Saturday, March 8, 2008

Ethanol

Corn-Based Fuel Fares Poorly in New Analysis
Smithsonian scientists back Swiss analysis that declares corn, soy, and sugarcane counterproductive
by Craig Weatherby

Click for full story and sources. Illustration by Victor Juhasz

You’ve heard the claim: corn, soy, sugarcane, and other “bio-fuels” can help wean America and the world off of petroleum.

And folks using recycled deep-fryer restaurant oil to run their diesel vehicles – like the tour busses for Willie Nelson’s and Dave Matthews’ bands – are being awarded halos.

But how real are the benefits claimed for ethanol from corn or soy, or bio-diesel from french-fry pits and Malaysian palm oil plantations?

The devil is in the details, according to the authors of a new Swiss study, whose conclusions were reviewed and ratified by scientists at the Smithsonian Institute.


The Swiss say that recycled deep-frier oil is indeed a good alternative to petroleum for diesel engines, because it is recycled, and because its environmental impacts are much less than those of the oil it is replacing.

But corn, soy, and sugarcane – currently, the three main sources of ethanol for cars – didn't fare nearly as well in their comprehensive new analysis.


US
bio-fuel corn boom pollutes with cutting petroleum

The food-or-fuel face-off

Current ethanol production represents only about three percent of domestic gasoline consumption, but it consumes 20 percent of the U.S. corn crop.


In September of 2006, Lester Brown, the president of the non-partisan Earth Policy Institute, noted in a Washington Post opinion piece that the amount of grain needed to make enough ethanol to fill a 25-gallon SUV tank “… would feed one person for a full year.

And, as he wrote, "If the United States converted its entire grain harvest into ethanol, it would satisfy less than 16 percent of its automotive needs.”

Prompted by subsidies offered to growers of corn for ethanol, American farmers, mostly in the Midwest, have been rushing to expand their corn plantings.

US ethanol subsidies cost American taxpayers some $11 billion a year, and are raising food prices and contributing to eco-destruction here and overseas.


Ethanol refiners get a 51 cent tax allowance for every gallon produced. And the International Institute for Sustainable Development found that ethanol subsidies amount to some $1.38 per gallon, or about half of ethanol's wholesale market price.

In America, conventional methods of growing corn accelerate soil erosion and deplete aquifers, which are essentially irreplaceable.

Corn fields also require vast amounts of petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides that end up in rivers and groundwater and continue to expand an already enormous “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico.

None of these costly impacts get considered when politicians tout the alleged societal benefits of corn-based ethanol.

Nor do proponents like to mention the huge amounts of petroleum needed to grow corn for ethanol. (Conventional fertilizers and pesticides are made from oil.)

By most calculations – including those of the new Swiss study – these energy inputs match or exceed the energy provided by ethanol made from corn.

In other words, we are wasting public money and irreplaceable water and soil resources in pursuit of a false promise of energy independence.

America’s corn boom destroys Amazon acreage indirectly

The rise in corn production in the US is having unintended negative consequences on one of the world’s most precious bio-resources.

From 2006 to the end of 2007 US corn production rose 19 percent, entirely due to demand for ethanol, while soy harvests fell by 15 percent. This has pushed up prices for corn, and for conventional beef and pork raised on the grain.

And, this subsidy-driven shift from corn to soy has nearly doubled global soy prices since late 2006.

After the US, Brazil is the world's largest soy producer. Higher world prices for soy are accelerating destruction of that nation’s Amazon rainforest and tropical savannas, to make room for more soy acreage.

The main soy-producing states in Brazil have seen a spike in Amazon fires and forest destruction over the last several months, with no explanation other than fast-rising soy (and beef) prices (STRI 2007).

Swiss study highlights environmental impacts of bio-fuels

Most studies that have attempted to evaluate different bio-fuel crops have focused on their capacity to cut greenhouse-gas emissions or fossil fuel use.

Some studies suggest that corn-derived ethanol in the United States and Europe consumes more energy than it produces (Adler PR et al 2007, Ulgiati S 2001), while others show a small net energy gain (Crutzen PJ 2007).

Compared with oil, nearly all bio-fuels reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, but input-free weeds such as switchgrass easily outperform input-heavy corn and soy (Bala G et al 2007).

Earlier this month, scientists at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute analyzed a new study commissioned by the Swiss government, whose authors sought to gauge the relative merits of 26 bio-fuels.

The Swiss scored each fuel using an index that takes into account relative reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions and environmental impacts, which include harm to human health and ecosystems and natural resource depletion.

The Smithsonian scientists – Jörn Scharlemann and William Laurance – summarized the results:

  • “The Swiss study identifies striking differences in the environmental costs of different bio-fuels. Fuels made from U.S. corn, Brazilian soy and Malaysian palm oil may be worse overall than fossil fuels.
  • The best alternatives include bio-fuels from residual products, such as recycled cooking oil and ethanol from grass or wood.”

If anything, the Swiss study understates the negative consequences of growing the wrong crops for bio-fuel. As the Smithsonian researchers said, “The … study falls short in that it fails to consider secondary consequences of bio-fuels, such as rising food costs, but it is a big step forward in providing a way to compare the environmental benefits and costs of dozens of different bio-fuels.

Dr. Laurance put the issue this way in a press release, “Different bio-fuels vary enormously in how eco-friendly they are. We need to be smart and promote the right bio-fuels, or we won’t be helping the environment much at all.” (STRI 2008)

Sources

  • Adler PR, Del Grosso SJ, Parton WJ. Life-cycle assessment of net greenhouse-gas flux for bioenergy cropping systems. Ecol Appl, 17, 675–691, 2007.
  • Bala G et al. Combined climate and carbon-cycle effects of large-scale deforestation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 April 17; 104(16): 6550–6555. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0608998104.
  • Crutzen PJ, Mosier AR, Smith KA, Winiwarter W. N2O release from agro-biofuel production negates global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels. Atmos. Chem. Phys Discuss, 7, 11191-11205, 2007.
  • Scharlemann JPW, Laurance WF. Science 4 January 2008: Vol. 319. no. 5859, pp. 43-44 DOI: 10.1126/science.1153103.
  • Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI). Corn... fuel... fire! U.S. corn subsidies promote Amazon de forestation. December 17, 2007. Accessed onloine January 6, 2008 at http://www.stri.org/english/about_stri/headline_news/news/article.php?id=736
  • Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI). Smithsonian scientists highlight environmental impacts of biofuels. January 3, 2008. Accessed onloine January 6, 2008 at http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-01/stri-ssh010308.php
  • Ulgiati S. A comprehensive energy and economic assessment of biofuels: when “green” is not enough. Crit Rev Plant Sci 2001;20(1):71-106.
  • Zah R et al. Ökobilanz von Energieprodukten: Ökologische Bewertung von Biotreibstoffen (Empa, St. Gallen, Switzerland, 2007).

Friday, March 7, 2008

Minnesota Timberwolf Shot

A southeastern Minnesota coyote hunter discovered last month that the north woods aren't the only place to find a wolf in Minnesota.

The man saw what he thought was a coyote about 250 yards away while hunting near the Whitewater Wildlife Management Area in Olmsted County.


The hunter reported the incident to a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources conservation officer.

The officer issued only a written warning because the hunter reported the incident, was forthcoming during the investigation and the animal was mistakenly taken well outside Minnesota's established wolf range.

"Typically, the killing of a wolf is a gross misdemeanor because it is a protected wild animal for which there is no hunting season," said DNR Enforcement Director Col. Mike Hamm. "Under different circumstances, the action could have led to a conviction, stiff fine, jail time and $2,000 restitution."

It is illegal, he said, to shoot a wolf except in defense of human life and, under certain circumstances, to protect livestock or pets.

Dan Stark, DNR wolf management specialist, said last month's incident is a reminder that wolves, while largely located in forested areas of central and northern Minnesota, do find their way to other parts of the state.

"We all need to know that young wolves sometimes roam hundreds of miles outside their normal range in search of a mate to establish a pack," said Stark. "There is a known population of wolves in central Wisconsin. That's just 50 miles from southeastern Minnesota, a short distance for a wolf to travel."

Stark said Minnesota's wolf management plan, which was approved by the DNR in 2001 and implemented in March of 2007, following removal from the federal endangered species list, aims to ensure the long-term survival of the wolf while resolving conflicts between wolves and humans.

"The wolf's presence enhances Minnesota's rich natural heritage," he said. "But people need to be aware that encounters may occur even in areas where wolf presence is rare."

Minnesota is home to about 3,000 wolves based on a 2003-04 survey, Stark said. A new population estimate will be released later this year.

I remember shooting at a wolf back in the sixties (they weren't protected then) while deer hunting in SE Minnesota. Their were always reports of deer and fox hunters seeing them in the late 60's.


Wednesday, March 5, 2008

The Fisherman

An American businessman was standing at the pier of a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the small boat were several large yellowfin tuna. The American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish.

“How long did it take you to catch them?” The American asked.

“Only a little while.” The Mexican replied.

“Why don’t you stay out longer and catch more fish?” The American then asked.

“I have enough to support my family’s immediate needs.” The Mexican said.

“But,” The American then asked, “What do you do with the rest of your time?”

The Mexican fisherman said, “I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take a siesta with my wife, Maria, stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine and play guitar with my amigos, I have a full and busy life, senor.”

The American scoffed, “I am a Harvard MBA and could help you. You should spend more time fishing and with the proceeds you buy a bigger boat, and with the proceeds from the bigger boat you could buy several boats, eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats.”

“Instead of selling your catch to a middleman you would sell directly to the consumers, eventually opening your own can factory. You would control the product, processing and distribution. You would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then LA and eventually NYC where you will run your expanding enterprise.”

The Mexican fisherman asked, “But senor, how long will this all take?”

To which the American replied, “15-20 years.”

“But what then, senor?”

The American laughed and said, “That’s the best part. When the time is right you would announce an IPO (Initial Public Offering) and sell your company stock to the public and become very rich, you would make millions.”

“Millions, senor? Then what?”

The American said slowly, “Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take a siesta with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos…”

Minnesota Moose Population Down

Northeastern Minnesotas moose population
continues to decline
 


An aerial survey conducted in January estimates that the number of
moose in northeastern Minnesota increased from 6,600 in 2007 to 7,600 in
2008, but the long-term trend suggests that Minnesota?s moose herd
remains in decline, according to the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (DNR).

At first glance, the raw numbers appear to suggest that the
population has increased, said Dr. Mark Lenarz, DNR wildlife
researcher. The margin of error, however, overlapped between years,
which means that there was no significant change in the number of moose
this year.

Based solely on the survey results, I would be hesitant to infer a
declining population, he said. But the long-term population trend
suggests otherwise, and there are other factors that significantly
impact moose population.
Aerial surveys to estimate the moose population have been conducted
every year since 1960. But wildlife researchers implemented a new
methodology in 2005. Lenarz said statistical comparisons of data
collected from 2005 to 2008 indicate that the population increase was
not as significant as it appears.

When nonhunting factors such as disease, bull and cow pairings, cow
pregnancy rates, calf survival and predation are considered, indexes
used to estimate herd viability drop below the levels at which
researchers would like to see them.
Lenarz said a study of radio-collared moose in northeastern Minnesota
shows that non-hunting mortality has averaged 21 percent during the last
six years. Elsewhere in North America, that rate generally falls between
8 and 12 percent.
Biologically, issuing 200-250 permits a year for a bull-only hunt
doesn't negatively impact Minnesota?s moose population, said Lou
Cornicelli, DNR big game program coordinator. What directly impacts
moose population is the cow and calf survival rates.

Minnesota is the only state in the central region of the lower 48
states with a significant moose population. The moose is the largest
member of the deer family.

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

Mille Lacs Slot

Lake Mille Lacs walleye slot set for 2008 (March 4, 2008)

Anglers who fish Lake Mille Lacs during the 2008 fishing season will be able to keep four walleye up to 18 inches in length. The bag limit of four may include one trophy more than 28 inches.

The regulation, which begins May 10 and requires anglers to release all walleye from 18-to 28-inches, was set by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources following input from Mille Lacs area resort, angling and related interests.

The regulation aims to ensure that the state angler harvest falls within the state’s 2008 allocation of 307,500 pounds of walleye. Eight Chippewa Indian bands from Minnesota and Wisconsin may take 122,500 pounds of walleye.

Monday, March 3, 2008

Winston Churchill

Nancy Astor was an American socialite who married into an English branch of the wealthy Astor family (she holds the distinction of being the first woman to be seated in Parliament). At a 1912 dinner party in Blenheim Palace—the Churchill family estate—Lady Astor became annoyed at an inebriated Winston Churchill, who was pontificating on some topic. Unable to take any more, she finally blurted out, "Winston, if you were my husband, I'd put poison in your coffee." Without missing a beat, Churchill replied:
Winston Churchill

"Nancy, if you were my wife, I'd drink it."

Another famous Churchill reply also involves a London party and a female Member of Parliament, and once again a slightly inebriated Churchill. This time, it was Bessie Braddock, a socialist Member of Parliament from Liverpool, who finally had enough. She reproached Churchill by charging, "Winston, you're drunk!" The Grand Old Man may have had one too many drinks, but he still had his wits about him, replying:

Winston Churchill

"You're right, Bessie. And you're ugly.
But tomorrow morning, I'll be sober.
And you'll still be ugly."

Actual questions asked of National Park Rangers

GRAND CANYON:
Was this man made?
Do you light it up at night?
Is the mule train air conditioned?
So where are the faces of the presidents?


EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK:
Are the alligators real?
Are the baby alligators for sale?
Where are all the rides?
What time does the 2 o'clock bus leave?


MESA VERDE NATIONAL PARK:
Did people build this, or did Indians?
Why did they build the ruins so close to the road?
Do you know of any undiscovered ruins?
What did they worship in the kivas - their own made up religion?
Why did the Indians decide to live in Colorado?


CARLSBAD CAVERNS NATIONAL PARK:
How much of the cave is underground?
So what's in the unexplored part of the cave?
So what is this - just a hole in the ground?


YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK:
Where are the cages for the animals?
What time of year do they turn on Yosemite Falls?
What happened to the other half of Half Dome?


YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK:
Does Old Faithful erupt at night?
How do you turn it on?
When does the guy who turns it on get to sleep?
We had no trouble finding the park entrance but where are the exits?


DENALI NATIONAL PARK:
What's so wonderful about Wonder Lake?
How much does Mount McKinley weigh?
What time do you feed the bears?
How often do you mow the tundra?

Sunday, March 2, 2008

Time To Start Thinking Golf


If you are ever in the Leadville, Co. area you should go play a round at Mt.Massive Golf Club. They advertize it as the highest golf course in North America. This is the only time I have been out of breath from hitting balls on the range(which, by the way, is full of Prairie Dogs, be careful so you don't hurt one). This is also the first course that said to keep the carts in the fairway so the native tundra grasses are not damaged. The views are wonderful.

http://www.mtmassivegolf.com/

http://minnesotaoutside.net