Interesting timing, especially when some biomass companies are switching from wood chips to corn, because they couldn’t turn a profit on wood chips. Looks like all the wheels are coming off the bus now.
To Survive, Some Biofuels Companies Give Up on Biofuels – Technology Review
Gevo, a prominent advanced-biofuels company that has received millions in U.S. government funding to develop fuels made from cellulosic sources such as grass and wood chips, is finding that it can’t use these materials if it hopes to survive. Instead, it’s going to use corn, a common source for conventional biofuels. What’s more, most of the product from its first facility will be used for chemicals rather than fuel.
As the difficulty of producing cellulosic biofuels cheaply becomes apparent, a growing number of advanced-biofuels companies are finding it necessary to take creative approaches to their business, even though that means abandoning some of their green credentials, at least temporarily, and focusing on markets that won’t have a major impact on oil imports. This is hardly the outcome the government hoped for when it announced cellulosic-biofuels mandates, R&D funding, and other incentives in recent years.
Here’s the story on the subsidy ending from the Detroit News:
Congress adjourned for the year on Friday, failing to extend the tax break that’s drawn a wide variety of critics on Capitol Hill, including Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. Critics also have included environmentalists, frozen food producers, ranchers and others.
The policies have helped shift millions of tons of corn from feedlots, dinner tables and other products into gas tanks.
Environmental group Friends of the Earth praised the move.
“The end of this giant subsidy for dirty corn ethanol is a win for taxpayers, the environment and people struggling to put food on their tables,” biofuels policy campaigner Michal Rosenoer said Friday.
Dirty Corn Ethanol? I’m all for ending taxpayer siphoning, but dirty corn ethanol?
Full story h/t to Lawrence Depenbush
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ethanol naysayers should consider supply, demand, and price. Remove ethanol from the market, and gasoline prices will have to spike in order to quash 10% of demand. You could easily see $8/gallon. Increases in liquid fuel supplies since 2005 have been mostly from unconventional sources, e.g. biofuels.
You do realize you live in a 24 hour world and many posters to this forum might be 7-8 hours ahead of behind you in time zone, not to mention be on alternate work cycles, where they do not even get off work until most people are fast asleep?
Thanks for posting a link to the single most discredited author of outlier studies regarding ethanol.
Patzek has been turning out this trash for years, and his studies have been repeatedly shown to be riddled with bad assumptions, old out of date data, and citing his own work as an authoritative source. Not to mention it is a very old study with regard to the rapidly changing ethanol production technology. In 1994 the energy balance was found to be approximately 1.24 in the ratio of process energy invested vs energy value produced in the full ethanol production cycle,
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer721/AER721.PDF
By 2002 the studies were placing the balance at 1.34
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/265.pdf
By 2008 the studies of modern plant operations specified returns that were much higher yet.
http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/2008Ethanol_June_final.pdf
Recycling process energy by careful plant design to use waste heat in one area to pre-heat another process. Changes in water handling for plants that produce wet distillers grains and selling the co-products locally without drying to save energy etc. have fundamentally changed the energy balance of production for fuel ethanol.
Larry
John Bronson @11:48:”Ethanol naysayers should consider supply, demand, and price. Remove ethanol from the market, and gasoline prices will have to spike in order to quash 10% of demand. You could easily see $8/gallon.”
I think a better estimate, which I base on the $0.70 spike in prices after the Libyan war started, is an increase of about $0.54 per gallon increase in the US price of gasoline. Other estimates I’ve seen estimate increases ranging from $0.34 per gallon (cited by the national corn growers association.) to $1.00 per gallon (the latter number from a paper linked to earlier this thread.)
Larry in Texas says:
December 29, 2011 at 12:56 am
I approve of what Congress did today. Regardless of the vigorous arguments both for and against ethanol, I do not believe the Federal government should be mandating its use nor should it be providing any kind of tax credits.
I’m quite aware of the propaganda of the ethanol lobby over the years. They have not needed a tax credit for the development of ethanol, nor do they need a mandate. The fact is that ethanol does not have the energy density of gasoline, so of course they have to trick it up (E10) by blending it in with gasoline so that cars do not cost a person too much mileage. Of course, corn production has shot up, and corn product prices (especially in Texas, where ranchers have bitterly complained here of high feed prices) continue to remain high. Sorry A. Scott, but many of your facts are simply either incorrect or irrelevant. It’s not wise to use your food as fuel in the long run. If the market place finds it worthwhile, ethanol will ultimately become useful. Right now, if it needs mandates and subsidies, that to me smacks of relative uselessness.
People, don’t force the love! It is never a good idea to force the love!
That may be your personal opinion but is not supported by facts. Tax credits are appropriate for and necessary to bring new technology to a sustainable level. Exactly as has occurred in Brazil.
The difference in energy between ethanol and gasoline is well known – there is no “trick” involved. Gasoline was already blended – with now banned MTBE – an oxygenate to raise the octane number. Ethanol replaced MTBE and serves the same purpose – as a required oxygenate.
I also showed your claim that corn production “shot up” is false. Acres planted increased significantly in only one year, 2007, since 2005. Then fell substantially following year, and have inched back up since.
As far as ranchers complaining about feed prices they must not be looking in the right places. There were 58 billion pounds of distillers dried grains produced in 2009 with 39% was used in dairy rations, 38% in beef cattle rations, 15% in swine production, 7% by poultry, and 1% by other livestock species. Costs for distillers dried grains are less than corn for a superior product – as an example:
“On a per pound basis, Nebraska prices of WDGS have trended from a high of 26% of corn prices in early April 2007 down to 7‐8% in early September 2009, before recovering to consistently be in the 12‐14% range since October 2009.
http://www.agmanager.info/livestock/budgets/production/beef/LivestockRations_OBrien_04-23-10.pdf
Higher quality, higher nutritional value, cheaper price … better feed. The real problem affecting Texas cattle ranchers is the drought and lack of hay.
If you are going to make claims like this, again, it helps to actually know what you are talking about.
As to my facts being wrong or irrelevant – how about you actually back up that claim with some facts of your own then?
As to subsidies – I again encourage you to read the simple Wiki page on Brazilian ethanol. Itr will show you how ethanol has become a strong sustainable part of their energy program – and that it would not have happened without government support. I understand its inconvenient to your, and similar others, rants – but it is fact none the less. It took 40 years and significant government support but Brazil has a successful, sustainable, ethanol program providing significant benefit and impact on their energy needs.
Larry in Texas says:
December 29, 2011 at 12:56 am
Of course, corn production has shot up, and corn product prices (especially in Texas, where ranchers have bitterly complained here of high feed prices) continue to remain high.
Yes – lets look in more detail at your claim about the Texas ranchers … first as I noted the far more significant issue is drought. And the lack of hay/grazing for feed.
Texas A&M did a study on exactly that – Ethanol and Texas Food and Feed.
http://www.afpc.tamu.edu/pubs/2/515/RR-08-01.pdf
Here are key conclusions – note they found the underlying issue is overall increase in energy costs. They also found that reducing required amounts of ethanol would not significantly lower corn prices (or price of corn for feed):
The study also found distillers dried grains offer a number of advantages as feed:
Most all of this report by a leading Texas institution and about the effect of ethanol on Texas food and feed, found little or no direct effect – that it was primarily the overall increase in cost of energy causing the issues – not ethanol.
And they found distillers dried grains WERE a lower cost and higher value option for animal feed.
They DID have to find something wrong though – and that was their claim that producer will incur significant transportation costs to get distillers dried grain. To get to this position they have to perform a torturous dance twisting facts.
They first claim:
“… a well-developed infrastructure for storing and moving corn efficiently around the country currently exists.”
Followed by this:
“DDG production is still largely concentrated in the Corn Belt. Getting DDG to other parts of the
country involves considerable transportation expense that, for producers in many parts of the country, will quickly erode any relative price advantage of DDG compared with corn.”
Basically an outright lie – even on its face. They admit corn for feed must be transported to Texas. Which is a fact as Texas normally produces just 2% of the US corn crop. This year is far worse coming in at appx 0.9% due to the severe weather conditions.
It is no more difficult to transport distillers dried grain animal feed than corn. They are both coming from the same areas – the larger corn producing regions. Which they are forced to admit in the report, even while downplaying it:
“The ability to feed DDGS does confer some benefit in terms of profitability”
So Larry in Texas – seen Texas A&M admits ethanol is not the cause, and that in actuality distillers dried grains are a cost effective and beneficial replacement for corn as feed. Keep in mind this was a 2008 report, and all of the metrics have improved since then – with over 60 billion pounds of distillers grains available as a co-product of ethanol production.
Another incorrect statement and claim. Texas cattle ranchers are suffering because of severe drought and high overall energy costs – ethanol, as Texas A&M agrees, is simply a convenient scapegoat.
Please read the Wiki entry on Brazil’s Ethanol program. You will find all of your answers there.
They have a successful and sustainable ethanol program that is highly beneficial to their energy program. But it took 40 years and strong government support to get it to that point.
Their ethanol program is “reality” – it is a road map to the “reality” – the processes and time required to create a new sustainable energy program.
Or would you argue their ethanol program is worthless as well?
Sorry Sal – no other way to put this … what an ignorant uninformed and outright false load of claptrap that is.
And to quote Patzek, who has been completely and thoroughly debunked, by a myriad of agencies, institutions, and almost every reputable scientist in the field shows your complete lack of knowledge on the subject.
None of the MANY detailed study’s – including all those refuting Patzak and Pimentel – “only present the last step” – just more outright lies and uninformed garbage from you. Unlike Patzek and Pimentel, who ignore any part of the science that does not support their agenda, and then purposely cook the books and manipulate the data to place all the negative assumption on ethanol, the rest of those involved make significant effort to fairly and properly account for all parts of the process.
Unlike Patzek and Pimental – the Jones & Mann of the “ethanol haters” brigade, the rest of those studying the issue do NOT purposely ignore the proven considerable value of co-products like distillers dried grains, corn meal, corn oil and the like. Even Wiki will show you, in an old study at that, the value of co-products increases net energy balance by a significant amount – from memory from appx 1.2 to 1 to over 1.6 to 1 at the time.
You clearly haven’t the remotest clue, nor do you show any care at all to even try and learn. It is people like you and their refusal to even try to learn some of the real facts – as opposed to just regurgitating tired old rhetoric un-supported by facts – that, IMO, is why we are where we are at in the world today.
A. Scott says:
December 29, 2011 at 1:56 pm
More disinformation from the master of it.
1) Brazil’s ethanol program is from sugar cane, which is much, much more efficient than doing the same from corn.
2 As many others have pointed out, Brazil’s ethanol progaram is nowhere near as successful as you have been claiming.
3) If it took 40 years of govt support in order to finally break even, assuming your claims of breaking even are correct, then the program is by definition a failure. You have to count the billions of dollars sunk into the program before you can even begin to calculate a ROI on that investment.
“Tax credits are appropriate for and necessary to bring new technology to a sustainable level. ”
Complete and utter bovine droppings.
Tax credits are only usefull for lining the pockets of the politically well connected. If a product is capabale of turning a profit in any reasonable time line, you will have no problem finding private investors. What you have left is people like you who are willing to spend other people’s money to make their dreams come true. Parasites like you are one of the reasons why are taxes are ruinously high.
Thank God!
Another Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI<1) scam bites the dust.
Here ya go Sal – you don’t have to do a bunch of that pesky hard reading and the like – here is a clear picture of the credibility of Patzek and Pimentel’s work.
http://www.pacificethanol.net/site/_images/media_photos/energy_balance_chart.gif
Here is Businessweeks take:
David Patzek works directly for, and is funded by, the oil and gas industry. That is for real – not some made up claim as with the AGW issue. UC Berkely has received huge sums from the oil companies – hundreds of millions. The base fee to belong the the UC Oil group he set up was $60k/yr … http://web.archive.org/web/20090617202512/http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/UCOil/structure.htm
Patzek job is to help oil companies extract oil. Which personally I hope he is very good at we need all the help we can get at accessing OUR oil reserves.
But it makes him a terrible person to even consider believing when it comes to ethanol, which is well proven by the complete outlier status of his work – by his alleged “studies” being soundly refuted by a myriad of instituitions, agencies and a large group of scientists. .
A. Scott,
When do you give up? After 40 comments? 50? Your last lengthy comment (replete with cut & paste talking points from the ethanol industry propaganda sites) was cute but alas, it was rife with…uhh…let’s say “inaccuracies”. First let me caution you about using Texas A&M as a fount of wisdom. Texas A&M is the home of Andrew Dessler for crying out loud! Distiller’s grains (i.e. ethanol waste product) can not possibly be higher in nutritional value than the raw grains. We don’t need much ethanol in gasoline to serve as an oxygenator. Actually, there is little need for oxygenators (MTBE or ethanol) in gasoline anymore because most vehicles today have computer controlled fuel injection. Oxygenators were necessary for older vehicles with carburetors in cold weather.
The bottom line is there is no good reason for ethanol as a motor fuel. Hell, I don’t care if people want to make it or people want to buy it. I just don’t want to be forced to buy it or subsidize it. Even you would probably agree that the ethanol industry is now “well developed” (e.g. billions of gallons a year and 40% of our annual corn crop). So why not end the mandates and subsidies? If this is such a whiz bang technology it should survive on its own, right? But I’ll gladly bet you a month’s salary that if the mandated use, the subsidies and the tariffs were removed, the industry would collapse within a year (possibly two because some idiots like E85).
Myrrh says:
December 29, 2011 at 4:20 am
Gail must be on hols – here’s a link she posted earlier on food speculation courtesy of Goldman Sachs:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/27/how_goldman_sachs_created_the_food_crisis?page=0,1
Thanks Myrrh … pretty much what I said … speculators ran up the costs of commodities – just another playground for them.
And as noted above in doing so they’ve largely eliminated the ability of the people who need it to hedge, as the speculators and Wall Street’s douchebaggery – and resultant collapse of markets – because of resultant new margin requirements – has made it increasing difficult to access benefits of the commodities markets.
A.Scott,
Your reference to Wiki is really a laugh.
Do you know or just ignore the fact that Brazil’s economy has turned around because they have discovered significant oil offshore, and are exploiting it to the fullest with support from Our President via loans to Brazil for the development of their offshore oil exploration ,while throttling back offshore exploration in the US.
Are you ignoring the difference of manufacturing ethanol from sugar cane versus from wood chips, etc.? Ethanol from sugar cane makes sense especially if one has cheap labor to gather the feedstock.
Did you know that their ethanol production has recently significantly fallen off and that they have reduced the mandated % required?
Did you know that they are importing ethanol from the US made from corn to make up the loss in production?
Did you know that a military dictatorship forced the country on ethanol and their economy was in severe difficulty for years. Is that what you want the administration to do to make ethanol successful?
A. Scott says:
December 28, 2011 at 2:52 am
This was your first post on this thread.
————-
A. Scott says:
December 29, 2011 at 2:40 pm
This was the latest post on this thread.
==================
You must be getting paid double-time-and-a-half. You are certainly motivated to pitch your views.
How long were you awake in your world prior entering this thread. I gotta get me some of those vitamins if they’re legal.
Dr. Dave says:
December 29, 2011 at 2:48 pm
A. Scott,
When do you give up? After 40 comments? 50? Your last lengthy comment (replete with cut & paste talking points from the ethanol industry propaganda sites) was cute but alas, it was rife with…uhh…let’s say “inaccuracies”. First let me caution you about using Texas A&M as a fount of wisdom. Texas A&M is the home of Andrew Dessler for crying out loud! Distiller’s grains (i.e. ethanol waste product) can not possibly be higher in nutritional value than the raw grains. We don’t need much ethanol in gasoline to serve as an oxygenator. Actually, there is little need for oxygenators (MTBE or ethanol) in gasoline anymore because most vehicles today have computer controlled fuel injection. Oxygenators were necessary for older vehicles with carburetors in cold weather.
The bottom line is there is no good reason for ethanol as a motor fuel. Hell, I don’t care if people want to make it or people want to buy it. I just don’t want to be forced to buy it or subsidize it. Even you would probably agree that the ethanol industry is now “well developed” (e.g. billions of gallons a year and 40% of our annual corn crop). So why not end the mandates and subsidies? If this is such a whiz bang technology it should survive on its own, right? But I’ll gladly bet you a month’s salary that if the mandated use, the subsidies and the tariffs were removed, the industry would collapse within a year (possibly two because some idiots like E85).
I presented a study done by a Texas institution and directly relevant to the discussion regarding Texas cattle feed. Instead of actually reading it – you simply ridicule.
And then you make claims about the nutritional value of distillers dried grains that are flat out wrong. Yet again, instead of a few minutes of research to verify if you are right or wrong – you pass broad judgement based on your uninformed opinion. The information on the increased nutritional value of distillers dried grains is easy to find – and benefits are clear – a few simple excerpts:
“Because of the near complete fermentation of starch, the remaining amino acids, fat, minerals and vitamins increase approximately three-fold in concentration compared to levels found in corn.
In addition to protein, distiller’s grains contain highly digestible fiber and fat, resulting in a similar to slightly higher energy value than corn. By providing energy as highly digestible fiber, we can avoid negative associative effects (reduced forage intake and digestibility) associated with feeding starchy (high starch) feeds. Furthermore, the fiber contained in distiller’s grains may help prevent digestive disturbances in feedlot cattle.
Distiller’s grains are low in calcium (Ca) but high in phosphorus (P). Feeding distiller’s grains may provide enough P to allow supplemental P sources to be removed from mineral packages for cattle consuming forage-based diets.
Distiller’s co-products offer beef producers an opportunity to decrease their unit cost of production while maintaining similar levels of performance.
http://www.ddgs.umn.edu/articles-beef/2002-Tjardes-%20ExEx2036.pdf
Nutritionally, DDGS is solid. The University of Minnesota’s Shurson said cows in particular thrive on DDGS as the fiber in the feed is actually a more efficient energy source than the starch in corn. Costs run about 20 percent below corn and up to 50 percent below soy [2007]. That’s especially important considering corn prices have recouped just about all the losses seen right after the government reported a big jump in this year’s expected corn crop.
Not that I expect you really care about learning judging by your attitude and comments – but as to you comments about the viability and benefits of ethanol I suggest you too read the simple Wiki info on Brazils ethanol program. It provides the road map, along with a clear example of the pitfals, and benefits – but most importantly that ethanol can be and is a valuable, sustainable and beneficial part of Brazils energy program.
And no – I do not believe we should arbitrarily end all subsidies and support just because ill-informed people like you don’t like it. It took Brazil 40 years to reach a sustainable stable program. In the US we are closer in some areas – largely the upper midwest corn belt – but even there ethanol is not easily and readily available.
The benefits are clear – in a study I linked above the use of ethanol is helping hold gas costs down – anywhere from 25 cents to near $1.50 per gallon. The proof of the benefit of increased availability is clear – in the more developed ethanol areas like Minnesota the cost savings on gas as a result are far higher.
A.Scott , read my source of info regarding the acreage of corn harvested.
You and yours are feeling the heat. You need some sleep.
Take a break, a double dose of reality, a long nap, and come back when you feel better. And remember that the truth will set you free.
eyesonu says:
December 29, 2011 at 3:31 pm
A. Scott says:
December 28, 2011 at 2:52 am
This was your first post on this thread.
————-
A. Scott says:
December 29, 2011 at 2:40 pm
This was the latest post on this thread.
==================
You must be getting paid double-time-and-a-half. You are certainly motivated to pitch your views.
How long were you awake in your world prior entering this thread. I gotta get me some of those vitamins if they’re legal.
In other words you have absolutely no intelligent response or rebuttal to any of the facts presented that refute your specious and false claims, and can only resort to weak and pathetic ad hominem attack.
We get it … you have nothing to support any of your claims, and no desire to even try to present truthful, correct or factual information on the issue – not even to support your own silly claims.
Pretty sad when people like you attack, and then can’t be bothered to even try and understand what you are posting … harvested cotton acreage for example. Not remotely accurate – off by orders of magnitude, when the correct information was right in front of you on the same page.
Let us know when you wish to have an intelligent debate and support your attacks and claims with actual facts and data.
It looks like the markets don’t expect this to have any effect. Any wiff of a change in a report from USDA will cause substantial changes in price at CBOT. Today — not much of anything happened and it is doubtful that the market was asleep.
The Chicago Board closed today with virtually no change in price of Dec 12 corn. Graphic at…
http://www.cmegroup.com/popup/mdq2.html?code=ZCZ2&title=December_2012_Corn&type=p#year=2
A.Scott, everything that you have written has been debunked.
It has been quite clearly shown that you are a troll. Time for you to get some sleep.
I have been reading this thread for 2 days. No one can solve the problem NOW. Thirty years ago they were demanding big oil get out of california. There was no alternative then and I see none now. The idiot in the White House is supporting loser solar companies and stalling the Keystone Pipe line. Anything to get relected. Now as already mentioned here, the iranians are threatening to close the shipping lanes. All I can say is. Why after 30 years we are still energy dependent on foriegn oil supplies? We should have first made ourselves energy/oil independent. Then, THEN get alternative means developed, proven and ready to use. This willy nilly running amuck plans are a waste of time and money. Get the Federal Govt. out of the way, let AMERICAN Inginuity prevail.
So much so called high tech talk on this thread, where were you guys before this all came apart???
I think ethanol has been unfairly lumped in with windmills and pvc, it should, imho, be looked at in its own right. I think one of the same reasons hemp was considered such a threat plays a part in the antagonism propagandised about ethanol, here it is direct competition with oil as fuel for transport, but hemp more so as production can be very local, it doesn’t need the resources that corn growing needs.
What interests me is personal production – how big a field will I need to grow enough hemp to fuel my diesel car (hypothetical, I no longer have diesel), say 600 miles a month? Will my oil-fired central heating system run on it, or ethanol?
I really need something now, can’t wait for the personal thorium in a suitcase generator to come on line.
http://www.ffhboo.com/hemp.html
http://www.sustainablehemp.net/
Catcracking says:
December 29, 2011 at 3:17 pm
A.Scott,
Your reference to Wiki is really a laugh.
Do you know or just ignore the fact that Brazil’s economy has turned around because they have discovered significant oil offshore, and are exploiting it to the fullest with support from Our President via loans to Brazil for the development of their offshore oil exploration ,while throttling back offshore exploration in the US.
Are you ignoring the difference of manufacturing ethanol from sugar cane versus from wood chips, etc.? Ethanol from sugar cane makes sense especially if one has cheap labor to gather the feedstock.
Did you know that their ethanol production has recently significantly fallen off and that they have reduced the mandated % required?
Did you know that they are importing ethanol from the US made from corn to make up the loss in production?
Did you know that a military dictatorship forced the country on ethanol and their economy was in severe difficulty for years. Is that what you want the administration to do to make ethanol successful?
The Wiki page on Brazil ethanol program does exactly what I suggested it was good for – provide people a simple overview of a successful sustainable alternative/renewable energy program and the path taken to get there. The laugh, albeit a sad one, is people who refuse to educate themselves before passing judgment.
I know Brazil quite well – am friends with a Consul for Brazil, have looked extensively at development property and have another friend who recently purchased a mile of undeveloped shoreline there. Their economy is I believe 6th largest in the world – and has done quite well for some time. It did not “turn around” because of discovery of oil.
And yes I’m well aware of, and find despicable, Obama’s duplicity in restricting drilling in our country – to pander to the liberal whacko tree hugger Nimby votes – while paying Brazil and others to drill there – thus INCREASING our reliance on foreign oil. At least Brazil is mostly a “friend” not enemy of the US.
Your comments on Brazil’s ethanol are silly – for them sugar cane is a very similar crop to our corn – it is however more mature industry and gets higher yields – something we have been steadily improving on.
They process sugar cain much the same we we do corn – it is not a cellulosic process … they DO get higher yields by using the bagasse – the stalk of the sugar cane – but they use that to burn and provide the energy to run the processing plants – which means even less energy expended to make a gallon of ethanol.
And to say they do better because they have low cost labor to pick up the feedstock is equally laughable. We have mechanized collection of feedstock in the US. Mechanized beats manual every time. Which is why the majority of harvesting in Brazil is ALSO mechanical and will virtually all be mechanical in next several years by agreement with growers.
And contrary to your claim, Brazil’s workers are not poor backwoods hicks working for pennies – just another uneducated falsehood promoted as alleged fact:
“Salaries for sugarcane industry workers are among the highest in Brazil’s agriculture, second only to wages in the soybean industry. On average, a sugarcane cutter makes more than Brazil’s per capita income, as measured by the World Bank’s World Development Indicators. Moreover, all workers in the sugarcane industry are represented in collective bargaining negotiations irrespective of their decision to join a labor union. Among UNICA member companies, 98% of all workers are fully documented. By way of comparison, 13% of all U.S. agricultural workers are undocumented immigrants, according to a recent study by the Pew Hispanic Center.
The São Paulo state sugarcane industry (about two-thirds of Brazil’s cane production) has signed an agreement with the state government to end sugarcane burning by 2014. Burning is a centuries-old practice that eliminates the straw around the cane and makes the manual harvest possible. Collective agreements between workers and companies state that cane cutters will not harvest manually without removal of the straw through the use of fire. No burning means sugarcane must be harvested mechanically. With mechanization advancing and rapidly replacing the manual harvest, the industry has focused on retraining workers involved in manual planting and harvesting for new activities. In 2009, UNICA joined forces with John Deere, Case New Holland and Syngenta, key players in the sugarcane industry supply chain, to create the largest training and requalification program for sugarcane industry workers in the world, with added financial support from the Inter-American Development Bank.”
http://www.unica.com.br/download.asp?mmdCode=4F346327-C37A-49F7-B239-BBA337F412BE
Not only are sugar cane workers well represented and well paid, the government and industry have joined forces to retrain as many as possible to minimize the effects of mechanization.
Another complete falsehood refuted.
I’m also well acquainted with Brazils sugarcane harvest. It IS down – due to weather primarily – flooding, frost and flowering. And I was the one that first noted that Brazil was not exporting much if any ethanol to the US – rather was importing from us. This is a result in part of the poor crop but also of the success of the Brazil ethanol program. Their domestic needs continue to increase – a clear mark of the success of their sustainable energy program.
Their mandate was only reduced because of the shortage of ethanol due to supply constraints. Another clear example of the success of the system.
And your theories about the military dictatorship forcing ethanol on Brazil are outright laughable. You can get more details at UNICA and other sources but if you had even read the Wiki I suggested you’d know Brazil has been using ethanol since the 1930’s and earlier – with as much 50% use mandatory during WWII.
It was the oil crisis of the 70’s, not the military, that prompted the government to start promoting ethanol to minimize dependence of fossil fuels.
So in answer to your question – yes I do think we should follow the model; re: ethanol that Brazil has established. They have repeatedly proven that government support is both necessary and worthwhile. That the investment in ethanol industry was for a greater public good.
Another attack – and another non-response.
No “heat” felt here … just laughter …
Please – by all means provide the link to your “source” for your numbers for cotton acreage harvested.
I stand ready to reply.