Ethanol & factory farming
Re. the letter “Ethanol's benefits” (Dec. 7): While I do not know much about using ethanol as vehicle fuel, I know what monocrop agriculture of wheat, corn and soy does to our environment.
Growing vast swaths of these crops is one of today's most environmentally destructive practices. Huge tracts of land have been turned into sterile zones filled with these crops, destroying entire ecosystems.
These crops destroy multiple layers of soil and can create a condition called “peak soil” — soil deprived of richness that will take hundreds of years to replenish. Depleted soil requires more fertilizer and the use of more fossil fuels to produce them.
This vicious cycle gives us a grain-based, substandard diet of genetically modified crops that we feed to our children. A diet based on these grains perpetuates the sickening cycle of factory farming — the animals we eat that should live on grass or insects are fed this unnatural food and then put on our grocery shelves.
These crops are really an industrial product, patented and owned by a few huge agricultural giants operating under the guise of being “farmers.” They receive billions of tax dollars in subsidies. They contribute heavily to organizations that tell us what is “healthy” to eat, yet our society becomes sicker and fatter.
The nuclear power and the natural gas fracking industries have been demonized, but neither has come close to the destruction caused by genetically modified farming practices.
Being a vegetarian or driving a car using ethanol might feel good or “green,” but doesn't solve the problem of how we can feed ourselves while destroying our topsoil.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Better stores needed
- Superstition’s role
- Treat UNC like PSU
- Ambrosini’s logic lacking
- Intelligent discussion overdue
- Wolf is the right choice
- ObamaCare solution
- Gun questions for mayor II
- Shame on Wolf
- Gun questions for mayor I
- Barbour sentence shameful