[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes - without, unfortunately, any >'s to indicate who said what:
>In a message dated 9/12/2003 1:23:38 PM Central Daylight Time, >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Actually Ken Provost wrote: >If your aim is more subversive, like energy being >dispersed and homegrown rather than centralized for the >profit of corporations, any cool thing like biodiesel is always >at risk of being taken out of your hands (ie, made illegal) for >their exclusive benefit. ... and esbuck wrote: >When it comes to aims, things get confused. There are those who are >interested in biofuels as fuels. Why? That's somewhat limited. If all you're interested in is fuel then just use dino and let the world rot, what the hell. >I live in a small house on a small lot, and I'm not >really in a position to grow my own diesel fuel. I would be happy to buy it >from ADM or Exxon-Mobil if the price was right. Others, it seems, >see biofuels >as a way to prevent corporations from making a profit; they are socialists >and full of envy. Sheesh! If that's all you've managed to garner here you haven't been paying much attention. Come on - you had a superficial glance at what Ken said and simply pasted your own prejudices over it, right? >My religious scruples do not permit me to fight corporations, >simply because their bank accounts are larger than mine and they are more >efficient at fuel production. The first bit isn't very well founded, big corps can be and have been beaten by small groups with no resources, and the last bit is questionable - the big commercial producers have long accused homebrewers of being a peril to biofuels, but it turns out that it's the corps who're more likely to make bad fuel, and have done so recently on at least a couple of occasions. Always toeing the bottom line doesn't necessarily equal "efficiency". >Perhaps it would help, in some of these >discussions, if the agenda was more explicit. The "agenda" as such has been stated often and clearly. Didn't you see this, for instance? - "Fwd: Re: Got BioDiesel?", posted a couple of days ago, forwarded from Ben Falk: >There is sometimes less assurance of homebrew quality, but like with other >products, it oftentimes makes more sense to buy from a local farmer who you >know (and thus who's operation you know) than a certified organic farmer >from the other side of the country. The benefits to the whole system tend >to be greater when loops are closed and economies are dealt with on a >regional/local level: better economizing on distribution, less waste, >better connection between producer and consumer (better community), more >local control, etc. A homebrewer's fuel is almost always derived from stock >(used veggie oil) locally, and it is burned locally as well, closing the >loop from production to consumption within the same region. Homebrew is >also almost always made with locally generated USED veggie oil that needs >little shipping. It is almost always produced without encouraging the >farming of transgenic Monsanto rapeseed and RoundUp Ready soybeans that >industrial biodiesel rely upon heavily. Local fuel (like local most >anything) puts more money in the hands of grassroots innovators and >neighbors - than it does in the executive pockets of ADM, Proctor and >Gamble, Cargill, The National Soybean Board and the others who sit on the >boards of the Biodiesel regulation & certification industry. The reasons to >support a homebrewer go on. > >That said, burning biodiesel from World Energy (the largest producer of >biodiesel in the world and the company that makes Global E's fuel) is far >better than burning fossils from the Middle East or South America, to be >sure. > >But I would pose the question "Why are we finding alternatives to fossil >fuels in the first place" It seems that our answers would have everything >to do with sustainability - either economic, ecological, or social. If >making a more sustainable choice is part of what we are after, then doing >what we can to support the localization of the renewable fuel industry is >critical. [Excerpt] It's often said here that simply substituting biofuels for fossil fuels won't get anyone very far - it also needs greatly reduced fuel consumption, greatly increased fuel efficiency, and, most important, decentralization of supply. Or we'll simply have Big Biofuels instead of (or as well as) Big Oil all over again, which is what got us into this mess in the first place. Yes, it's a mess. The rest of Bryan's message, and previous: >Ken, > > > >The sheeple aren't interested in decentralization, they just want cheap >gas and they don't care where it comes from. Are you sure about that, Bryan? There have been surveys that have shown that more and more PEOPLE (please note!) in the US, and now it's a majority, would pay more for cleaner and more fuel-efficient cars if given the choice. Quite another group (though no doubt with overlap) does care where it comes from - they don't want it to come from the Middle East, for rather bad and disconnected reasons that include a lot of denial, but the point is that, right or wrong, it wasn't difficult to persuade them of that. >So while we may be able to >grow (literally and figuratively) BD on the grass-roots level, it will >eventually be taken over by agri-business. You can look at food farming >for your example. What is the percentage of food grown in the US by >giant corporations? How much is grown by "family" farmers? How many >families do you know who are self-sufficient? Compare those numbers to >a century ago. Anyone can have a subsistence garden, look at the >victory gardens of WW II; but most people don't care, or won't bother. But more and more do care, and do bother. Agri-business, and the increasingly large share of government that it's bought, has worked hard to wipe out family farms, especially over the last 2-3 decades, and the same thing has happened to family businesses. That's not because they're more efficient or more competitive, it's because they're bullies, and ruthless. For instance, they wiped out small-scale, free-range poultry farms by buying control of the slaughterhouses and refusing them access. Also, you make a mistake in calling it "food farming" - that's essentially what it's not, it's industrialized production of agricultural commodities, and it's anything but efficient. The "food", if you can still call it that, on a US supermarket shelf has travelled an average of 1,500 miles - hardly efficient, and a huge waste of fossil fuels. It only looks efficient because of all the subsidies and market-rigging. Family farms are anything but dead. There's been a considerable swing to local farming, local food, local markets in the last few years, and it's growing fast. It's sustainable and has a future. Agribusiness and industrialised "farming" is not sustainable and doesn't have a future. That's very comparable to localized biofuels production vs the big corps. Biodiesel homebrewers are already costing Big Oil millions upon millions a year, just in the US, and they're that efficient and formidable and omnipotent that they haven't even noticed yet. When they do, it'll be too late. They might not find the "law" quite as bendable as you think. >Subsequently, agri-business dominates all discussion about domestic food >production. No way it does, though it likes to think so. >It's clear that unless a revolution happens we're going to >use up our supplies of fossil oil, and then look for something to take >its place. BD and ethanol are perfect replacements because they will >fit into the current fossil-fuel production and distribution network >with a minimum of modification. The current fuel production and distribution network is already being undermined and supplanted. I think that applies to energy in general. >No matter what we do to promote >biofuels they will eventually be in demand; and to an extent that >homebrewers will be unable to meet. Certainly - but that goes for any fuel, including fossil-fuel. Demand is due to exceed supply, no matter the suppliers. Both the demand and the supply are not sustainable. Two things will happen, at least, preferably in advance, or very painfully if not in advance: demand will decrease, and supply will have to be localized, as local production is able to exploit local niches much more efficiently than centralized production can do, and there will no longer be the luxury of being able to use fuel to transport fuel where it's not absolutely necessary. Check these out: "Small family and part-time farms are at least as efficient as larger commercial operations. There is evidence of diseconomies of scale as farm size increases." -- "Are Large Farms More Efficient?" Professor Willis L. Peterson, University of Minnesota, 1997. Abstract: http://ideas.repec.org/p/wop/minnas/9702.html Download (Acrobat file, 52kb): http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/mn/p97-02.pdf The myth of efficiency http://www.turnpoint.org/efficiency.doc There's plenty more like that. >The advantage to getting the word >out now rather than later is that since homebrewers are currently the >"experts" in the field, we can help shape the dialog about biofuels and >influence public policy (at least until agri-business takes over). If >we keep quiet, and refuse to talk to "right-wingers," then the first >information they receive about BD or ethanol will likely come from some >publicist at ADM or Monsanto. The question is which version would you >rather the public hears first? That's a better question. But the homebrewers seem to have answered it already for themselves. Another list member lost an argument about that last week, saying there'd been no mainstream publicity about it and only eco-nerds had ever heard of it, or some such. >> > In fact biodiesel has been increasingly well-publicized, in the US >> > and elsewhere, but primarily by DIY'ers and backyarders (like most of >> > us here), not by industry and the big producers, who readily admit >> > that we're more effective than they are at spreading the message. >> > (They say we're "useful at demonstrating community support", but >> > beyond that we're a "peril".) So don't look for much or any good to >> > come from big investers paying a PR company, we do it much better, >> > and we do it for nothing - big PR bills just push up the unit price. >> > (There's no such thing as small PR bills.) Three or four years ago >> > biodiesel was indeed obscure, but not any longer. If you'd searched >> > the news and media databases you'd have seen how much publicity about >> > it you didn't see. >> >>I dont disgree. Bio-D is becoming well publicized, but only if your >>"looking" for it. > >Not so. > >>I've spent that last 25 years NOT knowing a diesel >>could run on veggie oil, and I grew up on a farm and was raised in an >>automotive garage. I think I know a few things about engines. (well, >>gas ones anywayz). My point is that Bio-D is still not "Headline News". >>You tend to find it on the "public access channel" or the feelgood >>story at the end of the news about the poor kid who had to make his own >>fuel. boo hoo. > >You're wrong. It's been on quite a lot of front pages, such as >front-page lead story in The Seattle Times, September 30, 2002, in >the Wall Street Journal, May 9, 2002, on pg. A.1 of the Los Angeles >Times; May 12, 2003, the Detroit News, Business Section, January 5, >2003 (with Associated Press), the Boston Globe, 26 May 2002, The >Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, June 16, 2002... and so on and on >and on. That's just a skim off the top, there's LOTS more, including >in many, or probably most, farming journals. So the question remains whether someone like Bill O'Reilly would be a positive medium or not. Best Keith >-BRAH > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Ken Provost [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 2:28 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [biofuel] Darryl Hannah Turns O'Reilly on to Biodiesel > > > > >On Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 09:17 AM, Bryan Brah wrote: > > > .....I say that anything that gets the word out about > > bio-fuels is good. It won't hurt you in any way (that is unless > > other homebrewers start trying to get your feedstock, or your > > suppliers start charging you). In fact this can only help our > > cause. If BD was more popular, then more distributors would > > sell it, and more people would buyit, these same people in turn > > would pressure automakers to offer more cars, which would be > > purchased by other consumers, who would demand BD > > for their new cars, which would make more distributors offer it, etc, > > etc, etc... .......Once the public accepts BD as "just another > > fuel" then we will have succeeded. > > > >Depends what you're trying to succeed at, I guess. If you just >want business as usual, but including biofuels, then you are >correct. If your aim is more subversive, like energy being >dispersed and homegrown rather than centralized for the >profit of corporations, any cool thing like biodiesel is always >at risk of being taken out of your hands (ie, made illegal) for >their exclusive benefit. -K ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LIdGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
