Tribe.net. Local Connections Verminator http://ecotek.tribe.net/thread/cdb9de12-097f-4e5f-a9f6-f43b27a8fe7c#9e614477-2c93-4835-89e7-234704d8cd2f 2007-09-22T12:30:19Z 2007-09-22T12:30:19Z

>Compost tea is an example of something that replenishes our soil and is actually *less expensive* than chemical fertilizers. Precisely! And compost tea is effectively the same thing as the fluid that you discharge from a methane digester when you are finished making methane.

Verminator 2007-09-22T12:30:19Z "Marley" ˚˚°º☆º°˚˚ http://ecotek.tribe.net/thread/cdb9de12-097f-4e5f-a9f6-f43b27a8fe7c#5a7583a8-9aa0-4b67-a0eb-ba64f8e315d8 2007-09-22T10:31:54Z 2007-09-22T10:31:54Z

Yup. Energy goes hand in hand with virtually every other resource & commodity. Compost tea is an example of something that replenishes our soil and is actually *less expensive* than chemical fertilizers.

"Marley" ˚˚°º☆º°˚˚ 2007-09-22T10:31:54Z Verminator http://ecotek.tribe.net/thread/cdb9de12-097f-4e5f-a9f6-f43b27a8fe7c#c962b17b-90e7-4170-9cf3-07b17035c3c7 2007-09-20T07:49:23Z 2007-09-20T07:49:23Z

Actually on some of the key aspects you mention, certain approaches to biofuels do produce the kinds of problems they mention. However, there are methods which are more efficient and which do not place food and fuel into as much of a direct competition, yet food will always be heavily influenced by the costs of fuels as long as there is so much non-local food distribution and fuel products are still required for the making of artificial fertilizers. The problem is that no one is taking a closed systems approach to the problem and they are missing the point of regenerative cycles that can work cooperatively with nature.

Verminator 2007-09-20T07:49:23Z "Marley" ˚˚°º☆º°˚˚ http://ecotek.tribe.net/thread/cdb9de12-097f-4e5f-a9f6-f43b27a8fe7c#89acd98c-41e4-4d4f-bea3-51cfd736fab3 2007-09-19T00:46:50Z 2007-09-19T00:46:50Z

I just came across this article today: http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSL1187947920070911?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews I'm quoting two key bits from this article that I'm responding to and would like to know who and why anyone either supports what this article says or thinks it as much bollocks as I do. "When acidification, fertilizer use, biodiversity loss and toxicity of agricultural pesticides are taken into account, the overall environmental impacts of ethanol and biodiesel can very easily exceed those of petrol and mineral diesel," it added. "The OECD therefore called on governments to cut their subsidies for the sector and instead encourage research into technologies that would avoid competing for land use with food production." ...Acidification, fertilizer use, biodiversity loss, pesticides, etc. are all happening ANYWAY in conventional agriculture. Not only does HALF of US food go to waste per year* but the US government actually PAYS farmers NOT TO FARM** to control market prices. Meanwhile, millions of people continue to starve in other countries. * http://foodproductiondaily.com/news/ng.asp?id=56340&n=dh330&c=%23emailcode, http://www.metro-region.org/article.cfm?articleid=5563 ** "the (US) government pays farmers several billion dollars not to farm (Ervin, 1992)." http://dieoff.org/page55.htm We have more than enough land to produce our food AND our fuel, and this in no way adds to the environmental impact currently made by our agricultural practices. The given environmental benefits of biofuels aside, we would also be saving *BILLIONS* of dollars by not needing to deploy our military across the globe to secure petroleum resources AND we'd be saving hundreds of thousands of lives lost to war on BOTH sides, which is PRICELESS. There's no reason we have to choose between fuel and food on our abundant land, and there is simply NO WAY to argue the benefits of petrofuels over biofuels! End of Story.

"Marley" ˚˚°º☆º°˚˚ 2007-09-19T00:46:50Z