Good luck finding people to grow camelina for this project with grain prices as high as they are. I'm not sure how high wheat prices are but I heard barley is over $200 a ton and durham is over $20 a bushel, if you can find any. With these kinds of prices I'm not sure people are going to be willing to try an unproven, alternative crop out.
Also like I say, every acre of land we plant to a bio-fuel crop is one less acre that is there to feed people. Fuel for your vehicle or fuel for your body, which is more important to you? Which is more important for those poor in the world? By developing bio-fuels are we as a society causing poor people in the world to go hungry? Should we be concerned? Tough questions. Ethically which is more important. I know what concerns me, the question becomes what our society decides is more important. Feeding people or feeding vehicles. I fear our societies decision.
I don't think a tough question is disrespectful. Helen Thomas
About the biofuel vs. food debate, I'm not sure the answer is quite as black and white as choosing one or the other (my apologies if you didn't mean to imply that it was a strict either/or question).
If we don't find alternative fuel sources, in addition to reducing consumption, the world's hungry and poor are doomed anyway. What's needed is to find a balance between the competing imperatives of food and fuel supply, and I share your concern that no one seems to be interested in even asking these tough questions, let alone answer them.
There are lots of ideas out there for alternative fuels that don't take food out of our mouths that I would like to see developed. The other thing is reducing consumption like you say. By trying to keep fuel prices down, we are promoting consumption of fuel. Voluntarily reducing consumption would go a long ways towards solving the problems. My last vehicle I purchased was not an ideal vehicle for me and my family. It is too small among other things but I was looking at the fuel economy. I had to do my part to reduce my fuel usage.
Reducing consumption. That's the kind of thinking we need, not turning our food into fuel. That's a risky strategy.
Here in Iowa, there is so much focus on ethanol as a way to "rescue" corn prices for farmers that people are losing sight of the fact that when you factor in the conversion process, it really doesn't result in significant fossil-fuel savings. That's in addition to the concern you have so eloquently expressed about the conversion of acreage from producing food to producing fuel.
And the current infatuation with them is undoubtedly distracting people from investigating the viability of other alternative fuels, such as wind power and who knows what else hasn't even been thought of yet.
And you're absolutely right about the artificially low fuel prices impeding any serious conservation efforts. As much as it hurts my wallet to say it, the higher fuel prices over the past few years seem to finally be forcing people to consider changing their lifestyles just a little bit, and that's a tiny step in the right direction.
Thanks again for the thoughtful discussion. I'm sorry this is so long; it's a treat for me to be able to talk out these issues.
http://onaridge.blogspot.com/2007/11/vetical-farming-wave-of-future.html
BTW I love Helen Thomas. What a lady!