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.
Have to laugh the posters on here arguing for the ethanol mandate and resulting subsides,while at the same time calling for an end to other farm subsidies,as if one type is better than the other
Have to laugh the posters on here arguing for the ethanol mandate and resulting subsides,while at the same time calling for an end to other farm subsidies,as if one type is better than the other
One is a mandate to lower the amount of petroleum fuel thats in the gas you buy at the pump, which means that its more of a domestic source. The other pays farmers not to farm.
I think most folks can logically understand why one is good, and one is bad.
Have to laugh the posters on here arguing for the ethanol mandate and resulting subsides,while at the same time calling for an end to other farm subsidies,as if one type is better than the other
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
One is a mandate to lower the amount of petroleum fuel thats in the gas you buy at the pump, which means that its more of a domestic source. The other pays farmers not to farm.
I think most folks can logically understand why one is good, and one is bad.
Yeah, we know..there's no Climate Change and who needs the EPA. We get OP...you're on a mission.
hmmmm...I guess climate change must be a new phenomena...the earth never experienced climate change before...oh well ..you learn something new every day...
One is a mandate to lower the amount of petroleum fuel thats in the gas you buy at the pump, which means that its more of a domestic source. The other pays farmers not to farm.
I think most folks can logically understand why one is good, and one is bad.
Subsidies come out of taxpayers paychecks, the government doesnt have its own money to spend.
Both are unnecessary redistributions of money that hurt classes across the board.
40% of all corn grown in the U.S. is burned as fuel for vehicles. A gallon of gas contains 10% ethanol and most vehicles get less mpg but the EPA now wants 15% which means even less mpg and more corn diverted to make ethanol.
If the drought continues, corn supply will grow thin.
While corn is the easiest to use for ethanol, there are some grasses that work almost as well, and they don't need all the water and TLC of corn. All a farmer has to do is plant them and harvest by cutting the tops.
One species is being tried locally. It's planed on waste ground, the small corners and areas that are difficult to irrigate. The grass stems naturally flatten out when the plant is best for ethanol production, and can be harvested with hay swathers and balers with no modification to the implements. It does not need fertilization or tillage to thrive, and doesn't need half the water of corn. Although it does not produce as much ethanol, it's growing cost is much cheaper, and because it falls over when ripe, it produces natural soil erosion protection.
Early results have been good. Once harvested, the grass can be grazed in a limited basis, so it's total benefits are about equal to corn. The grasses are all native to the middle east; some seed stock came from the marshes of Iraq.
Subsidies come out of taxpayers paychecks, the government doesnt have its own money to spend.
Both are unnecessary redistributions of money that hurt classes across the board.
It isn't a subsidy to put Ethanol in as a supplement to your traditional gasoline, its mandatory. You don't get a subsidy for doing it, you get a penalty for not doing it, and its why regular gasoline costs more.
It isn't a subsidy to put Ethanol in as a supplement to your traditional gasoline, its mandatory. You don't get a subsidy for doing it, you get a penalty for not doing it, and its why regular gasoline costs more.
The farm subsidy should end.
You're right the subsidy ended in 2011, but the mandate stays, thus we have artificially high corn prices that insure farmers will continue to devote acerage to its production and pass the resulting higher food costs onto the consumer.
Why should everyone pay higher food prices for ethanol?
Its less efficient in our cars, downright hazardous to older vehicles and serves only as a token gesture if any at all in ending our reliance on foreign oil and the production therof roves it no friend to the enviornment.
And besides the math not working it simply isn't the role of the federal government to be deciding what we drive our how we fuel it.
You're right the subsidy ended in 2011, but the mandate stays, thus we have artificially high corn prices that insure farmers will continue to devote acerage to its production and pass the resulting higher food costs onto the consumer.
Why should everyone pay higher food prices for ethanol?
Its less efficient in our cars, downright hazardous to older vehicles and serves only as a token gesture if any at all in ending our reliance on foreign oil and the production therof roves it no friend to the enviornment.
And besides the math not working it simply isn't the role of the federal government to be deciding what we drive our how we fuel it.
No, we have land that can be farmed for corn that wouldn't artifically increase corn prices.
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.
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.
