Ors, it wasn't just hemp.. he liked soy too (both the oil for fuel and the leftover mush for the early plastics he used). In general, he was pro farmer and wanted to increase their market. The oil companies were finding that their stake in the fuel game in jeapardy should they not completely dominate the situation. They did push the government to continue taxing alcohol (it was taxed heavily) and since Ford primarily pushed ethanol and not biodiesel, that was damaging to the burgeoning "growing automobiles from the ground" ideal Ford had. Oil magnates used smear campaigns telling folks that farmers were getting rich while their taxes were used to get them there. Which would have been quite the opposite... more alcohol production would have meant more taxes for the government.

Anyway along with Chemical and the Oil companies (very much in bed together) and World War II, I think there was a perfect storm for bio-engineering (from the plastic panels to the home-grown fuels). Farmers needed to grow crops for human and animal consumption for the war effort instead of for fuel. Hemp was needed for cordage, and chemical processing was well established with petroleum and although money was being put into experimentation across the board, I think the situation helped solidify the petrochemical industry.

Based on past and current antisocial/monopolistic/corrupt behavior of SOME organizations to spread FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) and their willingness to lobby and do whatever it takes to stay at the top, I don't think you need call it conspiracy theory. It's amazing what goes on under our noses. <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Don't get me wrong, not all businesses are bad, and many try to make amends for past behavior when new leadership assumes command. But if we didn't allow passive subisdation of some of them by not holding them accountable for environmental damage (past, present and future) then the landscape would be very, very different indeed.

Okay, I'm trying not to come off as a nut job and I'm certainly not a pot-head. Ors is right on the money when it comes to Industrial Hemp. This article should be mandatory reading by all DEA, LEO, and government employee, including elected officials. Just for the record, I'm not interested in illicit drugs in any way, shape or form. I am, however, interested in our environment, our rural economy, and on intelligent discussion. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

When do we start the revolution <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />???

Troy

This is one of those "your dollar is your vote" things I think. It starts with the individual choices we make on a daily basis. It begins with each of us. <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Two things I would like to make perfectly clear: 1. I think I'm right when it comes to Industrial Hemp too <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
2. Advocates for legal hemp cultivation are sometimes marijuana users, but not necessarily. I am stating this not as a judgement, but simply as a fact. Hemp and marijuana are cousins, but not exactly the same plant. I liken it sweet corn and seed corn. You could eat both, but one is going to taste a whole lot better than the other. Hemp and marijuana are not interchangable. Potheads and hemp advocates may find common ground, but they are two separate issues.

I have always wondered why--if hemp is really such a miraculous do-it-all solution for today's problems--other countries aren't developing it. After all, even pot is legal in the Netherlands. Surely it would be no problem for them to grow or import all the hemp they need, make petroleum products obsolete, and become the new Saudi Arabia. They would surely be rolling in "hemp dollars". But nobody is doing that even in places where it would be legal. Something just doesn't add up somewhere.

My guess is it has to do with political pressure. Other countries export hemp products. Romania is said to export some of the most environmentally friendly hemp. Chinese hemp is processed with a lot of harsh chemicals, which pretty much negates the whole point. Now Canada is getting into the game too.

It may be like the "Super Size Me" guy said about McD's...what McD's does, the rest of the industry does. Maybe it's that way with the US in this respect..."The US isn't producing hemp and phasing out petrochemicals, so we won't either". That sounds arrogant, I know, but it may be the reality of the situation.

I think too many people in influential positions are thinking too short term. But who would stand to lose in the short term if hemp production became the standard in the US? Cotton, lumbar, petrochemicals/big oil...very powerful economic and political entities. But this is where the short term thinking comes in. I'm guessing if I was in charge of lumber or cotton or oil production, I'd be pretty comfortable with the status quo. I've still got plenty of resources to process, and financially I'm very comfortable. So why would I advocate something that might threaten that level of comfort and security? I WOULDN'T! Because my instinct for self-preservation tells me that my position on Maslow's hierarchy of needs is just where I like it, I've got financial security, material security, my family is well taken care of, and that feels good and safe to me. What if this idea of producing hemp to make clothes and paper and biomass fuel and building materials and food and any of the other 4000+ uses there are for the plant doesn't take off? So what if one acre of hemp can produce four times the amount of fiber that one acre of trees can? It needs little or no pesticides to thrive unlike cotton? Yeah, so what? Do I really want to let go of my nice comfortable piece of the pie to take a chance on something like that? No way! I'm sure I've got enough resources to keep myself and my children comfortable, and who knows, maybe even my grandchildren too. By the time I'm gone, someone else will have to worry about air pollution, water pollution, global warming and all that stuff that a bunch of scientists with nothing better to do sit around and think up. Why would I let go of the bird in the hand for the possibility of two in the bush?

Even considering the impact you have on the world in one lifetime is short term thinking. I prefer what I understand to be an old Native American belief: Preserving resources for the seventh generation. Make sure you don't take more than you need so that your descendents seven generations from now will still have some to use.

You're right norad, something doesn't add up. But I'm voting with my dollar to do what I can to change the equation.

I guess my doubts come from the fact that, to be blunt, it seems like most of the push for hemp is coming from the same crowd who want to legalize pot. I get to wondering why that is. There is just no question in my mind that if it were economically sound to do so, then we'd all be driving hempmobiles. Maybe what it will take is a government decree (shudder) like they did in Brazil with sugercane ethanol. Oh well, I guess we'll find out in about 100 years when the oil runs out.

No "Shot heard 'round the world"? Da**.

Troy

Government decrees can be withdrawn, ignored, ambivalently applied, unenforced, and are political targets. The only way things change is by educating the populace and encouraging change in their consumption. Period. Need proof? Look at fuel economy law/regulations mapped to the price of oil. Now do the same with environmental law and political parties in charge.

I have no pot agenda, and don't really care if those who want to legalize reefer also want to legalize hemp. The only problem I have with them being involved is that they tend to take attention away from the reality of the situation with their other agenda. Read the article; they are two completely different beasts. Both are criminalized. I can buy that there's an argument as to why ONE of them is illegal, but there's NO solid argument why they lump in the other.

Oh, and Ors.. I appreciate sarcasm as argument. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

The only true vote we have left is also the more powerful. Our wallet vote! Viv La Revolution!

After weeks of oil execs defending themselves on TV against charges of "excessive profits" by saying, "We only make 8 cents for every dollar. We're just average", here's some contrary information for thought. I just heard this same info mentioned on an NPR broadcast yesterday so I guess the word is getting out.

Check out the reports which can be download from this and this webpage. It's certainly more intellectually credible than this simplistic profit margin argument that the American Petroleum Institute has all the oil execs repeating over and over. Think about it--how useful is it to compare profit margins across completely different industries? It's hard enough to justify comparing two similar companies with similar products this way. General Motors vs. Ferrari? Ferrari vs Yahoo? Yahoo vs some fresh start up company? So who's making a "fair" profit margin and who's making "excessive" profits? It's just the wrong statistic and a smokescreen to avoid seriously addressing the question on people's minds--are gasoline prices rising more than increases in crude oil prices justify? Read the reports. Even if you don't think we're getting gouged, you'll learn important information about how the refining business works, at least in California.

With Americans buying 320 million gallons of gasoline a day, even a fraction of a penny difference in profit margin adds up to a tidy extra profit. And most Big Oil companies make most of their money selling crude oil, not gasoline anyway. Mr. Oil Exec, what's your company's profit margin on a barrel of crude when it goes from $35 to $71 in a short time?

And I agree with Blast, it's really our consumption that is causing us a world of hurt, not only at the pump, but at the expense of the environment, in our foreign policy, etc.