Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
US Taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize any industry. If there isn't enough demand for it and it can't stand up on its own, it shouldn't be artificially propped up.
Tell that to China!
Subsidizing agriculture is in our national interests. China has almost already destroyed our manufacturing, other countries like Argentina could do the same in farming. The same situation happened in oil, we were for years slaves to countries that hated us, thankfully now, partly due to Ethanol we are energy independent and a net exporter of oil.
Just saw this title. It should legitimately have been changed to “should US taxpayers insure that they have an adequate food supply by subsidizing crops that are used in ecologically important crop rotations by food producers”
Just saw this title. It should legitimately have been changed to “should US taxpayers insure that they have an adequate food supply by subsidizing crops that are used in ecologically important crop rotations by food producers”
The problem with this statement is close to half of the corn production in the US is used for ethanol/biofuel production and we still have enough corn to export some of it as well
The problem with this statement is close to half of the corn production in the US is used for ethanol/biofuel production and we still have enough corn to export some of it as well
Yes some is used for bioethanol. This was to satisfy a government mandate that a certain percentage of fuel should be from ethanol which is a renewable resource rather than become dependent on non renewable oil and foreign sources. So that’s another good reason to support corn production
To say “some” is ignoring the reality of the situation. More corn is used for biofuels than any other reason, that’s a bit more than “some”
Quote:
This was to satisfy a government mandate that a certain percentage of fuel should be from ethanol which is a renewable resource rather than become dependent on non renewable oil and foreign sources. So that’s another good reason to support corn production
This also ignores the fact that using corn to produce ethanol is a terrible choice when they are many other alternatives that aren’t used to feed livestock or a food source for humans.
My "beef" with using corn for ethanol production, is that it takes roughly the same amount of petroleum based fossil fuel as the amount of ethanol that is made from corn. So if you yield 1000 gallons of ethanol from corn, about 1000 gallons of fossil fuel were used to produce it. This includes fossil fuel by farm equipment to plow the fields, plant the seeds, spray the crops, harvest, transport, refine corn to ethanol, transport ethanol to distribution centers (there are no ethanol pipelines like there are for oil and gasoline).
The ethanol has less BTU than gasoline, so the cars don't get as many MPG as if it were 100% gasoline. I struggle to see the big gain with ethanol, aside from that it burns somewhat cleaner. All the farm fields used to grow corn for ethanol could be used instead for something that benefits the food supply chain, instead of a zero net gain in consumption of fossil fuel.
The problem with this statement is close to half of the corn production in the US is used for ethanol/biofuel production and we still have enough corn to export some of it as well
Surprised that the stable genius hasn't stopped the ethanol mandate seeing as how it could be viewed as earth-huggery.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.