“Ethanol will not “save” anyone, it will though permit a relatively seamless transition of much of the existing internal combustion / gasoline infrastructure to a cleaner alternative fueling, without requiring onerous changes to much of the auto manufacturing design and production.”

this kind of thinking is exactly the root of the problem. why not require changes to auto manufacturing, design and production?

we absolutely need to change these things, along with ending the existing model of ’suburban’ living and our culture of consumption in general.

why do we want to transition seamlessly from existing infrastructure to alternative fuel?

it comes down to this: burning carbon based fuel is burning carbon based fuel, why split hairs?… eventually we will need a completely new system, infrastructure and all, so why not start now?

taking those points into consideration shows that mark’s comment ignore our real long-term needs, unlike the original article which is spot on in this respect.

Your post was great, I totally agree….

You have made an excellent observation about the monumental impact of population growth on the rate of consumption of the Earth. By 2050, the US population is projected to grow by another 110 – 160 million people. If we continue to use energy the way we do today, we will need an extra 50 EJ of primary energy per year by 2050. If this were to be so, the US would have to capture all world oil from the main Hubbert cycle of global oil production to satisfy our transportation fuel needs. If we were to convert most biomass production in the US to energy, we would be able to produce only about 11 EJ of ethanol. So the huge brick that will smash our collective head is already falling.

The estimates above give the US (pronounced as “us”) about 1 year to start seriously limiting our population growth and cutting energy consumption. Whether we will undertake the monumental task of transforming our society to live in more harmony with the Earth, or run over her in our ethanol-powered SUVs, is up to us.

In addition, the feedlot industry is asking farmers not to renew their land in ten-year contracts with the NRCS (national resources conservation service) so that more corn can be grown to feed cattle with. The NRCS pays farmers not to grow crops on land that is highly erodible. This land is unsuitable for crops.

Topsoil is the most important mineral any nation has. I have nothing against the hunter/gatherer lifestyle, but I am rather fond of civilization, and I hate to see us destroying our nations topsoil for a mirage and making the lives of our descendants even more miserable as fossil fuel energy declines while population continues to increase.

Tad Patzek is one of the few scientists brave enough to speak out on this important issue, even though I know from private communications with other scientists that they agree with him.