Nightlight News

Editor's note: This is the most massive Nightlight News post ever - not for the faint of heart. Settle in.


The biofuels revolution is up and running - there has never been a better time to be in the commodity farming biz - prices for corn, palm oil, sugar cane, and other stuffs are rising as biofuel demand rises. Ethanol production is the biggest cause of the price hike, at least in the US, but biodiesel is contributing to the hefty increase. One of the most immediate and alarming results is that food prices are also rising, and officials at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) are warning of the impending price increase, which will affect the world's poorest nations to the greatest degree. It's becoming a familiar news line, recycled across the various wires. The FAO is reporting that developing nations will face a 9% jump in imported food prices.

Por Exemplo - Mexico's staple food, the tortilla, is becoming prohibitively expensive, even if that corn frisbee is produced by using the cheaper subsidized American corn. King Corn, that commodity of all commodities in the Western hemisphere, has been maligned in numerous outlets, linked at various times to the militarization of Latin America, America's obesity epidemic, the American farm crisis, and other bad things, in addition to good things such as the strength of Mid-western athletes (just google cornfed).

Much like other technological innovations, the wiseness of plunging money into biofuel production as a response to rising oil prices was not terribly well debated before President Bush declared biofuels made from plants like switchgrass to be an answer for our oil addiction. Bush says in a speech in California a year ago-

Ah Yes, so it is China and India's fault that we have high gas prices, but rest assured - technological innovations will pave the way towards a return to the days of low energy costs and unfettered American consumer travel habits and spending pleasures. All the while saving the environment by making the air cleaner and lowering our dependence on foreign oil. What's a pipe dream? A pipe dream is an unreal fantasy that is essentially known to be impossible. In this case, I skewer Bush's dream because his plan generally has no reference or allusion to reducing our consumption of fuel by reducing driving, setting mandatory fuel mileage requirements for auto-makers, and other pieces of the puzzle that would force or encourage Americans to change their habits. And he usually doesn't mention (never mentions) that starting a war in the Middle East didn't seem to help matters.

Farmers all over the midwest have been converting their fields to corn, for when Bush says oil addiction, our opportunistic agri-business agents of large tractor and prop plane chemical squirtee see dollar signs. They are planting 90 million acres of zea mays this year. I suppose that doesn't mean much for those of us who eat unprocessed food, for the increased corn acreage is coming mostly at the expense of soybean acreage, and corn and soybeans produced at those acreage levels intended for grocery products generally end up as processed ingredients such as corn syrup and soy lecithin, my old favorites! Mom, pass the lecithin! More soy isolate! Kids -> Read more about interesting products produced by soy.

95 percent of ethanol produced in the US comes from corn. That's the starch-derived ethanol that comes from the sugars in plants such as corn and sugar cane. Bush's famous switchgrass idea refers to cellulosic ethanol, which comes from biomass, which is essentially and usually plant junk, at least from a dietary perspective. (It could also be hog poop or chicken shit, but that's another discussion). Cellulose is only digestible by such enterprising creatures as termites and beetles. Humans refer to cellulose as roughage, which helps add bulk to our feces. Quite the sexy feedstock for biofuels eh? It's what your parents (if they were health conscious) wanted you to eat, what helps scrape your colon clean, and, if it weren't so durn expensive to produce, the perfect source for our new fuel future.

Well, our not so perfect future. Here's the run-down real quick. Besides the rising cost of food for the world's poor, the biofuels revolution could also result in massive swaths of land being flattened and converted to monocultures of GMO (genetically modified organism) commodity crops that may be extensively sprayed with toxic pesticides and herbicides, all the while allowing Monsanto, DuPont, and a handful of other multinationals to extend their control over the germplasm and create perpetual cycles of legal and economic control over the land and seeds, land that once represented Jeffersonian ideals and romantic Walden-esque notions, but now increasingly means little beyond agricultural economic inputs in grand equations that mean money for few and suicide for many.

I used to not understand why exactly I should be opposed to GMO crops. I had a vague inkling that as a supporter of organic agriculture, small farmers, local economies, the environment, social justice, et cetera I should not eat them, but didn't really have a good idea why. I thought maybe it had something to do with disease resistance, potential famines from lost biodiversity, and environmental concerns. And even though I am now armed with newer, better reasons to be opposed to GMO crops, I'll still stick with the old ones too.

After watching The Future of Food at the Carrboro Greenspace, I really started to get it. Besides the environmental reasons like lost biodiversity and reduced resistance to pests and diseases, GMO crops should be opposed because they are a part of a larger corporate agenda that increasingly reduces the power of farmers to make independent business decisions that aren't under the legal jurisdiction of the big fat wolves of the agrosphere. In other words, because a company like Monsanto can patent a plant that they have genetically engineered, farmers are at risk of lawsuits because if one tiny seed floats on the back of a Canadian breeze into their field and takes root, they risk being sued for growing their crop without a contract. Or they can be sued for saving seeds from one year to the next. That's really sick. Seed saving is a timeless agricultural practice, and the foundation of good farm business sense. It's what makes heirloom tomatoes taste so good, it's what our agricultural heroes excel at.

GMO crops work in interesting ways, and from a nerdy scientific perspective, they are actually pretty cool. Take for example pest-resistance. Bio-engineers can take DNA from soil bacterium that retards pests, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which is typically sprayed on fields, and insert sequences from Bt into the genes of corn, so that the plant is genetically impregnated with the toxic properties of Bt. If an insect eats the plant, the toxin almost literally splits them open from the inside and kills them. I saw something like that once in a movie ... Or maybe I saw it here ... The question is, does eating GMO corn that has a toxic chemical inserted into its gene sequence cause problems for humans? Of course, the biotech companies say "no, we have tested it". Folks from an organization devoted to, among other things, mandatory labeling on products containing GMOs, say yes. They say it can cause allergy problems, given that if the spraying is so noxious to humans, we ought not put the spray in the food.

GMO crops are a product of the biotech industry, which is one of the champion economic development industry clusters, along with other -tech or tech- fields that are supposedly going to save us from the ill effects NAFTA and GATT and other free trade bipartisan favorites. Perhaps that last statement would be of the type that warrants the little "citation needed" tag on Wikipedia. I oblidge - what I mean to say is that since we have lots of "displaced workers" in this state, a most convenient euphemism for screwed blue-collar workers who can't work in traditional sectors because the 90s free trade agenda legacy has left them unemployed, they need "new high-growth sectors" to work in, sectors that of course are high-profit margin and technology intensive. So retraining workers who used to work in textiles, furniture, and tobacco to work in the biotech industry has become a darling agenda of the North Carolina General Assembly for years now. And so now millions of dollars are being spent each year in North Carolina developing GMO crops, standing in stark contrast to our burgeoning sustainable food systems movement, which is being heralded by vanguards such as the Center for Environmental Farming Systems in Goldsboro.

For example, 91 percent of North Carolina cotton plants are GMO. Another example - Ventria Bioscience is growing GMO rice near Plymouth. It's "pharma rice", a crop that yields pharmaceutically viable proteins for medical applications, in this case rice engineered to grow with the same proteins found in mother's milk embedded in its genetic make-up. Titty rice!

There are a myriad of applications for genetically modified crops, I can't even begin to list them all here. Instead, I will offer an example of one of the numerous, esoteric, specialized uses for GMO corn. DuPont has developed a corn-based polymer that can be used in place of petroleum-based ingredients in any number of products. It's produced by fermenting corn sugar with modified E. coli bacteria to produce a clear liquid compound, a process that is actually somewhat similar to making corn syrup. It's the science and glitz of these processes that clouds the environmental and social implications of GMO crops. The Raleigh News & Observer, who authored the article I link to above, only came this close to discussing the full negative implications of GMOs:

In fact, the article was written from the standpoint that using GMO corn to replace petroleum based ingredients in things like "rubber" boots and airplane de-icing solutions is good for the environment, since we don't use as much oil. (One of the problems with spending endless time and energy devoting yourself just causes like the environment or social justice is that you learn very quickly that things are rarely, if ever, just good or bad, and there aren't very many solutions that don't cause new problems.)

Much of the rest of the world doesn't want GMOs. Europe has banned imports of products containing GMOs, and Chinese consumers don't seem to want them either. Many other countries, like Japan, have experienced difficulty with shipments of commodities, like rice, that are contaminated with unapproved GMO products.

I digress . . . The whole point of this GMO diatribe was that it is entirely likely that GMO crops will be a large part of the larger biofuel plan. I mean, why not? Why not engineer crops to produce the highest yield of fuel after processing? If we can do it, why in the world wouldn't we let technology solve a problem? WHY NOT?!? SCIENCE IS ALWAYS RIGHT, DAMMIT!

OK, I let sarcasm get the better of me. I digress. Because I started this article with the intention of sharing with you some ridiculous news concerning the efforts of some of us to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, clean up the air, and make the world smell more like Frenchie Fries. And I am committed to taking the long way around to revealing the original news tidbit that prompted this increasingly epic post about biofuels.

Ah biofuels. Like GMO crops, yet another technological marvel that will save the planet, without the possibility of negative consequences. Besides the potentials for deforestation, mono-cropping vast swaths of land with GMO crops, and smoke screen filters that don't address our highly consumptive travel patterns which are causing the problem in the first place, ramping up biofuel production and driving up prices for biofuel ingredients has even given paramilitaries in Colombia cause to celebrate. They are driving peasants off their land, through killings and intimidation, in order to cut down all the trees and plant palms for palm oil production, adding daily to a population of over 3 million displaced peasants, a population that is being likened to the refugee crises in Darfur and the Congo.

This is but a taste of the controversy surrounding biofuel production. And biofuels are pretty much here to stay. For example, a House energy plan under consideration will reduce the amount of biofuels included by mandate in fuel at-the-pump, but would require service stations to install ethanol pumps. This would all be part of a plan to increase biofuel production to 20-some-million or 30-some-million, depending on who you talk to, gallons of ethanol based fuel by two thousand and seventeen and thirty or thirty two etc. Automakers will be required to produce E-85 compatible cars. Of course, all these seemingly do-good regulations cost us something in the butt end of things, either by bolstering efforts to use liquid coal-derived fuels or by giving lawmakers a piece of legislation to tack on their prohibitions on California's tailpipe emissions standards. Actually, the feds haven't formally prohibited Arnold's tougher-than-the-Clean-Air-Act standards, they are just dragging their feet, taking their sweet time before granting a waiver from the 1977 act.

You know the real reason why Bush, friends, business, all those folks drooling at the feet of the biofuel industry are lusting for something besides oil. It's certainly not because there is no more money to be made in oil. The oil markets operate according to basic principles of the free market, and in times of high demand and tight supply, those in the industry will indeed make a crap-load of money. OK, one of the biggest reasons that the biofuels industry is such a babycakes puppydog favorito industry right now is because there is also a good bit of money to be made in biofuels AND, unlike oil or coal, biofuels have the "good for the environment" stamp all over them. Clean energy venture capital investments in U.S. based companies has grown from less than one percent in 1999 to almost ten percent in 2006 - a ten-fold increase. Out of five selected energy sectors with US based operations and venture capital sector activity, biofuels outpaced all the others, with $813 million in investment, compared to the second runner up $476mil in "Energy Intelligence", whatever that is (most likely refers to the industry that provides information on energy markets and industry). All that and more available via download by perusing the presentations and speeches from the 2007 NC Sustainable Energy Conference.

Hmm. I'm going to back up a second and say all this heavy-handed sarcasm about the promise of biofuels saving the world is not, in any way, meant to make you think that biofuels are "bad" in that classically black and white way that is inappropriate descriptive diction for just about any subject except our President. He is Bad.

In fact, supporting biofuels can be a really good decision, but just like anything else, there are nuances to the decision, moderation is best, and using biofuels is but one part of a larger picture that includes reducing consumption and supporting local economies.

Enter Piedmont Biofuels, which, to the green cognoscenti of central North Carolina, are like minor rock-stars of the sustainable communities movement. Sure, some of them are a little crazy, self-professed energy nuts, and the crew down there is going to hold you to a very high standard, just like some of the folks on this comment stream at OrangePolitics.org discussing Weaver St. Market's move to Hillborough. But they also have some very good things to say about biofuels. This speech given by Rachel Burton does a fantastic job summing up the difference between getting excited about biofuels and getting real about solving the problems of energy consumption. Their mission basically boils down to, in addition to saving the planet one batch at a time, helping people create their own fuel rather than relying on flawed massive systems. That is admirable, to say the least, but also strikes me as a terribly practical way to go about doing business. As soon as I have some money, I wanna diesel truck! An old, light bodied model (sigh).

I think it is finally time to wrap up this discussion, and tell you a little story about what it means to try to provide your own fuel. While there is biodiesel, which is produced in a process similar to making soap, there is also vegetable oil, which can be used to power a vehicle with a diesel engine and a conversion kit. People who have converted their diesel engines to run on vegetable oil can literally filter old fryer oil from fast food and other restaurants and put it directly in their engine, turn key, go. Smells like french fries, zoom. Well, it's not that simple, there are plenty of considerations to be made in order to have an engine that is running properly, but the image is startling. This is some truly off the grid self-reliance shit, not for the faint of heart, lazy of butt, or devoid of conscience. People are getting into the mode, getting into the conversion, and a small movement is starting which has as its unofficial emblem canola, which is actually a trademarked term for rapeseed. Q-Tip? Band-Aid? Kleenex? Canola.

Take poor Mr. Teixera of Charlotte, NC. Bob Teixera, a guitar teacher, converted his car to run on veggie oil and started buying soybean oil from Costco to power his 81 Mercedes. Enter THE MAN.

The N.C. Department of Revenue, always looking out for (gunning for) the little guy, fined him $1,000 and told him that if he wants to legally use veggie oil in his car he needs to post a $2,500 bond. See, NC has the highest per gallon at the pump fuel tax in the Southeast, and that money mainly pays for highway improvements, which are key to economic development. Reggie Little, assistant director of the motor fuel taxes division, said "We're not here to hurt the small guy, we're just trying to make sure that the playing field is level." Thanks Reggie! Way to level the playing field.

And tell me Reggie, what do you mean? Are a handful of vintage diesel automobile drivers torquing the playing field? Is it now unfair for those of us who pay tax on fuels that destroy the quality of our air and have caused thousands of deaths, greedy policies, and violent consequences for the environment and humanity to be supporting the driving habits of people who are sincerely trying to save the world? Those of you with your logical fallacy books are probably finding scores of red flag opportunities for objection with this diatribe aren't you? Sarcasm isn't nearly as convincing as well thought out arguments and carefully researched essays, but then again, I am just blogging away, and don't quite mind that these little tangents have a tone that belies my contempt for one side in favor of another.

I doubt that a handful of veggie oil powered Mercedes are really what causes all that wear and tear on our fancy roadway system. Bet it's more likely that huge trucks, like oil tankers for example, are causing rapid wear and tear and making it necessary to spend millions of dollars on repaving efforts (although it is my understanding that that particular swath of pavement was messed up from the moment it was poured).

How did he get nabbed? Apparently state regulators were inspecting diesel RVs near Lowe's Motor Speedway for illegal fuel and then their attention got caught by Bob's sticker that said "Powered by 100% vegetable oil". One lesson to learn is don't put stickers on your car that advertise things you don't want the law knowing about. The other is stay away from racetracks on race days.

It's a wicked story, a real shot to the independently-minded fuel-using subculture, and hopefully not a harbinger of increased regulation on small-time DIYers. Public outcry would help, and there are some representatives who don't think the Dept of Revenue should be pursuing this course. I'll keep my eyes open as the story develops. And I'll keep my nose peeled for cars smelling like french fries - maybe the Revenue Department will start offering rewards if you turn in violators. I have to find some supplemental income in order to pay off this stupid student loan debt.