What
You're Missing in our subscriber-only CounterPunch newsletter
CHINA'S GREAT LEAP BACKWARDS
Peter Kwong
gives us the "New China" without illusions: from the
"millionaires' fair" in Shanghai, with $60,000 diamond-studded dog leashes
to one
of the most savagely repressed working class and peasantry on
the planet. How China's
leaders swapped Marx and Mao for Milton Friedman. Alexander Cockburn
on What's wrong with the U.S. left.
They're sitting in darkened rooms weaving conspiracy fantasies
about 9/11; they're blogging; they're confusing a medium with
a movement; they're not doing enough to stop the war in Iraq.
John Ross
takes us along the stormy trail of the Mexican election. CounterPunch Online is read by millions of viewers
each month! But
remember, we are funded solely by the subscribers to the
print edition of CounterPunch. Please support this website by buying a subscription
to our newsletter, which contains fresh material you won't find
anywhere else, or by making a donation for the online edition. Remember contributions
are tax-deductible.Click
here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please:Subscribe
Now!
There's been a lot of talk lately about
the promise of biofuels -- liquid fuels like ethanol and biodiesel
made from plants -- to reduce our dependence on oil. Even President
Bush beat the biofuel drum in his last State of the Union speech.
Fuel from plants? Sounds pretty
good. But before you rush out to buy an E-85 pickup, consider:
-- The United States annually
consumes more fossil and nuclear energy than all the energy produced
in a year by the country's plant life, including forests and
that used for food and fiber, according to figures from the U.S.
Department of Energy and David Pimentel, a Cornell University
researcher.
-- To produce enough corn-based
ethanol to meet current U.S. demand for automotive gasoline,
we would need to nearly double the amount of land used for harvested
crops, plant all of it in corn, year after year, and not eat
any of it. Even a greener fuel source like the switchgrass President
Bush mentioned, which requires fewer petroleum-based inputs than
corn and reduces topsoil losses by growing back each year, could
provide only a small fraction of the energy we demand.
-- The corn and soybeans that make ethanol and biodiesel take
huge quantities of fossil fuel for farm machinery, pesticides
and fertilizer. Much of it comes from foreign sources, including
some that may not be dependable, such as Russia and countries
in the Middle East.
-- Corn and soybean production
as practiced in the Midwest is ecologically unsustainable. Its
effects include massive topsoil erosion, pollution of surface
and groundwater with pesticides, and fertilizer runoff that travels
down the Mississippi River to deplete oxygen and life from a
New Jersey-size portion of the Gulf of Mexico.
-- Improving fuel efficiency
in cars by just 1 mile per gallon -- a gain possible with proper
tire inflation -- would cut fuel consumption equal to the total
amount of ethanol federally mandated for production in 2012.
Rather than chase phantom substitutes
for fossil fuels, we should focus on what can immediately both
slow our contribution to global climate change and reduce our
dependence on oil and other fossil fuels: cutting energy use.
Let's be bold. Let's raise
the tax on gasoline to encourage consumers to buy fuel-efficient
cars and trucks. We can use the proceeds to fund research and
subsidies for truly sustainable energy.
Let's raise energy efficiency
standards for vehicles, appliances, industries and new buildings.
Let's employ new land-use rules
and tax incentives to discourage suburban sprawl and encourage
dense, mixed-use development that puts workplaces, retail stores
and homes within walking distance of each other. Let's better
fund mass transit.
Let's switch the billions we
now spend on ethanol subsidies to development of truly sustainable
energy technologies.
And why not spend money to
make on-the-shelf technology like hybrid cars more affordable?
Fuel-efficient hybrids aren't the final solution, but they can
be a bridge to more sustainable solutions.
The focus on biofuels as a
silver bullet to solve our energy and climate change crises is
at best misguided. At worst, it is a scheme that could have potentially
disastrous environmental consequences. It will have little effect
on our fossil fuel dependence.
We must reduce energy use now
if we hope to kick our oil addiction and slow climate change.
Pushing biofuels at the expense of energy conservation today
will only make our problems more severe, and their solutions
more painful, tomorrow.
Julia Olmstead is a graduate student in plant breeding
and sustainable agriculture at Iowa State University and a graduate
fellow with the Land Institute, Salina, Kan. She wrote this for
the institute's Prairie Writers Circle.
Now
Available
from CounterPunch Books!
The Case
Against Israel
By Michael Neumann
CounterPunch
Speakers Bureau Sick of sit-on-the-Fence speakers, tongue-tied and timid?
CounterPunch Editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair
are available to speak forcefully on ALL the burning issues,
as are other CounterPunchers seasoned in stump oratory. Call
CounterPunch Speakers Bureau, 1-800-840-3683. Or email beckyg@counterpunch.org.