The grain required to fill a 25 gallon gas tank with ethanol would feed one person for a year. Every time you fill your tank, think about biking, walking, mass transit or just relaxing at home. Live simply so that others may live.Ethanol is an interesting idea, and I plan to go over the pros and cons in this blog over the next few weeks, but bear with me, as I will be researching and writing at the same time so look out for corrections.
First blush must consider the corn industry in the US and it's own problems. For instance, if we stop using corn to feed animals that were never intended to eat corn because it becomes too expensive is that a bad thing? I think not. Cows put back to pasture, and Americans eating less meat? Sounds too good to be true. We'll see.
4 comments:
I agree that free-range cows are better than corn-fed cows. However, I'd also say that corn-fed cows are better than fewer cows, or no cows at all.
If you increase the price of feed input to cattle, the price of beef and dairy goes up. That means fewer people, especially poor people, can afford those staples. That means they eat less.
If fuel producers and food producers were competing for corn in a free market, then we would know corn was going to its best economic use. So, eliminate the ethanol subsidies and let the market decide if people want cheaper food or cheaper fuel.
Government can't be trusted with that decision.
Trav.is, as always an excellent comment. I assume you would also support removing the subsidies for farms, petroleum, fertilizer (petroleum), and everything else? Like I always say, on the Moon, everything will be free, and here on Earth? Well you earthlings are welcome to keep on screwing things up.
And to address you logic: dairy and to a greater extent meat are some of the least efficient means of feeding the population. Indeed if everyone were to instantly become vegetarian many of our environmental and health problems would disappear. In fact if all the corn that goes to feeding cattle were used to feed humans directly there would be an even greater over abundance of food (which is a key part of a much bigger problem). This would of course mean growing different types of corn, in different ways. The fact of the matter is, we use petroleum to fertilize our corn which in turn is supposed to make fuel!!! That's ass bass ackwards as you can get.
I assume you would also support removing the subsidies for farms, petroleum, fertilizer (petroleum), and everything else?
Without a doubt! Government has no constitutional authority to subsidize anything. Taking money from me and you to give to ADM and Monsanto is theft - pure and simple.
in fact if all the corn that goes to feeding cattle were used to feed humans directly there would be an even greater over abundance of food...
But the corn in question is going to neither humans nor cows, it's being artificially re-directed (thru subsidy) to ethanol makers. Everybody loses. Except the politically connected ethanol industry... and the lawyers.
The fact of the matter is, we use petroleum to fertilize our corn which in turn is supposed to make fuel!
Now you're starting to speak my language! It takes more energy to produce one unit of ethanol than that same unit of ethanol produces. Technology and rising competition for petroleum world-wide will eventually erase that gap. Then ethanol won't need government subsidy, entrepeneurs will figure it out.
Definitely agree that subsidies are a big problem here, but remember that corn itself is already heavily subsidized, which means all this is playing out in an already-distorted market - one of the reasons there's so much obesity and early onset diabetes in the US is the amount of high-fructose corn syrup that the US eats, and that wouldn't be the case if corn wasn't subsidized and there weren't sugar tariffs.
Keep in mind also that the combustion of ethanol has some nasty by-products that we haven't yet figured out how to deal with, like formaldehyde.
Post a Comment