I write in response to an Oct. 5 article about ethanol production. It is an article based mostly on comments from local supporters and quotes two "detractors," and I am one of them. The article states that I am opposed to ethanol production because "it perpetuates the country's lifestyle of consumption," which I feel is misleading. In my view, such over-consumption is the central problem we face as a nation. We presently consume four times our share of world output, and that share is declining and will continue to do so in the face of our waning power to control events in the world.

Opponents' arguments are further detailed in the April 7 issue of Time Magazine. The long, lumbering title of this article says it all: "The Clean Energy Scam: Hyped as an eco-friendly fuel, ethanol increases global warming, destroys forests and inflates food prices. So why are we subsidizing it?"

To provide one example of the dramatic details, Michael Grunwald writes that during the last six months of 2007, 750,000 acres of Brazilian rain forest were lost to deforestation. This enormous destruction is an indirect process that begins with U.S. farmers selling one-fifth of their corn for ethanol, which leads Brazilian farmers to spread soybean production into pastures being used for cattle, and which then leads cattle growers to cut down rain forests for new pastures. Because of the crucial role played by rain forests in reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, their destruction, according to Mr. Grunwald, is inviting an "environmental catastrophe."

The newspaper article states "Unfortunately for Sackrey, ethanol is here to stay."

Maybe so, maybe not. A much larger question to my mind is whether, if we don't change the way we live, we are also here to stay.

Charles Sackrey,

Lewisburg