By Hal Herring

Bob Marshall recently described on this blog how the biofuels mandate from the Bush administration has had an unpleasant result: the explosive conversion of native grasslands (our gamebird and waterfowl habitat) to corn crops, with their high uses of water and the fertilizers that run off and pollute watersheds for hundreds of miles downstream. As Marshall pointed out, what we are doing to our native grasslands is almost exactly what the Malaysians, Brazilians and Indonesians are doing to their native forests.
 
The biofuels mandate is a perfect example of unintended consequences. But there’s another engine driving this destruction of our wetlands and wildlife, too. This engine dates back to the 1996 Farm Bill, when Congress de-coupled what is known as “conservation compliance” - basic protections for wetlands and highly erodible lands- via our government supported crop insurance programs.  At that time, it did not seem too important. Farmers in the U.S. relied more on direct subsidy payments - which came with an extensive set of mandates for conservation compliance - than they did the federally supported crop insurance plans.
 
Fast forward to 2013. The direct farm subsidy payments have become so unpopular- opposed by everybody from the Environmental Working Group to Taxpayers for Common Sense- that they have been almost entirely phased out. In their place is a much expanded Federal Crop Insurance Program that, unfortunately, not only lacks any conservation compliance requirements, it actively encourages the plowing and planting of marginal lands, ensuring that no matter the weather, the soil, the crop, money can be made. Government-supported crop insurance has become the largest subsidy to U.S farmers – 264 million acres insured in 2011, at a cost to taxpayers of over $7 billion.
 
If we had tried to devise a federally supported plan to wreck our wildlife habitat, ruin our wetlands, and empty the Treasury, we couldn’t have done it better.
 
What we are witnessing is a trifecta of disastrous effects. The crop insurance, the ethanol mandate, and the record global commodity prices driven by the hunger of 7 billion human beings have resulted in a frenzy of plowing, draining, and planting of corn and other crops, leaving little room for wildlife or birds, and few buffers to protect water quality from pesticide and fertilizer-saturated runoff. We’ve lost 25 million acres of grass and wetlands in the past 25 years--the greatest conversion since the decades leading up to the Dust Bowl. The pace is astounding- we’ve lost more wetlands and grasslands in the past four years than we did in the previous 40. South Dakota, the pheasant kingdom, reports 500,000 acres converted from grass to crops since 2007. North Dakota reports a million since then. Although the conversion is most extreme in what is known as the Western Corn Belt- the Dakotas, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Iowa - demand for wheat from Asian markets is causing Montana farmers to convert conservation lands and grasslands to crops, too.

Even the market for organic grains has a bitter downside - the easiest and fastest way to grow organic crops is to break new ground on former native prairie.
 
Here are the problems and what we can to solve them:
 
• The Renewable Fuel Standard needs to be reformed or ditched, as quickly as possible. The Renewable Fuel Standard requires refiners to blend 15 billion gallons of conventional biofuels (i.e. corn ethanol) into the U.S. fuel supply by 2015. As Scott Faber, Vice President of Government Affairs for the Environmental Working Group said in February 2012, “Corn ethanol has not only been a disaster for consumers…it’s also been a disaster for the environment. In fact, it’s worse for the environment than Canadian tar sands.”
 
• We must reconnect conservation compliance with any federal farm payments, including the expanded federal crop insurance. Here’s what Jim Moseley, Former Deputy Secretary of the USDA, wrote about the success of connecting conservation compliance with direct federal subsidy payments to farmers. The same can be said of connecting conservation with crop insurance: “Conservation compliance is a reasonable expectation in exchange for the significant benefits the public provides for producers….Compliance has been highly successful. Because conservation treatments have been applied to over 140 million acres, farmers have saved 295 million tons of soil per year—soil that has been held in place and kept from entering our rivers, lakes, and streams. Further, an estimated 1.5 million to 3.3 million acres of vulnerable wetlands have not been drained as a result of compliance.”

The success that Mosely describes here is evaporating before our eyes. Here’s a fast rundown from the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership on what’s at stake.
 
• We need to develop new wildlife habitat programs and wetlands protections that do not depend entirely on federal support. We are already seeing big reductions in the acreage enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program. CRP was designed to make sure farmers did not have to plant highly erodible, marginal lands, and could leave such lands fallow and in reserve in case of an emergency such as war or economic disaster.  CRP also proved to be one of the world’s most successful wildlife and water quality programs- reducing runoff and erosion, and providing habitat for, especially, gamebirds like sharptail grouse and pheasant. In 2012, landowners brought over 3.2 million acres of CRP lands into production. Congress, seeking to reduce the federal deficit, will almost certainly cap the CRP program at 25 million acres in the new farm bill that is now awaiting passage, down from a high of 39 million acres.  But that cap is hardly necessary. With an average rental rate of $40 to $50 an acre, CRP cannot compete with taxpayer-subsidized crop insurance that pays whether the land produces or not.
 
Yes, CRP is going to be reduced. But that does not mean that we have to lose all the benefits we have enjoyed from it. Crop-producing acreage can still provide some excellent wildlife habitat, if farmers and their partners will put forth the effort and bring the money to make it happen. Some of Montana’s best land managers and biologists have been working on this issue, and have recently published a comprehensive document called “Life After CRP.”
 
Pheasants Forever, Ducks Unlimited, Delta Waterfowl, National Wildlife Federation, all of the usual conservation powerhouses and partnerships, need our support now more than ever before. You do not have to agree with the group about every policy or every issue to be a member.
 
We all need food. We all - farmers most definitely included- want clean water and wildlife and fisheries. We are, at this moment, devouring our environmental capital like a bunch of feral hogs rooting up a turnip field. Many representatives who are making these laws and codifying these federal policies know as much about our waterfowl and our fishing and hunting as Joe Biden knows about our AR-15s. They are ignorant, and busy with other work.
 
The damage is not their fault. It is our fault for not telling them what we know.

Comments (9)

from Dcast wrote 10 weeks 3 days ago

Hal, another great article I couldn't agree more with! The dumbest thing Bush did in office was to sign onto the biofuel hoopla. Prior to the passage of that bill corn was somewhere around $2+- a bushel and skyrocketed shortly thereafter. If we want the new energy of the future we need to look no further than natural gas and methane with the farming industry benefiting from methane production. Farmers, cities, and states would benefit enormously from methane production or concentration. Farmers can benefit by using the unwanted parts of their crops (stocks, shoots, etc..)by composting which in turn produces methane in the decaying process. Cities already produce and concentrate methane from their sanitary process but most don't use it. States can use dump sites for the concentration of methane instead of burning it off or simply allowing it to flow freely into the atmosphere. This would lower the need for ethanol which lowers the need for farm land. Although ethanol is added to our fuel needlessly that isn't the biggest problem, the biggest problem is the USA feeding the world. The 2nd biggest thing is our processed food. Have you ever paid attention to what is in your food you buy at the store? Almost everything if not everything you buy at the grocery store has 1 or more corn by-products in it that is not needed but Big AG has their grips in everything.

I'm glad we can finally start talking about real and present issues that correspond directly with conservation. I've been very vocal with you Hal and Mr. Marshall because there is a as someone else called it 8000# gorilla in the room and it is Big Ag and their destruction of our land and waterways. You are seeing it now or opening your mind to it but Mr. Marshall still needs a lot of help. I will keep on preaching from my point of view until we all can come to a similar conclusion, and then work together to fight the real problem. I look forward to reading more from you on this.

Thanks,
Your Biggest Critic!

+3 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from tritonrider wrote 10 weeks 3 days ago

Hal unfortunately I just don't see much of anything happening until we have a second "dust bowl" and as I'm sure you are aware the parallels are eerily similar. The vast majority of production today isn't "farm" based it's corporate agribusiness and the land is just another commodity to be used up before the investors move on to the next short term, ever increasing, profit no matter what. Our family farm is one of the few surviving family farms in Mass. and the land is as healthy as it's ever been, but that's been due to an almost pathological family mandate to "protect our ground" that's been passed down through the generations. Fortunately other businesses have been used to keep the farm going through the tough times. Many times the "business" of the farm conflicted with the recommendations of the folks we've always worked with to keep things healthy.
The reality is that it has been a real struggle to keep it going, we hit the century mark recently, but it's a labor of love and just doing what we've thought was right. Fortunately some other similar farms have survived in this immediate area but for how much longer is a real question.

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Ed Fishhead wrote 10 weeks 2 days ago

To the point! Our government does not belong in the insurance business. Corn should not be subsidized into our fuel tanks, our farmers are not to blame it is the short sightedness of our policy makers. Money they say is the root...

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Justafarmer wrote 10 weeks 2 days ago

Remember, when CRP came about the US had a large grain surplus and large farm subsidy payments keeping farmers on the land. Today neither exist. CRP land was farmed at one time or it would not qualify for the program. Today's farming practices with reduced and no-till options do a much better job of keeping the soil in place for land coming out of CRP. When a farmer makes that decision, which is his alone to make, to take land out of CRP, it is not easy. We consider economics, conservation, public pressure, and agronomics.
Taking an objective look at farm subsidies, there is no denying that govt pmts continue to decline, in aggregate and per acre. At less than 1% of the fed budget it hardly "empties the treasury".
Crop ins is delivered by private companies that want no part in being the conservation police. Farmers pay a portion of their premiums on a product that carries a 15 to 50% deductible. How many non-farmers can relate to deductibles like that, save some of the self-employed trying to carry health ins? We tend to over-react by punishing the whole for the sins of the few (less than 2% according to Am Farmland Trust would be out of cons compliance).
Fine, blame the current price/land demand situation on the RFS. Most taxpayers with common sense know it is never as simple as any one org with a slant makes it out to be. What about the most severe drought (2012) since the Dust Bowl? What of worldwide natural disasters in many leading ag producing countries all leading to higher grain and food prices? The boom in ag is just about over. The ethanol industry is built out to capacity. Demand for land peaked and will soon decline like all supply and demand markets. The price of corn has declined over $1/bu or about 15% in the last week alone. How would anyone survive that kind of volatility in their W-2's?
Terms like: pesticide and fertilizer-saturated runoff do nothing to describe the reality on the farm landscape but they do sell subscriptions. The truth is the US just came through the worst drought since the 30's without an ad hoc disaster bill like we had prior to the success of crop ins. Be careful what you wish for. If the EWG's of the world and others with little understanding of agriculture and its risks, kill crop ins in addition to other farm programs, what will be used to force cons compliance then? Regulation? Doubtful. We need a strong Farm Bill continuing cons compliance tied to title one and a strong crop ins program that is a successful public/private partnership.

+3 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from MatthMillerIdaho wrote 10 weeks 1 day ago

Great post as always, Hal. The biofuel boom has so many negative consequences for wildlife and the environment. Monarch butterfly populations have declined 59 percent in one year--in no small part due to loss of habitat to biofuel production.

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Dcast wrote 10 weeks 1 day ago

Justafarmer, I hear you but you got to look at the consumer and the taxpayer paying all these needless bills. I work in construction which in its best year is a struggle and the worst depression and it doesn't matter whether it is feast of famine my taxes go up every year and my insurance goes up every year. I pay $220 a week for an HSA account to have limited coverage for my family my budget is thinner than frog hair. I pay city, county, state, school, & federal taxes all of which is taking food and minor luxuries away from my family while providing people that make more than me pay less for insurance receive a pension and maybe contributions in addition to a 401k plan, that regulate more money away from me for what? You mention the "Farm Bill" if there ever was a bigger BS name than that I'm not aware of it. Over 90% of the money in that bill goes directly to food stamps and the rest is divided up to go to what gives it it's name the "Farm Bill". I must say I never really met a poor farmer. I'm not saying farmers don't struggle from time to time but in the last decade they've had it pretty damn good. Every time congress passes another spending bill it takes money out of my pocket which takes food, clothing, and luxuries away from my family. I make less than $50k a year and I do damn good at being frugal while being financially raped, and all I ask is for everyone that is taking my money that I work for, is to use it wisely.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Justafarmer wrote 9 weeks 6 days ago

Dcast, I hear you as well. We could denigrate to what constitutes a poor farmer but I hope all Americans would wish good things on each other, like success. I also think most farmers would just as soon the govt stay out of their business. The issues arise from perceived "public good" and environment and food and energy security. How do we encapsulate them all in policy that works to offer a very important sector of our economy, security, and very identity the safety net for weather, fair trade, and issues way beyond our control like bird flu and finely textured beef? I realize that I operate in a risky line of work, not only my own safety, but my economic predictability. I will always be one bad crop, one bad press release (H1N1), and one bad move by my own government (Russian grain embargo) from financial disaster. What is it worth to the American people to keep the farmers productive on the land when one or more of those things happen all while protecting our environment? The only thing worse than really bad times might be really good times. I am very thankful I farmed through the last 5 years to finally shore up my balance sheet, reinvest in my own farm where needed, put money in my kids' college fund, and put some away for my own retirement. Ten to twenty years ago those things weren't happening on the farm. To expect that they continue for the next 10 to 20 years based on the last 5 is not good logic. Farmers don't "deserve" any more success than any others. The issues for balanced discussion are how do we encourage farmers to provide their own risk management while acknowledging their environmental risk management? I am not willing to sit back and allow some with an agenda that may not actually focus solely on the environment to encourage their followers support their opinions rather than facts when it directly affects my livelihood.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Dcast wrote 9 weeks 6 days ago

Justafarmer, I wish good for all. I pray for the best for everyone. I pray for your continued good fortune that has made life better for your family, I know farming isn't peaches and cream. I don't like the whole fact of bureaucrats taking money from anyone to subsidize someone else income. What really p's me off is subsidies that go to large corporations that make hand over fist then turns around and doesn't pay the money back or pay taxes at all. We hear of multibillion dollar companies not paying a single penny in taxes (GE) then receives government funding for "X". I know this is off topic and doesn't correlate to what you and I are discussing, but it relevant to the fact that they're taking money away from my family and every penny taken away from me or anyone for that matter is one more penny we don't have to support our families.

As for the topic of this article it raises very important questions on the effects of farming practices that go under the radar, that is very harmful to all living organisms, and it starts literally at the bottom of the food chain.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from 4AG wrote 9 weeks 4 days ago

For all of you out there that question the Biofuels industry why aren't we looking at the recent oil boom and looking at the acres that is being taken way for drilling and well sites, new roads, more pollution and the wasted water that is being pumped thousands of feet below the surface which we will never see again? You all are quick to judge Biofuels when the industry is emerging to new technologies, producing more ethanol than ever out of a bushel of corn, the seed companies are coming out with new drought resistant varities of seed, bushels to the acre are increasing yearly. The fact is ethanol only uses 3% of the worlds corn supply.
Two years ago we seen a record number of birds when Biofuel production was at a all time high and what happened? The worse drought on record but I suppose somehow relates to the farmer and Biofuels. The fact is that Biofuel production is better for the enviroment it reduces toxic greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 59%. There have been no water ways or beaches closed from and ethanol spill, it lowers our dependence on foreign oil, Its Renewable and American Made.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

Post a Comment

 

All submitted comments are subject to the rules set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

from Dcast wrote 10 weeks 3 days ago

Hal, another great article I couldn't agree more with! The dumbest thing Bush did in office was to sign onto the biofuel hoopla. Prior to the passage of that bill corn was somewhere around $2+- a bushel and skyrocketed shortly thereafter. If we want the new energy of the future we need to look no further than natural gas and methane with the farming industry benefiting from methane production. Farmers, cities, and states would benefit enormously from methane production or concentration. Farmers can benefit by using the unwanted parts of their crops (stocks, shoots, etc..)by composting which in turn produces methane in the decaying process. Cities already produce and concentrate methane from their sanitary process but most don't use it. States can use dump sites for the concentration of methane instead of burning it off or simply allowing it to flow freely into the atmosphere. This would lower the need for ethanol which lowers the need for farm land. Although ethanol is added to our fuel needlessly that isn't the biggest problem, the biggest problem is the USA feeding the world. The 2nd biggest thing is our processed food. Have you ever paid attention to what is in your food you buy at the store? Almost everything if not everything you buy at the grocery store has 1 or more corn by-products in it that is not needed but Big AG has their grips in everything.

I'm glad we can finally start talking about real and present issues that correspond directly with conservation. I've been very vocal with you Hal and Mr. Marshall because there is a as someone else called it 8000# gorilla in the room and it is Big Ag and their destruction of our land and waterways. You are seeing it now or opening your mind to it but Mr. Marshall still needs a lot of help. I will keep on preaching from my point of view until we all can come to a similar conclusion, and then work together to fight the real problem. I look forward to reading more from you on this.

Thanks,
Your Biggest Critic!

+3 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Justafarmer wrote 10 weeks 2 days ago

Remember, when CRP came about the US had a large grain surplus and large farm subsidy payments keeping farmers on the land. Today neither exist. CRP land was farmed at one time or it would not qualify for the program. Today's farming practices with reduced and no-till options do a much better job of keeping the soil in place for land coming out of CRP. When a farmer makes that decision, which is his alone to make, to take land out of CRP, it is not easy. We consider economics, conservation, public pressure, and agronomics.
Taking an objective look at farm subsidies, there is no denying that govt pmts continue to decline, in aggregate and per acre. At less than 1% of the fed budget it hardly "empties the treasury".
Crop ins is delivered by private companies that want no part in being the conservation police. Farmers pay a portion of their premiums on a product that carries a 15 to 50% deductible. How many non-farmers can relate to deductibles like that, save some of the self-employed trying to carry health ins? We tend to over-react by punishing the whole for the sins of the few (less than 2% according to Am Farmland Trust would be out of cons compliance).
Fine, blame the current price/land demand situation on the RFS. Most taxpayers with common sense know it is never as simple as any one org with a slant makes it out to be. What about the most severe drought (2012) since the Dust Bowl? What of worldwide natural disasters in many leading ag producing countries all leading to higher grain and food prices? The boom in ag is just about over. The ethanol industry is built out to capacity. Demand for land peaked and will soon decline like all supply and demand markets. The price of corn has declined over $1/bu or about 15% in the last week alone. How would anyone survive that kind of volatility in their W-2's?
Terms like: pesticide and fertilizer-saturated runoff do nothing to describe the reality on the farm landscape but they do sell subscriptions. The truth is the US just came through the worst drought since the 30's without an ad hoc disaster bill like we had prior to the success of crop ins. Be careful what you wish for. If the EWG's of the world and others with little understanding of agriculture and its risks, kill crop ins in addition to other farm programs, what will be used to force cons compliance then? Regulation? Doubtful. We need a strong Farm Bill continuing cons compliance tied to title one and a strong crop ins program that is a successful public/private partnership.

+3 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from tritonrider wrote 10 weeks 3 days ago

Hal unfortunately I just don't see much of anything happening until we have a second "dust bowl" and as I'm sure you are aware the parallels are eerily similar. The vast majority of production today isn't "farm" based it's corporate agribusiness and the land is just another commodity to be used up before the investors move on to the next short term, ever increasing, profit no matter what. Our family farm is one of the few surviving family farms in Mass. and the land is as healthy as it's ever been, but that's been due to an almost pathological family mandate to "protect our ground" that's been passed down through the generations. Fortunately other businesses have been used to keep the farm going through the tough times. Many times the "business" of the farm conflicted with the recommendations of the folks we've always worked with to keep things healthy.
The reality is that it has been a real struggle to keep it going, we hit the century mark recently, but it's a labor of love and just doing what we've thought was right. Fortunately some other similar farms have survived in this immediate area but for how much longer is a real question.

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Ed Fishhead wrote 10 weeks 2 days ago

To the point! Our government does not belong in the insurance business. Corn should not be subsidized into our fuel tanks, our farmers are not to blame it is the short sightedness of our policy makers. Money they say is the root...

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from MatthMillerIdaho wrote 10 weeks 1 day ago

Great post as always, Hal. The biofuel boom has so many negative consequences for wildlife and the environment. Monarch butterfly populations have declined 59 percent in one year--in no small part due to loss of habitat to biofuel production.

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Dcast wrote 10 weeks 1 day ago

Justafarmer, I hear you but you got to look at the consumer and the taxpayer paying all these needless bills. I work in construction which in its best year is a struggle and the worst depression and it doesn't matter whether it is feast of famine my taxes go up every year and my insurance goes up every year. I pay $220 a week for an HSA account to have limited coverage for my family my budget is thinner than frog hair. I pay city, county, state, school, & federal taxes all of which is taking food and minor luxuries away from my family while providing people that make more than me pay less for insurance receive a pension and maybe contributions in addition to a 401k plan, that regulate more money away from me for what? You mention the "Farm Bill" if there ever was a bigger BS name than that I'm not aware of it. Over 90% of the money in that bill goes directly to food stamps and the rest is divided up to go to what gives it it's name the "Farm Bill". I must say I never really met a poor farmer. I'm not saying farmers don't struggle from time to time but in the last decade they've had it pretty damn good. Every time congress passes another spending bill it takes money out of my pocket which takes food, clothing, and luxuries away from my family. I make less than $50k a year and I do damn good at being frugal while being financially raped, and all I ask is for everyone that is taking my money that I work for, is to use it wisely.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Justafarmer wrote 9 weeks 6 days ago

Dcast, I hear you as well. We could denigrate to what constitutes a poor farmer but I hope all Americans would wish good things on each other, like success. I also think most farmers would just as soon the govt stay out of their business. The issues arise from perceived "public good" and environment and food and energy security. How do we encapsulate them all in policy that works to offer a very important sector of our economy, security, and very identity the safety net for weather, fair trade, and issues way beyond our control like bird flu and finely textured beef? I realize that I operate in a risky line of work, not only my own safety, but my economic predictability. I will always be one bad crop, one bad press release (H1N1), and one bad move by my own government (Russian grain embargo) from financial disaster. What is it worth to the American people to keep the farmers productive on the land when one or more of those things happen all while protecting our environment? The only thing worse than really bad times might be really good times. I am very thankful I farmed through the last 5 years to finally shore up my balance sheet, reinvest in my own farm where needed, put money in my kids' college fund, and put some away for my own retirement. Ten to twenty years ago those things weren't happening on the farm. To expect that they continue for the next 10 to 20 years based on the last 5 is not good logic. Farmers don't "deserve" any more success than any others. The issues for balanced discussion are how do we encourage farmers to provide their own risk management while acknowledging their environmental risk management? I am not willing to sit back and allow some with an agenda that may not actually focus solely on the environment to encourage their followers support their opinions rather than facts when it directly affects my livelihood.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Dcast wrote 9 weeks 6 days ago

Justafarmer, I wish good for all. I pray for the best for everyone. I pray for your continued good fortune that has made life better for your family, I know farming isn't peaches and cream. I don't like the whole fact of bureaucrats taking money from anyone to subsidize someone else income. What really p's me off is subsidies that go to large corporations that make hand over fist then turns around and doesn't pay the money back or pay taxes at all. We hear of multibillion dollar companies not paying a single penny in taxes (GE) then receives government funding for "X". I know this is off topic and doesn't correlate to what you and I are discussing, but it relevant to the fact that they're taking money away from my family and every penny taken away from me or anyone for that matter is one more penny we don't have to support our families.

As for the topic of this article it raises very important questions on the effects of farming practices that go under the radar, that is very harmful to all living organisms, and it starts literally at the bottom of the food chain.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from 4AG wrote 9 weeks 4 days ago

For all of you out there that question the Biofuels industry why aren't we looking at the recent oil boom and looking at the acres that is being taken way for drilling and well sites, new roads, more pollution and the wasted water that is being pumped thousands of feet below the surface which we will never see again? You all are quick to judge Biofuels when the industry is emerging to new technologies, producing more ethanol than ever out of a bushel of corn, the seed companies are coming out with new drought resistant varities of seed, bushels to the acre are increasing yearly. The fact is ethanol only uses 3% of the worlds corn supply.
Two years ago we seen a record number of birds when Biofuel production was at a all time high and what happened? The worse drought on record but I suppose somehow relates to the farmer and Biofuels. The fact is that Biofuel production is better for the enviroment it reduces toxic greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 59%. There have been no water ways or beaches closed from and ethanol spill, it lowers our dependence on foreign oil, Its Renewable and American Made.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

Post a Comment

 

All submitted comments are subject to the rules set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.