Thank you for reporting on this Bob. Living in the Corn Belt I see this habitat loss all around me and the scale is frightening. The impact will be felt far from the Midwest, too, both in decreased water qualiity in the Gulf and in reduced numbers of migratory birds.

Well Bob, what you gonna do? Wind kills birds, solar is only good in places where there are no birds (huntable birds, the only kind you seem to care about) now ethanol is bad. Guess that only leaves fossil fuel. And it doesn't matter cause the rest of the world is not listening.
Let's try a different approach, let's use the $$ for solar, wind etc for research into making fossil fuels more enviornmentally acceptable. They could reduce coalburning power plants emmissions, reduce auto exhaust and that's something the whole world could and would use. What ya think?

I'm with you BEN! How amazing is that?

Lab, It's very simple. Liberals will not consume their own no matter the circumstance, while those like us would destroy someone the said something reemotely stupid on our side of the political spectrum. Speaking of AL Gorezzera! Don't we all owe him for this whole political shenanigans. That hypocrite caused this whole conviluted mess. Just think the majority of people don't think one person can make a difference. That jackwad made billions and cost everyone trillions on the greatest con scheme ever perpetrated on human kind.

I agree with Dcast that taxpayers shouldn't be footing the bill for the solar and wind energy. That said, it should be a fair fight. To put everyone on the same playing field, we should get rid of subsidies for fossil fuels too. When gasoline costs $10-15/gallon sans subsidies, the alternatives begin to look a lot better. Also consider the costs of keeping our boys in harm's way in oil-rich, hostile countries, and the actual cost of cheap oil gets really, really expensive. Also, don't forget to factor in the monetary and other costs of pollution, health care (asthma from particulates, mercury deposition, etc.), and keeping a large military presence in oil-rich, hostile countries that we wouldn't need if we went away from fossil fuels.

That said, solar and wind ARE appropriate in a few areas. Some people and companies are willing to spend more for the energy from them, and a lot of people value the off-the-grid type independence that you can achieve with them.

Benjamin- Al Gore didn't invent that goat/spider concept, just as he didn't invent climate change.

In fact, this goat/spider topic probably goes back over 10 years. Essentially, scientists have cloned the gene in spiders that produce the protein responsible for their webbing (silk), which has many uses in medicine (like artificial ligaments for example). They put this gene into the goats so that the goats produce the silk in their milk. A lactating goat would obviously produce large quantities (more than a spider ever could) of the silk protein, which would then be separated and purified.

It's your typical instance of genetic engineering. Is it bizarre? Totally. But half of the crap you eat at the supermarket would sound horrific if you knew its laboratory origins. Like splicing the genes of a fish into a tomato. IMO, genetic engineering and GMOs pose a major risk to our health and to nature. Besides the potential for dangerous consequences, it's also unethical. Now that's worthy of discussion here, not that crap that you regurgitated from Glenn Beck's website.

Oil, gas and coal subsidies still outpace nuclear AND solar by a 4:1 margin.

Additionally, the MLP (Master Limited Partnership) tax structure is still available for oil and gas companies. This was a tax loophole preserved by the 1986 Tax Act when so many were closed.

Back to the original subject, ethanol handouts by the Bush Admin are just that. More corporate welfare for ADM. Read the Cato Institute's findings on them.

Gas plants can be turned on and off but that increases the maintenance costs and reduces the life of the facility. Steady state optimum rpms is the most efficient way to produce power in a turbine. Buffet will take the subsidies all day long and sell out as soon as the numbers, given to him by his buddies in the government, change. The cost to the consumer is way higher prices and double the government intrusion. What the Dems call a "twofer".

. I think its funny that with one simple note of an introduction "what politician" started the program, sparks the battle over this issue and a majority here tie in there political beliefs into scientific theory. Science community if doing true unbiased work (foundation of science) doesn't care what the politicians think and will present as such. Al gore is not a scientist and does not present a scientific explanation or unbiased data for "global warming".(if you think "global climate change!" is not occurring you are in fact the definition of an idiot ((rejection of knowledge)) its happening weather or not you believe in it, so says multiple studies with unbiased data))Obama not a scientist dictates policy based on typically bias advisors (Lobbyist) clearly advised to push agenda .GW Bush also not a scientist advised by bias advisors (lobbyist) clearly to push an agenda very. The problem is the exactly that politicians don't use actual scientific knowledge to build policy they use public perception of science to build policy, in all honesty its the same as using "god" or the bible to dictate policy because it is not impartial or empirical.

Now that its somewhat clarified I will use my some what limited (a year short of BS degree) knowledge of science to propose possible alternatives. I think biofuels are an answer to some of the issues occurring around the world. "The purpose of conservation: the greatest good to the greatest number of people for the longest time" Gifford Pinchot (don't know who he is look him up.) Most people on this site are conservation minded and should understand this very well. I think the push forward needs to happen in a self defeating prophecy, in the sense that we need to use the problem we are creating to not only move forward to stopping degradation of lands but also to advance as a society. For example one of my favorite topics is the issue of Asian carp an intrusive invasive species, if a business plan were devised to make cat food or large use byproduct with limited sideffects to the ecosystems. We are pretty good at catching large amounts of fish and sometimes to good, nearly pushing many to very low popuations or extinction. Why is it that this massive fish problem cannot fix itself with the idealism's we already have of overusing resources? Thus I get to my suggestion (hypothesis), there are many non-native plants or plants growing in larger excess than ever before due to global climate change if an equilibrium could be found and we are able to also cost effectively replace as many nutrients from which they came we could then achieve a very effective energy source. The problem happening in the corn belt is that corn takes up the nutrients from the soil (causing salanation) and is then burned to produce energy dispersing raw nutrients far from which they came (ie nitrogen, phosphorous...) corn is also non-native to most of the region. As you may be able to tell with my previous example my degree is geared toward water ecology and conservation. So I suggest the use of algae but the development of a system that captures as much of the raw nutrients it uptakes to go through its life cycle to then essentially re-use and either spur new growth of native species and healthy habitats. It is not a perfect plan but it is founded with a basic conservation intention that would attempt to eliminate as many variables as possible with our current understanding. Small example is the use of algae lamps or light, its basically a very effective solar panel. Corn ethanol had very predictable outcomes, not as viable of a solution. BASES OF SCIENCE: Please use a testable unbiased hypothesis to defeat mine, it will only advance my knowledge further.

I'll try to remain on the issue Bob wrote about: loss of grasslands and wetlands here in the midwest. I've lived in South Dakota since 1993, and have seen more drain tile installed, more tree belts bulldozed, more planting fenceline-to-fenceline in the past 5 years than in my first 15 here. Obviously a response to the subsidy-driven biofuel growth explosion. While it's been a good deal for some farmers, it's been quite the opposite for wildlife and those of us who love to chase roosters or hunt duck sloughs. Yes, the article does involve politics, and when that's the case, too often the comment thread devolves into Fox News vs. MSNBC territory and the main thrust of the discussion is lost.

Screw the need for biofuel, have any idea what additional pollution this has caused in the Gulf Of Mexico?

WELL DUH!

Unlike so many debates here recently, this one had some REALLY intelligent comments. I especially liked "The problem is the exactly that politicians don't use actual scientific knowledge to build policy they use public perception of science to build policy". We are going to talk about that one at work. But here is the thing: suppose a scientist ran for office with a campaign pledge to use science to set public policy, and a pledge to support unbiased scientific management of natural resources. If this forum voted, he or she would win or lose based on their stance on gun rights.