<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: G.M.O. Seed Company Monsanto Invests in Biofuels</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gas2.org/2008/11/04/gmo-seed-company-monsanto-invests-in-biofuels/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gas2.org/2008/11/04/gmo-seed-company-monsanto-invests-in-biofuels/</link>
	<description>What is the future of fuel?  What&#039;s new?  What&#039;s next?  Since 2007, Gas 2 has covered a rapidly changing world coming to terms with its oil addiction.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 23:24:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tweets that mention G.M.O. Seed Company Monsanto Invests in Biofuels – Gas 2.0 -- Topsy.com</title>
		<link>http://gas2.org/2008/11/04/gmo-seed-company-monsanto-invests-in-biofuels/#comment-73874</link>
		<dc:creator>Tweets that mention G.M.O. Seed Company Monsanto Invests in Biofuels – Gas 2.0 -- Topsy.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Feb 2011 23:26:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gas2.org/?p=1220#comment-73874</guid>
		<description>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by ecovisionary and moodindi, Visionary Values. Visionary Values said: G.M.O. Seed Company Monsanto Invests in Biofuels: http://t.co/mHfOR2X 11/4/2008 [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by ecovisionary and moodindi, Visionary Values. Visionary Values said: G.M.O. Seed Company Monsanto Invests in Biofuels: <a href="http://t.co/mHfOR2X" rel="nofollow">http://t.co/mHfOR2X</a> 11/4/2008 [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Glenn</title>
		<link>http://gas2.org/2008/11/04/gmo-seed-company-monsanto-invests-in-biofuels/#comment-6354</link>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Dec 2008 19:38:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gas2.org/?p=1220#comment-6354</guid>
		<description>google ( wikipedia photosynthesis efficiency ) and you will find photosynthesis is only about 6 % efficient.      A roof wth solar panels at 10-12% efficiency does not require land needed for other uses. Light in a desert area is much more intense that crop land.  Wind energy requires only a foot print.  With photosynthesis you start with 6%, for only part of the year and when temperatures are right.  You harvest only part of the 6%, the lose a good fraction of that in coversion to ethanol, then burn it in an engine that averages about 20%.  Electric motor run about 90% efficiency, which is why we will be moving toward electrical energy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>google ( wikipedia photosynthesis efficiency ) and you will find photosynthesis is only about 6 % efficient.      A roof wth solar panels at 10-12% efficiency does not require land needed for other uses. Light in a desert area is much more intense that crop land.  Wind energy requires only a foot print.  With photosynthesis you start with 6%, for only part of the year and when temperatures are right.  You harvest only part of the 6%, the lose a good fraction of that in coversion to ethanol, then burn it in an engine that averages about 20%.  Electric motor run about 90% efficiency, which is why we will be moving toward electrical energy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Glenn</title>
		<link>http://gas2.org/2008/11/04/gmo-seed-company-monsanto-invests-in-biofuels/#comment-28557</link>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Dec 2008 19:38:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gas2.org/?p=1220#comment-28557</guid>
		<description>google ( wikipedia photosynthesis efficiency ) and you will find photosynthesis is only about 6 % efficient.      A roof wth solar panels at 10-12% efficiency does not require land needed for other uses. Light in a desert area is much more intense that crop land.  Wind energy requires only a foot print.  With photosynthesis you start with 6%, for only part of the year and when temperatures are right.  You harvest only part of the 6%, the lose a good fraction of that in coversion to ethanol, then burn it in an engine that averages about 20%.  Electric motor run about 90% efficiency, which is why we will be moving toward electrical energy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>google ( wikipedia photosynthesis efficiency ) and you will find photosynthesis is only about 6 % efficient.      A roof wth solar panels at 10-12% efficiency does not require land needed for other uses. Light in a desert area is much more intense that crop land.  Wind energy requires only a foot print.  With photosynthesis you start with 6%, for only part of the year and when temperatures are right.  You harvest only part of the 6%, the lose a good fraction of that in coversion to ethanol, then burn it in an engine that averages about 20%.  Electric motor run about 90% efficiency, which is why we will be moving toward electrical energy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LonnieB</title>
		<link>http://gas2.org/2008/11/04/gmo-seed-company-monsanto-invests-in-biofuels/#comment-6353</link>
		<dc:creator>LonnieB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:13:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gas2.org/?p=1220#comment-6353</guid>
		<description>I recently read an article by a Brazilian agriculture expert. In the article, he pointed out that it was the LUMBER INDUSTRY &amp; CATTLE BARONS who were at the heart of the deforestation problem, not grain or cane farmers.

He also pointed out that Brazil doesn&#039;t currently produce enough ethanol for export to have a significant impact on American farmers, as the fans of ethanol tariffs would have us believe.

If I can find the article, I will post a link. It was extremely informative.



What continues to amaze me is how both proponents and opponents of etahnol on this site, continually overlook such (in my mind, obvious) alternatives as sugar cane from the Dominican Republic and Jerusalem Artichokes as a feedstock for production. I have seen zero, nada, zip discussion about these alternatives here, even though both have huge potential to alleviate a significant amount of the negatives about ethanol.

To me, it amounts to nothing more than arguement for arguement&#039;s sake. No real solution seeking, just bickering.



It seems as though fear-mongering is all the media trains itself in, these days. Good news? What&#039;s that?

We used to be a society of solutions. We are now a society of blame and fear.

We loudly decry deforestation...as we buy our furniture made from the trees and consume the other products resulting from that deforestation.

We rant against Big Oil....as we drive our gas-guzzling urban assault vehicles.

Our individual partisanship forbids us seeing the blantant flaws in our choice of politicians, while at the same time blaming ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING on the other party.

We insist that unless it&#039;s a magic bullet that cures all our woes...it&#039;s not worth doing. All or nothing!

We are mere sheep being lead by our collective noses by an agenda-driven media intent on reshaping America into their image (i.e. George Soros and Ted Turner). That image doesn&#039;t appear to include independence of any sort (energy or from government).

Keeping us under OPEC&#039;s thumb is a way to force us into their Euro-like image ($7 per gallon fuel), so actual support (not just talking points) of energy independence is not in their best interests.

Ergo, yes oil is evil, but alternatives are simply unworkable pie-in-the-sky dreams and we should just roll over and accept whatever our elected crooks shove up our orifice!



Until this sit-on-your-own-shoulders mentality is abandoned, the discussions here will remain just that...discussions. Not solutions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I recently read an article by a Brazilian agriculture expert. In the article, he pointed out that it was the LUMBER INDUSTRY &amp; CATTLE BARONS who were at the heart of the deforestation problem, not grain or cane farmers.</p>
<p>He also pointed out that Brazil doesn&#8217;t currently produce enough ethanol for export to have a significant impact on American farmers, as the fans of ethanol tariffs would have us believe.</p>
<p>If I can find the article, I will post a link. It was extremely informative.</p>
<p>What continues to amaze me is how both proponents and opponents of etahnol on this site, continually overlook such (in my mind, obvious) alternatives as sugar cane from the Dominican Republic and Jerusalem Artichokes as a feedstock for production. I have seen zero, nada, zip discussion about these alternatives here, even though both have huge potential to alleviate a significant amount of the negatives about ethanol.</p>
<p>To me, it amounts to nothing more than arguement for arguement&#8217;s sake. No real solution seeking, just bickering.</p>
<p>It seems as though fear-mongering is all the media trains itself in, these days. Good news? What&#8217;s that?</p>
<p>We used to be a society of solutions. We are now a society of blame and fear.</p>
<p>We loudly decry deforestation&#8230;as we buy our furniture made from the trees and consume the other products resulting from that deforestation.</p>
<p>We rant against Big Oil&#8230;.as we drive our gas-guzzling urban assault vehicles.</p>
<p>Our individual partisanship forbids us seeing the blantant flaws in our choice of politicians, while at the same time blaming ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING on the other party.</p>
<p>We insist that unless it&#8217;s a magic bullet that cures all our woes&#8230;it&#8217;s not worth doing. All or nothing!</p>
<p>We are mere sheep being lead by our collective noses by an agenda-driven media intent on reshaping America into their image (i.e. George Soros and Ted Turner). That image doesn&#8217;t appear to include independence of any sort (energy or from government).</p>
<p>Keeping us under OPEC&#8217;s thumb is a way to force us into their Euro-like image ($7 per gallon fuel), so actual support (not just talking points) of energy independence is not in their best interests.</p>
<p>Ergo, yes oil is evil, but alternatives are simply unworkable pie-in-the-sky dreams and we should just roll over and accept whatever our elected crooks shove up our orifice!</p>
<p>Until this sit-on-your-own-shoulders mentality is abandoned, the discussions here will remain just that&#8230;discussions. Not solutions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LonnieB</title>
		<link>http://gas2.org/2008/11/04/gmo-seed-company-monsanto-invests-in-biofuels/#comment-28556</link>
		<dc:creator>LonnieB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gas2.org/?p=1220#comment-28556</guid>
		<description>I recently read an article by a Brazilian agriculture expert. In the article, he pointed out that it was the LUMBER INDUSTRY &amp; CATTLE BARONS who were at the heart of the deforestation problem, not grain or cane farmers.

He also pointed out that Brazil doesn&#039;t currently produce enough ethanol for export to have a significant impact on American farmers, as the fans of ethanol tariffs would have us believe.

If I can find the article, I will post a link. It was extremely informative.



What continues to amaze me is how both proponents and opponents of etahnol on this site, continually overlook such (in my mind, obvious) alternatives as sugar cane from the Dominican Republic and Jerusalem Artichokes as a feedstock for production. I have seen zero, nada, zip discussion about these alternatives here, even though both have huge potential to alleviate a significant amount of the negatives about ethanol.

To me, it amounts to nothing more than arguement for arguement&#039;s sake. No real solution seeking, just bickering.



It seems as though fear-mongering is all the media trains itself in, these days. Good news? What&#039;s that?

We used to be a society of solutions. We are now a society of blame and fear.

We loudly decry deforestation...as we buy our furniture made from the trees and consume the other products resulting from that deforestation.

We rant against Big Oil....as we drive our gas-guzzling urban assault vehicles.

Our individual partisanship forbids us seeing the blantant flaws in our choice of politicians, while at the same time blaming ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING on the other party.

We insist that unless it&#039;s a magic bullet that cures all our woes...it&#039;s not worth doing. All or nothing!

We are mere sheep being lead by our collective noses by an agenda-driven media intent on reshaping America into their image (i.e. George Soros and Ted Turner). That image doesn&#039;t appear to include independence of any sort (energy or from government).

Keeping us under OPEC&#039;s thumb is a way to force us into their Euro-like image ($7 per gallon fuel), so actual support (not just talking points) of energy independence is not in their best interests.

Ergo, yes oil is evil, but alternatives are simply unworkable pie-in-the-sky dreams and we should just roll over and accept whatever our elected crooks shove up our orifice!



Until this sit-on-your-own-shoulders mentality is abandoned, the discussions here will remain just that...discussions. Not solutions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I recently read an article by a Brazilian agriculture expert. In the article, he pointed out that it was the LUMBER INDUSTRY &amp; CATTLE BARONS who were at the heart of the deforestation problem, not grain or cane farmers.</p>
<p>He also pointed out that Brazil doesn&#8217;t currently produce enough ethanol for export to have a significant impact on American farmers, as the fans of ethanol tariffs would have us believe.</p>
<p>If I can find the article, I will post a link. It was extremely informative.</p>
<p>What continues to amaze me is how both proponents and opponents of etahnol on this site, continually overlook such (in my mind, obvious) alternatives as sugar cane from the Dominican Republic and Jerusalem Artichokes as a feedstock for production. I have seen zero, nada, zip discussion about these alternatives here, even though both have huge potential to alleviate a significant amount of the negatives about ethanol.</p>
<p>To me, it amounts to nothing more than arguement for arguement&#8217;s sake. No real solution seeking, just bickering.</p>
<p>It seems as though fear-mongering is all the media trains itself in, these days. Good news? What&#8217;s that?</p>
<p>We used to be a society of solutions. We are now a society of blame and fear.</p>
<p>We loudly decry deforestation&#8230;as we buy our furniture made from the trees and consume the other products resulting from that deforestation.</p>
<p>We rant against Big Oil&#8230;.as we drive our gas-guzzling urban assault vehicles.</p>
<p>Our individual partisanship forbids us seeing the blantant flaws in our choice of politicians, while at the same time blaming ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING on the other party.</p>
<p>We insist that unless it&#8217;s a magic bullet that cures all our woes&#8230;it&#8217;s not worth doing. All or nothing!</p>
<p>We are mere sheep being lead by our collective noses by an agenda-driven media intent on reshaping America into their image (i.e. George Soros and Ted Turner). That image doesn&#8217;t appear to include independence of any sort (energy or from government).</p>
<p>Keeping us under OPEC&#8217;s thumb is a way to force us into their Euro-like image ($7 per gallon fuel), so actual support (not just talking points) of energy independence is not in their best interests.</p>
<p>Ergo, yes oil is evil, but alternatives are simply unworkable pie-in-the-sky dreams and we should just roll over and accept whatever our elected crooks shove up our orifice!</p>
<p>Until this sit-on-your-own-shoulders mentality is abandoned, the discussions here will remain just that&#8230;discussions. Not solutions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Iris</title>
		<link>http://gas2.org/2008/11/04/gmo-seed-company-monsanto-invests-in-biofuels/#comment-6352</link>
		<dc:creator>Iris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 06:43:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gas2.org/?p=1220#comment-6352</guid>
		<description>I heard a few years ago that one of the companies that supply Mac Donalds with its &#039;beef&#039; in actual fact manufacture soya patties. This soy is genetically modified but the company&#039;s name however is &#039;100% beef&#039;.....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I heard a few years ago that one of the companies that supply Mac Donalds with its &#8216;beef&#8217; in actual fact manufacture soya patties. This soy is genetically modified but the company&#8217;s name however is &#8217;100% beef&#8217;&#8230;..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Iris</title>
		<link>http://gas2.org/2008/11/04/gmo-seed-company-monsanto-invests-in-biofuels/#comment-28555</link>
		<dc:creator>Iris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 06:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gas2.org/?p=1220#comment-28555</guid>
		<description>I heard a few years ago that one of the companies that supply Mac Donalds with its &#039;beef&#039; in actual fact manufacture soya patties. This soy is genetically modified but the company&#039;s name however is &#039;100% beef&#039;.....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I heard a few years ago that one of the companies that supply Mac Donalds with its &#8216;beef&#8217; in actual fact manufacture soya patties. This soy is genetically modified but the company&#8217;s name however is &#8217;100% beef&#8217;&#8230;..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark in Texas</title>
		<link>http://gas2.org/2008/11/04/gmo-seed-company-monsanto-invests-in-biofuels/#comment-6351</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark in Texas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:46:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gas2.org/?p=1220#comment-6351</guid>
		<description>So Amazon rain forests are being cut down to grow soy beans?  Tofu from soy beans is destroying this precious and fragile ecosystem?



Heartless vegetarians are complicit in the vandalism of mankind&#039;s common legacy.  The next time you see some vegan shoving tofu into his/her mouth, make sure to point out to them the species that are facing extinction because of their lifestyle choices.  I am not sure what substances go into a MacDonald&#039;s double cheesburger but I am pretty sure that soy beans grown on land raped from Amazon rain forest are not on the ingredients list.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So Amazon rain forests are being cut down to grow soy beans?  Tofu from soy beans is destroying this precious and fragile ecosystem?</p>
<p>Heartless vegetarians are complicit in the vandalism of mankind&#8217;s common legacy.  The next time you see some vegan shoving tofu into his/her mouth, make sure to point out to them the species that are facing extinction because of their lifestyle choices.  I am not sure what substances go into a MacDonald&#8217;s double cheesburger but I am pretty sure that soy beans grown on land raped from Amazon rain forest are not on the ingredients list.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark in Texas</title>
		<link>http://gas2.org/2008/11/04/gmo-seed-company-monsanto-invests-in-biofuels/#comment-28554</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark in Texas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gas2.org/?p=1220#comment-28554</guid>
		<description>So Amazon rain forests are being cut down to grow soy beans?  Tofu from soy beans is destroying this precious and fragile ecosystem?



Heartless vegetarians are complicit in the vandalism of mankind&#039;s common legacy.  The next time you see some vegan shoving tofu into his/her mouth, make sure to point out to them the species that are facing extinction because of their lifestyle choices.  I am not sure what substances go into a MacDonald&#039;s double cheesburger but I am pretty sure that soy beans grown on land raped from Amazon rain forest are not on the ingredients list.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So Amazon rain forests are being cut down to grow soy beans?  Tofu from soy beans is destroying this precious and fragile ecosystem?</p>
<p>Heartless vegetarians are complicit in the vandalism of mankind&#8217;s common legacy.  The next time you see some vegan shoving tofu into his/her mouth, make sure to point out to them the species that are facing extinction because of their lifestyle choices.  I am not sure what substances go into a MacDonald&#8217;s double cheesburger but I am pretty sure that soy beans grown on land raped from Amazon rain forest are not on the ingredients list.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

