By planting corn instead of soy,
You take a bunch of soy off of the American export market.
And surprisingly that soy gets grown in Brazil/Argentina.

How could anyone have ever seen that one coming....
(Unless they've ever taken MacroEconomics 101)

MongaBay
New York Times

More scientists and economists need to raise their voices and tell the truth about how corn based ethanol subsidies in the U.S., and related energy intensive corn ethanol production, have (i) little or no value with respect to either GHG reductions nor energy security, (ii) contribute to starvation and poverty by raising food prices worldwide, (iii) waste precious ground water resources in a growing regions increasingly impacted by climate induced drought, (iv) contribute to deadzones offshore because of oxygen depleting runoff, (v) contaminate our air with higher NOx emissions, and (vi) enrich agricultural special interests that corrupt our democracy through campaign contributions.

Brazilian soybean production began its explosive growth long before the U.S. corn ethanol boom. Soybean expansion has been taking place in the cerrado, a tropical savannah, not in the Amazon. This expansion was made possible by breakthroughs in managing lateritic tropical soils, research for which goes back over a quarter century, and by the development of tropical varieties of soybeans. Dr. Norman Borlaug, father of the Green Revolution, called the development of the cerrado, "one of the great achievements of agricultural science in the 20th century." (See http://www.worldfoodprize.org/press_room/2006/June/2006Laureates.htm)

Although U.S. corn ethanol may have some small part to play in the expansion of soybeans, the primary driver has been the world's demand for high-protein soymeal for meat production. There could very well be pressure on land squatters to slash and burn their way farther into the Amazon for cattle production, but that's not where soybean development is heading. There is no need for expansion into the Amazon for soybeans, since over one million acres of scrubland is available in the cerrado. Logistics for agriculture are much much better in the cerrado than in the Amazon basin.

Or rather one should say that the corn ethanol issue has only begun to be a big factor.

And that Congress intends corn ethanol production to more than double.

Certainly that impact is going to get much larger as that happens.

As I understand it recent research has also shown that corn ethanol is the reason that the Mona Lisa doesn't have smile on her face. Is there anything that someone won't try to blame on ethanol?

When certain "academic" institutions start blaming industries like this, it's usually political & envy driven. The ethanol industry is getting big subsidies and has grown fast in recent years (envy); subsidies which are supported primarily by farm state democrats. The battle lines here will be between environmentalist democrats & the moderates, and bold solutions won't be proposed (noticed there aren't any in the article). Someway somehow they'll get together (ie. church of the environment) and blame everything on the Republicans.

The market for alternative fuels to replace oil is so huge, any solution is froth with economic and political traps. The only solution that makes sense is to channel federal financial support to develop the solar energy industry and to also bring automobile LiIon batteries to the mass market so our need to continue burning vast quantities of liquids in the atmosphere, thus producing toxic emissions, is not necessary(all in one sentence-wow!).

1) If corn ethanol is so great why is it being subsidized by $6 billion per year ($36 now proposed) in the US alone ?

2) In fact, why are the subsidies per gallon of corn ethanol 90 times the subsidies for a gallon of gasoline ? I am not for any subsidies.

3) 20% of U.S. corn is now being converted into 5 billion gallons of ethanol that represents only 1% of U.S. gas use !

4)If 100% of U.S. corn, ie, ALL our corn were converted into ethanol, this would represent only 7% of U.S. gas use.

5) What are your plans to reduce daily gas use by 93% ?

6) Are you prepared to tell everyone that there will be no corn left for food or tortillas ?

7) Why are the enormous environmental impacts of corn ethanol production, i.e., nitrogen run-off, pesticide run-off, herbicide run-off, the completely 'Dead Zone' off Texas the size of the state of New Jersey (circa 8,000 squre miles) not being taken into account ?

8) Why do you keep ignoring that corn production causes more soil erosion than any other crop grown ?

9) Why do you consistently ignore that corn production uses more nitrogen fertilizer than any other crop grown ?

10) Why do you ignore that nitrogen runoff from the corn fields is the prime cause of the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico ?

11) Why do you ignore that corn production uses more insecticides than any other crop grown ?

12) Why do you blatantly ignore that corn production uses more herbicides than any other crop grown ?

13) Why do you ignore that more than 1,700 gallons of water are required to produce 1 gallon of ethanol ?

14) Why do you ignore that 6 to 12 gallons of sewage effluent are released per gallon of corn ethanol produced ?

15) Why do you ignore that enormous quantities of carbon dioxide are produced, including the large quantity of fossil energy used in production, large quantities of carbon dioxide are released during fermentation, and when the soil is tilled organic matter
is exposed to air and oxidized ?

16) Why do you irresponsibly ignore that all the above speeds global warming instead of reducing it ?

17)Why do you ignore that related to the total operation, including the burning of the ethanol, the air, water & soil pollution problem are significant ?

18) Why do you ignore that several published scientific papers form UC Berkeley & Cornell University (not pamphlets printed by the DOE, USDA or corn lobby pundits using and after taxpayers money)show that one burns 1 gallon of gasoline equivalent in fossil fuels to produce 1 gallon of gasoline equivalent as ethanol from corn ?

19) Why do you ignore that when this corn ethanol is burned as a gasoline additive or fuel, its use amounts to burning the same amount of fuel twice to drive a car once ?

20) Why do you ignore that the fuel efficiency of those cars that burn corn ethanol is effectively halved ?

21) Why do you ignore that the widespread use of corn ethanol will cause manifold damage to air, surface water, soil and aquifers ?

22) Why do you ignore that the overall energy balance of corn conversion to ethanol demonstrates that 65% of the input energy is lost during the conversion ?

23) Why do you ignore that carbon dioxide sequestration by corn is nullified when corn ethanol is burned, and there will be additional carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, and sulfur oxide emissions from the fossil fuels used to produce the ethanol ?

24) What part of the above is not clear ?

25) Why do you ignore that the scenario for switchgrass, biodiesel & other biofuels is similar, if not worse when the total energy cycle is accounted for(switchgrass & biomass) ?

26) If you dont' understand 16) & 17) above, please mail me a $1,000 bill, and I'll mail back $500 and a free explanation of the laws of thermodynamics
(with no guarantee that you will ever understand them).

27) If the exhaust smells sooooo good and you like it so much, why dont' you stick your head in there
for a good while and let us know what happens ? The research on bioexhaust biofumes hasn't been even started, the first results are barely in, and, you did not guess, the carcinogens are there.

28) Are you surprised or were you sleeping during chemistry school ?

29) Why do you ignore the devastation now occuring in the Amazon forest a direct result from the disastrous subsidies here at home ?

30) Why do you ignore that most scientists agree that the Amazon and most rain forests around the world will be extinct in the next 10-15 years ?

31) Why don't you care ?

Ultimately, there will be an epic technological battle between BEVs and FCEVs for domination of the LDV marketplace, while bio-butanol, bio-hythane, and perhaps Algae based BTL split the MDV and HDV market. Ethanol will be relegated to the trash heap of history.

The US made about as much energy out of corn last year as it wasted in traffic jams in 2003. Happy days. Good to see the market working though... (irony)

They are finding cheaper better ways to make all the fuels we will use. Sd far sd food iddurd.. amaercans atr fat eniugh as it is and besides with oil going up food will be running low anyway soon enough. Just the prelude to the comming super famines to come as more of the fram regions grow fuel and less of the needy areas can grow anything as fuel screams up the charts to beyond the limits of what many regions can afford.

Better to start now and upgrade the tech quick so it can fuel itself after the oil age then just gope ev and h2 and a few buifuels techs will handlr it all.

socrates:

Very good questions.

Do you have the missing answers?

Could you come out with a set of similar questions related to the production + current consumption of oil extracted from Alberta tar sands?

Supplying the answers (within each question) would also be very informative.

Could anybody compare various facets of Corn Ethanaol vs Alberta tar sands oil?

socrates:

Very good questions.

Do you have the missing answers?

Could you come out with a set of similar questions related to the production + current consumption of oil extracted from Alberta tar sands?

Supplying the answers (within each question) would also be very informative.

Could anybody compare various facets of Corn Ethanaol vs Alberta tar sands oil?

The primary use of corn is for animal feed. When exports are included, about three-fourths of the U.S. corn crop goes into feed. (The corn we export to Mexico does not go into making tortillas. It's animal feed.)

The grain-to-meat EROI of major livestock are: 0.08 for cattle, 0.12 for hogs, 0.3 for eggs, and between 0.3 and 0.5 for poultry. This compares to an EROI of 1.3 for corn ethanol.

Ethanol plants use less than 5 gallons of water (less than 3 toilet flushes) to make one gallon of ethanol. The effluent cannot be released untreated into waterways. Modern plants now run their wastewater through anaerobic digesters to produce methane (natural gas) which is used in the plant. Water gets recycled.

Most corn is dryland farmed, not irrigated. 1700 gallons of water per gallon ethanol works out to 26 inches of growing season rainfall totally absorbed by the corn plants. Perhaps the 1700 gallon figure comes from including the water used in producing steel for tractors and combines?

The dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico long predated corn ethanol. Corn is not the most soil erosive crop. Corn produces a lot of trash, which is left in the field after harvest and binds the soil. Almost nobody moldboard plows anymore. It's all stubble mulch or no till.

Soybeans, on the other hand, leave very little trash in the field. Soil erosion is high on bean ground. Soybeans are also primarily used for animal feed. Brazil's soybeans are primarily shipped to China and south Asia, where the economic boom has created a huge demand for more meat production.

If you're really concerned about soil erosion, dead areas in the Gulf, rainforest degradation or agribusiness, STOP EATING MEAT.

The American corn belt should really be called the switchgrass-big bluestem belt, because those were the dominant plants prior to European settlement. A market for perennial grass biomass would see a large reduction in corn and bean acreage, reduced soil erosion, underground sequestration of carbon, rebuilding of soil and enhanced wildlife habitat. REAP-Canada has had switchgrass trials in southern Quebec and are producing pellet stove fuel at an EROI of 14.6. Modern pellet stoves are 95% efficient. The energy crisis is not only about cars.

Everybody worries about the Amazon rainforest, but the largest terrestrial carbon sink on the planet is the northern boreal forest. The carbon is tied up in the anoxic, acidic soils of spruce bogs and muskeg. There is rampant logging going on in Siberia and Canada that is drying out the soils and releasing carbon, but since the plants are not charismatic megaflora nobody pays attention.

Socrates...Bravo! Thank you! Post your information on auto website forums. I've posted the negatives of bio fuel on my car's websites. Of course, I get a lot of flack....or no flack at all(ignoring me, they hope I will go away). Your post, along with the news clip is in my Favorites that I can refer often to it.

Socrates...Bravo! Thank you! Post your information on auto website forums. I've posted the negatives of bio fuel on my car's websites. Of course, I get a lot of flack....or no flack at all(ignoring me, they hope I will go away). Your post, along with the news clip is in my Favorites that I can refer often to it.

The transition through corn-based to cellulosic ethanol is an uncomfortable one but it must be done. Keep in mind that in another two years the first mass-produced PHEVs will arrive starting the downward liquid fuel consumption curve.

Liquid fuel consumption rates will decrease proportional to the adoption of PHEVs. The stewards of the Amazon might want to take a hard look at the internal pressures placed on clearing jungle due to population growth and expansion.

Yes gr...It is uncomfortable. However, it is not necessary. What if 10% of drivers would slow down to my speed on the highway & begin feather footing...there would be more reduction in fossil fuel usage than the present displacement of fossil fuels with bio-fuels. & what an increased savings if 10% of the present heavy vehicle drivers commuting to work were to swap a sub-20MPG vehicle for a 30+ MPG car(for 20 years I got 40 to 45MPG)...& heaven forbid if 10% of people would car pool or shop in town once instead of twice!

Yes gr...it is uncomfortable when eliminating 10% of our needless waste would end our discomfort.

lite:

agreed. Along with alternative fuel resources are changes in driving patterns, vehicle usage and higher MPG commuters. Those actions will occur naturally as gasoline (however artificial) prices rise - they did so during the last gas crisis and will do so again.

It is no reason not to continue the transition to cellulosic. Energy solutions combine technology, amended behavior and long term planning. Population continues to be a major factor in most planetary ills.

Tar sands is a different issue. They produce less GHG than coal when converted into liquid fuel.

Either way no food production is displaced, so no Amazon impact.

No tar sands don't effect the Amazon, they just cause the destruction of the boreal forests of Canada.

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/09/20/TarSands/

And on the original subject, there is an article that says that deforestation in Brazil dropped 31% for the 2006-2007 year period. It also talks about soy farming as being a small part of the overall deforestation issue.

http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0813-amazon.html

mus302...Small part of the deforestation? Once we accurately compile all the small parts of the deforestation, we get the complete deforestation.

& what do you call small? 1 or 2 trees, 1 or 2 acres of trees, 1 or 2 thousand acres, 1 or 2 hundreds of thousands of acres. I cringe at what civilized people call small & acceptable destructions, not knowing what worlds they destroy.