Destroying the Enviroment for "Renewable" Fuels

[Conductor42]

This government support for corn ethanol isn’t around because your representatives just care so much about CO2 emissions. In fact, corn ethanol does very little for net CO2 emissions. But it’s awesome for Midwestern special interests. Sugarcane ethanol is far easier to produce, and thus far more environmentally friendly, but since there’s nowhere in the US that is suitable for growing sugarcane (except, with huge government subsidies, the Everglades - government helping out the environment again), it must be imported from countries like Brazil. This might be a good idea, but the corn lobby and their pet politicians won’t hear of it, so ridiculous tariffs on ethanol have been imposed.

The larger acreage of corn being planted means that corn is being grown on land less well-suited for corn farming, which means that farmers will use more chemicals on their land to get a yield. These chemicals don’t all stay on their land, however. Some will end up in runoff, which means they’ll get into streams and rivers. There, pesticides and herbicides kill things, and fertilizers cause runaway growth of algae. When the algae dies, its decomposition uses up all the oxygen in the water. Then all the animals not killed by pesticides and herbicides die. Bam, dead stream/river/lake. As government continues to tweak the market, encouraging naturally uneconomical uses of land, the environment will continue to suffer - all in the name, supposedly, of renewable energy.

http://www.lastfreevoice.com/2007/03...newable-fuels/

[$cirisme]

I never thought ethanol made much sense, long term, and I always wondered why people raved about it. It all comes together now.

[Conductor42]

I think Ethanol can and does have its place, but not the way the govt is going at it.

[Jimmy Higgins]

It honestly seems like a welfare program for farmers, not a renewable energy resource development.

[Ryokan]

http://www.lastfreevoice.com/2007/03...newable-fuels/

It's incredibly dumb.

[Ryokan]

It honestly seems like a welfare program for farmers, not a renewable energy resource development.

Exactly. Farmers get more welfare than any group. Their entire way of life would be untenable were it not for billions of dollars in federal subsidies, grants, and insurances. And its not jsut the little guys. Megafarms are propped up too.

[themuzicman]

Except that this should get more farmers OFF welfare, and producing.

[Teallaura]

Subsidies are the welfare program for farmers.

Um, exactly why do you need the same level of pesticide for ethanol destined corn as food grade? The ears dont need the same uniformity or appearance so it would seem more likely that they would only be protected enough to keep the ears from being significantly damaged rather than to protect the appearance as is done for food grade.

Sugar cane is grown in the US and there is available acreage for more - all protected at the moment... Seriously, that's the dumbest objection I've seen yet - it's pretty absurd to switch dependencies when you don't have to.

People are not gonna give up driving - far too many literally can't without a major league revision of infrastructure. You wanna talk enviromental impact? Imagine what happens when you try to convert existing suburbs into small communities - people have to have jobs and you're gonna end up eating up even more land in the process of getting them closer to home (this is before dealing with nasty rezoning issues - people don't like living next to factories but if they have to walk they are gonna have to live close enough to do so. Translation, fewer big factories and a whole lot more small ones - it's easier to keep a few big ones inspected than a multitude of small ones). Not everyone can work at home via the Internet - those who can't are the folks you have to accommodate if you're gonna get rid of the car.

Maybe ethanol won't work - I think the jury is still out on that one. More likely is that we'll adapt to multiple fuel. Biodiesel is still quite promising, especially the ones utilizing trash. I don't know exactly what will evolve but I can tell you that over dependacy is fast losing its political palatability. Something is gonna change.

[Conductor42]

Except that this should get more farmers OFF welfare, and producing.

How long have they been saying that now?

[themuzicman]

How long have they been saying that now?

Well, ethanol is just getting started, and more importantly the US government has to change it's policies... something that takes time.

Michael

[Sevivon1913]

http://www.lastfreevoice.com/2007/03...newable-fuels/

Ethenol is damaging to the environment because ultimately the overwhelming majority of the crops for it won't be grown in the USA, but in Brazil; which means chopping down more and more of the rainforest to build farmland, which means less rainfall in South America and more CO2 emissions. This would then have a global knock on effect which I couldn't even begin to predict.


Sevi

[Ryokan]

Except that this should get more farmers OFF welfare, and producing.

No, it won't. Not unless the government dumps the rest of the crazy welfare programs that aid farmers in everything, and artifically maintain a higher price while, while mind you, maintaining a situation of overproduction. Its bueracratic socialism of the worst sort Muz.

[themuzicman]

Subsidizing the overproduction of basic foods isn't necessarily a bad thing, Ryo.

Although, I agree that the system is in need of serious reform.

Michael

[Rubia Warren]

Isn't it the big farming companies who really benefit the most from subsidization? From what I have been reading, the small family farmer guys are almost gone, and the little-bit-bigger-ones than-that can't hardly compete with the corporations.

On an off-topic note: I brought this up in another thread. If what I am reading is true, that the prices of junk food compared to fresh fruits and vegetables is cheaper due to corn subsidies (high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener), as our country battles an "obesity epidemic", why doesn't the government simply stop corn subsidies already? Seems like (provided that is true) it would benefit everybody in one way or another if they were cut off.

[Teallaura]

Isn't it the big farming companies who really benefit the most from subsidization? From what I have been reading, the small family farmer guys are almost gone, and the little-bit-bigger-ones than-that can't hardly compete with the corporations.

Yes, but there has already been some benefit to the small farmer from increased prices for corn. And there is the side benefit that for once they get paid to put fields into production.

On an off-topic note: I brought this up in another thread. If what I am reading is true, that the prices of junk food compared to fresh fruits and vegetables is cheaper due to corn subsidies (high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener), as our country battles an "obesity epidemic", why doesn't the government simply stop corn subsidies already? Seems like (provided that is true) it would benefit everybody in one way or another if they were cut off.

Um, because the agriculture industry trots out the small farmer and Old Glory every time Congress even thinks about trying.

Farming subsidies as a whole need to be drastically revised and in my opinion largely eliminated. They long since outlived their usefulness. If the benefit to the small farmer were to materialize you might actually have a window of opportunity to get rid of subsidies - but it's a big if at this point and you have to get people behind the idea which isn't all that easy to do.