as viable yet cheaper to produce?

The subsidies are so that our producers can grow enough food to SHARE with the rest of the world.

WHAT?????? Surely you're joking. I almost fell for it, too.

Subsidies are for "price stabilization." That's government-ese for artificially increasing demand so that farmers make more money. Good old-fashioned artificial government-imposed price supports, the "evil twin" of government-imposed price ceilings.

US agribusiness grows far more corn than US consumers are willing to buy. Hence, without price-supports, the prices (and supplies) would fall. Instead, the government buys "excess" corn with subsidies. The government then unloads this "surplus" on foreign markets, driving down the price where the surpluses are dumped.

In practice, it means that our tax dollars go from our wallets to the bank accounts of a relative handful of executives who own and operate huge agribusinesses. Then, more of our money follows that in the form of artificially-inflated prices on that same corn. There's nothing "free-market", "small-government" or even "republican" about it; it's one of the more brazen and flagrant examples of explicit government intervention in free-market operation. Tobacco subsidies are even worse.

Ethanol is a bad idea for several reasons. Most importantly for THIS blog, it makes the AGW problem worse, not better.

So is there a reasonable fuel alternative being looked at for gas and diesel that could benefit the majority?

Actually, SHARE is the wrong term. Other countries buy the grain at a reduced price from the US. I recognize that I do not know the specifics of subsidies, and frankly don't really care, the idea that the US contributes to the world food shortage is what I was refuting. And yes, subsidies are another form of wealth distribution. Funny how everyone is against that idea when it does not benefit their cause, but take that money and put it toward your concern, and everyone is for it.

Gary:

Well put.

John D:

My guess is I would doubt it at our current level of technology. Otherwise, it would probably already be in development.

BT,

...be still my heart...we're on the same side... about ethanol saving anything that is!!

Have a great day.

Dave

Teach these countries modern ways, educate the people, and get rid of dictatorial governments, and I guarantee, no one would go hungry.

REPLY: AMEN! Before you can do any of this, you have to allow people the freedom to thrive....If people like Mark (the "Blame America for the World's Problems" crowd) have their way, that won't happen in these places....

Ozinop, I don't mean to be agressive but you know