BidForGreen is your source for green news and blogs, and of course, the latest on biofuels and biodiesel.

We hope that you will make us your destination to start a new blog. New to the green thing? Skeptical? Let us know. We want all kinds of voices.

Our Chief Design Genius, Paul Edge, made all of this possible. He is featured as a dj in an upcoming episode of CSI (a BidForGreen client - Go Biodiesel!), so be sure to tune in on October 30 to see Paul in his theatrical debut.

Plenty more here, but you've got other things to do.

Please explore.

For a start, today’s biodiesel boom was jump started by the soybean growers associations. They needed to help find new ways to use the waste product soybean oil. Soybeans are generally crushed and the meal or cake is used for many products including livestock feed. The crushers of soybean in the US had a glut of soybean oil. Other feedstock for biodiesel includes waste vegetable oil, and yellow grease. Thus making biodiesel pretty much non-competitive with the dinner table.

In the US, ethanol is currently being produced from corn crops. Many farmers have put in extra acres of land in corn in hopes of making a bit of a profit for a change with such a strong market for corn. However, before you go trying to throw American corn and ethanol producers under the bus, let's look at the root of the problem, and it is not biofuel production.

A terribly weak dollar has made for a rough ride economically in the US for everybody. Crude oil at nearly $120.00 a barrel has made all the inputs for farming shoot through the roof. Hell, if it was not for biofuels there would be a lot less land in any production this year. Mr. Ziegler should be on his knees thanking God that biofuels production is where it is at or we would really be hitting the wall of a food crisis.

Let’s also talk of decades’ worth of bad international economic and agricultural policy. The industrial world has moved the rest of the world towards growing for western markets and away from building local markets to feed the people where they are. These kinds of policies have had devastating affects on global agriculture and have resulted in moving thousands upon thousands of people from rural agricultural lifestyles to adding to the already staggering number of urban poor world wide.

So instead of trashing biofuels and those who are truly helping make the world a better place by producing them. Let’s start a dialogue about the real culprits plaguing the poor around the world in a way that can actually fix some problems. Instead of encouraging agribusiness we push agriculture.

It simply does not matter how you cook it, you cannot eat cash. Help build national sustainable agriculture in every corner of the world, encouraging biofuels production for local markets. This should be our number one priority. If we want to solve the hunger problem in the world we start by building local agricultural markets and we build from there.

We cannot sacrifice what is good for what is perfect. Is corn-based ethanol a silver bullet for the world’s energy needs? No, but it is also not the culprit in any food crisis we might be facing. Corn ethanol is a step in the right direction it is , however, up to us to keep our feet on the right path to a more sustainable future based on healthy agricultural practices to supply food and fuel everyone.

What did they leave out?

1. People need soybeans for other purposes. Soybean meal is a highly prized animal feed. What is used for biodiesel, in most cases, is actually just a high-priced byproduct. People don't plant soybeans just for biodiesel. Therefore, even for those acres, that by-product nature must be considered.

2. No mention of waste product biodiesel. Beef. Chicken. Pork. Waste Veggie. These are true, sustainable sources of biodiesel feedstock. You wouldn't know if from the coverage.

3. Carbon is emitted all the time. That's natural. It's sequestered and released every moment. What we have done that is unnatural is to upset the equation by going back millions of years and releasing carbon that the earth was not expecting. But releasing carbon from "current" sources is a natural process and is quite different than from fossil fuels. No one seems to make that connection.

Now, our company and our associates have been carrying the sustainable biofuels banner for longer than Brian Williams could pronounce the words. We are all for responsible use of land, and that is possible. Anyone cutting down rainforest for any purpose is cruisin' for a bruisin' with us. But to somehow throw out less than half of the story and call it a breakthrough, brother, that just ain't right.

On the left they pray to it as if nature is some benevolent god that must not be trespassed against for any reason. Both sides are flat out wrong as they can be. Human beings are a part of nature; we are part of this great abundant environment called planet earth. On this beautiful ball of mud we call home there are many, many systems. Some systems are man-made: our economic system, political systems, and healthcare systems. Other systems are natural systems or cycles: hydrologic cycle, carbon cycle, nitrogen cycle; you get the point.

Regardless of being natural or man-made, they are all connected. They are interdependent. Look at the natural carbon cycle. For centuries as carbon was released from one place, say the burning of wood to keep people warm, it was taken up in another, maybe a peat bog or more forest growth. In the pre-industrial past natural events, such as volcanic eruptions, pumped out excess carbon into the atmosphere.Over time, nature found ways to sequester the extra carbon and remove it from the cycle. Over time, some of the carbon became sequestered in coal, oil, and natural gas.Once we found ways to burn fossil fuels for energy we began working against the natural carbon cycle, by releasing what nature had put away. Due to this imbalance in the natural system there is a change i.e. global climate change to be exact.

I am not here to argue that mankind’s over use of fossil fuel is the lone gunman in the climate change scenario. It appears at this time to be one contributing factor and most likely the only one we have any control over. Global climate change is an example of a natural system out of balance. Another important example is the nitrogen cycle. I live in a part of the US where we have a high concentration of commercial animal feeding operations or CAFOs, especially for poultry. One thing we have been battling for some time is the balance of nitrogen in our soils (I should mention that when I say “soil” I really mean “rocks and red clay”; black dirt is a pretty scarce commodity in these parts). Funny thing about rocks and red clay is that no matter how much nitrogen you apply to it only takes up a finite amount.

Once our local poultry farmers land apply the waste from their birds and the local rocks have absorbed their fair share. One good rainstorm pushes all that excess into the local streams, which promotes massive algae growth and the lovely green tint many of our once beautiful and beneficial streams and rivers now have.

It really is simple folks: If you knock something out of balance, it is going to strive to regain its equilibrium. Until it does, other systems will be negatively impacted and thrown out of balance as well. We all must understand we have a place within nature. We do not exist separate from it. Regardless of your living in a concrete jungle or 100 acres of forested land we each rely completely on the natural systems around us being able to do what they do. Be aware of your part within the natural system, and your impact on them, because believe me, when they stop working you will know their impact on you.

It is not a political answer, other than we must decide if our actions today may be negatively impacting the opportunities of the future. Once we decide then it is our up to us to make certain that our elected officials carry out the policies we deem need to be put in place. Never forget they work for us and must be held accountable for what the do in our name.

So it comes down to a moral choice. Do we change how we do things today so that future generations will have a better tomorrow?

I realize this may sound a little hooky and I understand that with all the arguments about if we can even make change or not are far from over. It is still one of if not the most important questions our generation faces. The question of choice: whether we should or should not do something that may or may not impact the future can easily be viewed by learning from the past.

There is an area in the heartland of the US where Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri meet. It is called the tri state mining area due to the rich mining history of the region. In this area there was a great mining boom back in the early 1900’s. Picher, Cardin, Treece, Joplin, Carthage and many other towns in the area became very wealthy from the lead and other products being mined in their midst. Millions of tons of waste product where brought to the surface as miners undermined miles and miles of the region. Fortunes where made and the economy of the region was off the charts. Over time the mines played out and many towns even disappeared. Leaving millions of tons of mine waste in the midst of the remaining towns and collapsing tunnels under their feet.

In the early 70’s we began to understand the affects of lead on peoples health. Everyone was concerned about lead paint in urban areas, and then someone stumbled on the tri-state mining district and Picher, Oklahoma specifically and the toxic legacy left over from the mining boom of the past. Generations of people negatively impacted by what were leftover from the mining days. The year is 2008 at the time of this writing and people are still being impacted today and will continue to be for at least another generation.

If every one was moved from the area right now there will still be impacts on the next generation. Any one from six months to six years old who lives in what is known as the Tar Creek Superfund site is exposed to potentially damaging lead exposure. Once some one has been removed from the contamination the lead in their systems tends to be sequestered by the body in the skeletal system. In women that lead can be released from the bones and back into the blood stream during pregnancy. The lead will cross the placenta and affect the unborn child. That lead will cause harm to the child more than 100 years after the pollution started it is still impacting people. Long after the profits made from the sale of those mined goods have been spent.

So do we have a moral obligation to the future? All I have to do is look into my daughter’s eyes and find that the answer is yes, most emphatically yes. That is why I do what I do. Now it is up to you, dear reader, to decide not only how you will answer the question but also how will you act upon the answer.

This should just be part of the way business is done. Instead, we are told that if industry was forced to be responsible for cleaning up its own messes it would be too much of a financial burden. Other arguments claim that the economy would suffer. Or we can't afford to clean up because it's bad for business.

I know want to be able to buy as much stuff for as little money as possible. Hell, I know I do. But cheaper is rarely better and for the economic gain that we think we are achieving, there are monumental costs piled up someplace else.

Since the superfund tax on industry that helped pay for cleaning up the worst pollution sites in the US was allowed to fade off into the smog-tainted sunset by the brilliant minds that brought us W The President, industry is no longer liable for the payment of damages due to their process.

Yep, that's right: When an area of this country is so polluted that the Federal Government is forced to act, then you know it must be bad to force the Federal Government into action. And take a wild guess who pays for the clean up. Yep, the great American taxpayer.

So, how do you feel about your cheap energy now? Or that great deal you got on some trinket? You paid for it up front and now you have to pay for the cleanup of the company that made it on the back end. And not only do you pay for the clean up of what you bought, you help pay for the cleanup of stuff you have never heard of.

Now, I grant you if industry is forced to clean up its own messes the cost will most certainly be passed on to us, the consumer. Myself, I would rather pay a little extra at the check out counter knowing that the products I buy are being produced in a responsible manner. The alternative, which is our reality, is that we are paying for products not being produced responsibly and still paying for the cleanup. So what do we do to remedy this problem?

1. Know who you are doing business with. Look at who produces the products you buy and find out if they are made responsibly by a reliable company or not.

2. If you can't find a company that produces what you use in a responsible way, find yourself another product or method to achieve the service you need.

3. If all else fails and you can find no company that produces what you need in a way that makes sense for you either live with it or learn to live without it.

Make the changes you can. Every little step in the right direction is still a step in the right direction.

They are starving because they either can’t get access to food due to political, bureaucratic, and/or economic reasons, along with just plan bad planning on the part of many well-meaning organizations. Tons of food spoil or are lost to pests while trying to get where it needs to be.

Agriculture in the developed world, along with what is termed the green revolution, has greatly increased the amount of food available to the world. Through the usage of fertilizers and pesticides and monster machines the US alone is able to create food from less land than at any time in our
history.

That type of monoculture and “green” revolution have not come without costs of their own. Although monoculture enhances the efficiency of agriculture, by its very nature it limits the diversity of crops available. Throughout the US we have seen losses of topsoil and degradation of farmland. Farmers have to add more and more inputs into their soil every year. As more topsoil is lost and more chemicals applied to the land we have seen more and more problems with water pollution across the country.

In many ways, the great traditions of Agri-Culture are being replaced with the new model of Agri-Business. So as agribusiness moves toward more and more efficient ways of mining the soil for its nutrients rather than growing food, family farms and generations of tradition are thrown out the window. Studies shows that all over the world people are leaving the rural farming communities and heading into more urban settings. In the developed world our urban areas tend to have the infrastructure in place to absorb these numbers. However, in the developing world this is not the case. Mexico City struggles daily with simply getting clean water to people. People leaving the countryside small villages and setting up shantytowns that have no water or wastewater services besiege all major cities in India.

So what do we do to change this paradigm? That is easy: Use biofuels. The more biofuels are made available and economical, the more people rush to find new and better ways of making them. We already see great promise in energy crops from grasses to fast-growing trees. These new feedstocks for biofuels become an economical boon for farmers with marginal land that is not well suited for food crops but are perfect for low-input energy crops. Biofuels production in developing nations can help jump start economic growth and access to new ways to produce food in their area thus reducing dependence on foreign sources.

Let’s recap: New biofuels feedstocks can increase economic growth, increase biodiversity in agriculture, are less dependent on outside petroleum-based chemicals, can help restore the land, and aid in restoring balance to the carbon cycle of the earth. Oh, and no one is starving because of biofuels production.

Any questions?