Corn, coal, and algae
GRAIN PRODUCERS and agribusiness aren't exactly the villains in "King Corn," the documentary film in which I appear, and which you cite in your Oct. 23 editorial "Breaking Big Oil's monopoly." But America's rampant corn production does make one thing abundantly clear: When it comes to modern commodity-based foods, you can have too much of a good thing.
Several decades of government-subsidized all-out corn production have spawned a flood of sweet processed foods; the average American now consumes nearly 70 pounds of high fructose corn syrup a year. Even with ethanol production on the rise, this year's record corn harvest will ensure a steady stream of corn calories in our supermarkets and stomachs.
Just as corn-based ethanol is probably not the perfect solution to our energy problems, corn-based junk foods aren't exactly doing our waistlines any favors, either, as I saw firsthand by growing my own Iowa acre of Yellow Dent #2.
IAN CHENEY
South Boston
The writer is coproducer of "King Corn."
IT'S GREAT to see Massachusetts stepping up in the development of alternative biofuel feedstocks, especially algae ("Breaking Big Oil's monopoly"). Algae are certainly the big hitters of the plant world when it comes to explosive, exponential growth. For example, there is the annual New Jersey-sized bloom in the Gulf of Mexico - only one of many such worldwide - caused by Mississippi River fertilizer runoff. Municipal wastewater treatment plants are another potentially vast nutrient resource for algae.
As for attempting to economically extract high-grade liquid fuel from algal "biocrude," I'm all for it. Meanwhile, there is a shorter path to implementing this much-needed, carbon-neutral resource on a large scale. Algae can be dried and burned directly in power plants as an offset to our biggest greenhouse gas contributor: coal.
THOMAS SULLIVAN
Vineyard Haven
ROBERT GAVIN'S Oct. 25 Business article "Mass. plant will make natural gas from coal," which detailed GreatPoint Energy's unveiling of a coal gasification research facility, emphasized the right priorities: finding clean-burning alternative fuels. However, the environmental benefits of the technology were greatly overstated. The problem of emitting carbon dioxide, the most significant global warming pollutant, would not be solved by the new facility. Converting coal to gas does not make carbon dioxide disappear, it just makes it easier to segregate and store. Carbon sequestration should not be viewed as a reliable and proven strategy for dealing with global warming; there is no evidence that stored carbon will stay stored forever.
Before betting heavily on fanciful notions with dubious positive outcomes, our elected officials should act on legislation boosting proven clean-energy technologies. Energy efficiency is the cleanest, cheapest way to start solving our energy problems, and wind and solar power are clean alternatives to fossil fuels. Even if we were to develop economically rational sequestration technology, the environmental degradation associated with coal mining remains immense.
BEN WRIGHT
Boston
The writer is an advocate on global warming with Environment Massachusetts.
THE COAL-TO-GAS plant planned in Somerset is being promoted by the state at a time when clean, renewable energy is being blocked and delayed in Massachusetts. The Cape Cod wind farm will provide much-needed jobs and nonpolluting energy, but its developers have been forced to fight to get their project built. Why is it that King Coal is given the red carpet while beautiful, graceful wind turbines can't be built along our coast? Wind turbines don't blow tops off mountains or create the health and environmental devastation that coal mining does.
NANCY NOLAN
Lexington 