How Beneficial Are Biofuels, Anyway?

We live in a world where species of wild animals are disappearing and a billion people are barely able to get enough to eat. Is this the time to clear rain forests to grow palm oil or give up food-crop land to grow biofuels so that people can burn fuel derived from carbohydrate rather than hydrocarbons in their cars? This paucity of food-producing land is already driving up the cost of food for human populations.Five percent of the world’s crop land has been taken out of growing food and put into growing fuel; in the United States, that figure is 20%. Drought in Australia and more meat eating in China has pushed the world food supply below world food demand. In 2008 the food shortage caused food riots all over the world. Between 2004 and 2007, the world corn harvest increased by 51 million tons; but 50 million tons went into fuel ethanol, leaving nothing to meet the increase in demand for food. American car drivers were taking carbohydrates out of the mouths of the poor to fill their tanks.

This might be okay if the money spent on ethanol would save Americans money so they could afford to buy more goods and services from the poor and help them out of poverty. But…Americans are taxed three times for their ethanol hunger—they subsidize the growing of corn through the government; they subsidize the manufacture of ethanol; and they pay more for their food. Ethanol production actually impairs the ability of people to contribute to the demand for manufactured goods.

In order to produce fuel ethanol, a farmer must use fuel for his tractors, petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides, truck fuel, and distillation fuel. So…on balance, it takes just about as much fuel to produce the new ethanol fuel as the ethanol fuel, itself contains. Drilling and refining fuel from oil and coal reserves, of which there are many, gets you a 600% energy return on your energy used.

Making fuel from Brazilian sugar cane is more efficient, because it is produced by armies of underpaid laborers.

Using oil to drive cars releases CO2, which is a greenhouse gas; but using tractors to grow crops releases nitrous oxide from soil, which is a stronger greenhouse gas with nearly 300 times the warming potential of CO2.

The ultimate argument against the use of biofuels is that these fuels require land for their production; and the earth’s land area is finite. The human population, which uses land for food production, is increasing. By 2050, the earth’s population will need every bit of arable land for food production. We need to quit using biofuels until some more efficient way of producing them is discovered.

Data for this blog post were taken from The Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley.

How Good Are We—Really?

It is common understanding that we, humans, are not the pillars of righteousness and beauty we think we are. We have more shortcomings than we care to admit—especially when it comes to the issue of confronting culture with the truth.

A recent study from Penn State University found that half the students said they would object if someone made a sexist comment; but in practice, fewer than one-sixth had ever said anything in objection to a comment like that.

In essence, we are afraid to confront society about things we think are politically incorrect. Especially, are we uncomfortable when it comes to telling people about our belief in Christ. In this matter, we need to remember the words of Christ, himself: “Everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 10:32, 33)

Despite the prevalent idea that living a good, Christian, lifestyle before an unbelieving world will make people want to emulate the Christian belief that motivates such a lifestyle, this kind of “presence evangelism” just does not work. Words must be used. It is not possible for an unbeliever to distinguish a Christian from a Hindu or a Muslim based on a perceived moral lifestyle—those sects all look the same when judged on the basis of outward morality. But…there is a great difference; and it must be articulated in words.

Reader, do not despair! Telling the truth publically is not so dangerous. I remember a saying that was used by my Scoutmaster years ago: “If public opinion had any real power to harm, the skunk would have been extinct long ago.”

Monkey See, Monkey Do… or, Young People Act Out TV Model

About half of American girls eleven to seventeen regularly watch “reality” TV, with another 30% watching it sometimes. And it’s bad for them, according to a study sponsored by the Girl Scout Research Institute. Thirty-eight percent of these girls think a girl’s value is based on how she looks, for example compared with 28% of those who do not watch reality television. Almost 40% of the first group but only 24%of the second group believe “you have to lie to get ahead.”

The reason we can guess. What you see, if you see it often enough, begins to feel normal—even if you start watching it because you think it is not normal.

(In case you don’t know… “reality” TV is a genre of TV programs, supposedly unscripted, that show supposedly non-actors, i.e., “normal people,” in unusual or stressful situations. The language and behavior are street language and behavior, complete with vulgar words and ideas. On example of this kind of programming is the program, Wife Swap.)