Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
lilmissy0224
430 Followers
jsmita0304055
761 Followers
morningDigger
1022 Followers
DerrylAlfred
244 Followers
navigon11111
185 Followers
realcoolguy9022Feb 23, 2011
Given the choice I'd rather have a fuel shortage than a gas shortage. Then again there's no reason to have a shortage, drill for oil to make gas, plant corn to grow corn and feed for cattle, and for humans. E15 turns food into fuel, and that's about as dumb as it gets.
jboitnottcomFeb 24, 2011
you would think so.. but when money and corporations get involved, a simple thing becomes complicated.
mikeymondaviFeb 24, 2011
you would think so.. but when money and government get involved, a simple thing becomes complicated.
There, fixed it for you.
charlotte_webFeb 24, 2011
Once again, Republicans lead on common-sense legislation.
Corn ethanol was a terrible idea. You get fewer MPG with it, and it's driving up the price of the corn we eat. I'm sure auto mechanics love it because it has damaged the fuel systems of a lot of older cars, causing the folks who can least afford it to pay huge repair bills.
Even Al Gore, who originally pushed the ethanol requirement through the Senate, has apologized for foisting this on us.
enantiodromiaFeb 24, 2011
So you're saying blocking a choice is common sense, or is this one of those "scary black helicopters force everyone to change over night" scenarios?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
charlotte_webFeb 24, 2011
You can have your "choice," I just want the government to stop subsidizing it. It's really, really stupid for us to take a food staple like corn, and dramatically increase the demand for it by subsidizing the mass production of an alternate use for it. Increased demand == increased price
Al Gore admitted that it's bad policy, and the only reason he pushed for the adoption of corn ethanol was to 1) bring home the pork to his home state of Tennessee, and 2) throw a bone to Iowa because he was running for president. Now that the problem is spiraling out of control, he's confessing that what he did was bad policy and should be reversed.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/22/report-al-gore-reverses-view-ethanol-blames-politics-previous-support/
jhw539Feb 24, 2011
"the only reason he pushed for the adoption of corn ethanol"
It should be noted that this ethanol mandate was put in place Al Gore had been out of Congress for 15 years and out of the Whitehouse for 7 years. Gore supported tax breaks, it was the Congress under Bush who mandated its use.
norman619Feb 24, 2011
Your reading comprehension is horrible. If you don't understand what is being said don't be shy. Ask someone to break it down into simpler terms you can understand.
countess666Feb 24, 2011
"Once again, Republicans lead on common-sense legislation."
funny, because it was the corn lobby's influence on republicans that got this through in the first place.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
charlotte_webFeb 24, 2011
Link? Because everything I've read says that Al Gore was the primary driver of corn ethanol.
jhw539Feb 24, 2011
The mandate the article is referring to was passed in 2007, under President Bush:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Independence_and_Security_Act_of_2007
That would be 15 years after Gore left the Senate and 7 years after he lost his run for president. Yes Gore supported tax breaks for ethanol in the late 80's and early 90's, but I'd be awfully interested in any links you could provide showing his support - or any influence at all - for the mandate, seven years after he was drummed out of Washington.
charlotte_webFeb 24, 2011
That bill was written by by Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), again, not a Republican.
The bill was largely a Democrat bill, with split Republican support. Here's the House vote; as you can see, 96 Republicans opposed it, only 4 Dems opposed it:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1177.xml
countess666's assertion has yet to be proven.
jhw539Feb 24, 2011
"countess666's assertion has yet to be proven."
Their assertion is plausible - Republican support was REQUIRED to pass the bill and the bill received 95 Republican votes. It was also allowed to become law by Republican President Bush.
Meanwhile, your assertion:
"Link?...everything I've read says that Al Gore was the primary driver of corn ethanol."
Has not been proven, and based upon Al Gore having been out of Congress for 15 years when the mandate was passed looks absurd. I provided a link as you requested. Can you provide any link to support your assertion that Al Gore was the primary driver of the 2007 ethanol mandate? Currently, based upon cited facts, you look like a liar not countess666. Were you completely lying or can you provide a link, as you arrogantly demanded, to support your claim?
jhw539Feb 24, 2011
"Once again, Republicans lead on common-sense legislation."
Once again? Were they leading in the 2007 vote that put the mandate in place too?
charlotte_webFeb 24, 2011
No, Democrats were... see my above post for the House vote breakdown.
jhw539Feb 24, 2011
Your above post conviently leaves out how many Republicans voted for the bill. Funny that. About as I'd expect from a liar.
"everything I've read says that Al Gore was the primary driver of corn ethanol."
In reality, Al Gore had been out of Congress for 15 years when the mandate this is all about was passed.
No point arguing with someone who just makes up lies to support their opinion. I have a three year old who has more integrity than you.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
charlotte_webFeb 24, 2011
My above post mentions that the Republicans were split on it. I bet your three year old has better reading comprehension than you.
notachickenhawkFeb 24, 2011
"...and it's driving up the price of the corn we eat." There's not a Republican on the planet who gives two s**ts about keeping food cheap - not if it means lower profits for corporations who derive income from the market for corn. Meanwhile, there's plenty of Republicans out there who care deeply about what ethanol/gasoline mixtures might do to the demand for, and price of, oil.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
charlotte_webFeb 24, 2011
tinfoil hat alert
isenborgFeb 24, 2011
Ethanol is a scam. A product of lobbyists. it drives up food prices and people around the globe suffer. Even Al Gore has admitted to this scam. Don't be a dupe.
countess666Feb 24, 2011
wrong
food based ethanol is a bad idea.
ethanol itself isn't.
it was never meant to be based on food products. that was just a necessary step to getting ethanol from plant waste which has the potential to actually LOWER food prices.
it was the corn lobby that made food based ethanol happen.
jqp123Feb 24, 2011
Any type of "bio-fuel" can and will displace food production if the economic return is better.
countess666Feb 24, 2011
not if plant waste bio-fuel is cheaper. and it will be because the material its made from is waste.
farmers can get keep growing the crops they do now, sell them as food and then sell the waste material to produce bio-fuel. you don't need 2 separate fields to produce food and fuel. you can do both on the same field with no reduction in food production.
jqp123Feb 24, 2011
"farmers can get keep growing the crops they do now, sell them as food"
Why not turn both the waste *and* the food into bio-fuel?
If they can earn more money by doing so, they will. Farmers are real sneaky like that. I think they call this "self interest" and it is one of the fundamental driving forces behind human activity.
My grandfather did this. He grew corn and turned it into moonshine because he could make a lot more money that way.
countess666Feb 24, 2011
except all the plant waste of the US would be enough to create enough fuel for the US.
and what do you think that would do to the price of oil and therefore the profit on food based ethanol?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jqp123Feb 24, 2011
"except all the plant waste of the US would be enough to create enough fuel for the US."
Except that you obviously haven't done your research.
The US consumes 20 million barrels of oil every day. All the farmland in the US can't even come close to producing that amount of fuel using the most rosy production scenarios imaginable.
countess666Feb 24, 2011
oke i wasn't quit right, but you are off the mark too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol
"The U.S. could potentially produce 1.3 billion dry tons of cellulosic biomass per year,[11] which has the energy content of four billion barrels of crude oil. This translates to 65% of American oil consumption"
(source cited)
that would mean the US would no longer need to import oil and could actually export some as long as reserves last.
that's energy independence right there already.
maybe add some salt/brackish water algae fuel in a area of desert to the mix and potentially the need for oil is gone.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jqp123Feb 24, 2011
"The U.S. could potentially produce 1.3 billion dry tons of cellulosic biomass per year, which has the energy content of four billion barrels of crude oil."
In addition to the failure to address how this would affect the food supply, they also forgot to mention is that more than half of those 4 billion gallons could *potentially* get consumed by the production, conversion and distribution processes.
"The energy conversion ratios at best are very small." --- Al Gore
countess666Feb 25, 2011
no they didn't. the conversion process is already incorporated into the calculation and the food supply would not be effect because this is plant waste, not a purposefully grown fuel crop.
jqp123Feb 25, 2011
"... the conversion process is already incorporated into the calculation ..."
That's not what it says. It specifically talks about the equivalent energy content of the biomass, not the converted fuel.
This is like talking about the energy content of corn ... which can be substantial. However, if you subtract out the energy used for production and the energy used to convert the corn into ethanol, it's not so substantial any more ... per Al Gore. In fact, it is so non-substantial as to be economically non-viable without huge federal subsidies.
sleestakslayerFeb 24, 2011
True, but soil fertility is made more sustainable when the plant residues are left on the field. Harvesting that will require a greater input of fertilizer which is heavily derived from energy sources. Perhaps the better approach would be food plots on the best soils, and switchgrass on maginal soils.
jqp123Feb 24, 2011
"Perhaps the better approach would be food plots on the best soils, and switchgrass on maginal soils."
The *only* approach that will survive in a free market is the crop that provides the best return will be grown on whatever land is available.
If growing switchgrass on the best soils provides a better return than growing corn on the best soils, you can count on the fact that switchgrass will displace corn production on the best soils.
darthoptoFeb 24, 2011
Corn is the worst source of ethanol. Switch grass is a much better source and isn't as draining on the soil as corn is.
isenborgFeb 24, 2011
Unfortunately there are no lobbyists for non food ethanol. And if there are no lobbyists putting dollars in the pockets of "green" liberal politicians, there will be no non food ethanol.
Besides, plowing a zillion acres for fuel, food or non food, is a pretty unhealthy for the planet. But I guess the greenies never thought it through that far.
jqp123Feb 24, 2011
"But I guess the greenies never thought it through that far."
I guess you never thought it through far enough to actually look at the politicians behind the corn ethanol lobby. There are just as many Republicans as Democrats.
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/news/entry/2010-election-impacts-on-ethanol-biofuels-policy/
arpadFeb 24, 2011
Jinkies! You that when there were gargantuan amounts of federal money available some industries chose policies that allowed them to access that money? Why the cads! Who could have seen that coming?
Hey countess666, Archer-Danials Midland flogged the likes of you like a rented mule. The greenie-weenies have no one but themselves to blame for this idiotic idea and the greenie-weenies own the consequences which aren't the enviro-eden you predicted.
MartinTaggartFeb 24, 2011
Let's hope so....
theevanmachineFeb 25, 2011
its ridiculous how even at the beginning of what could be a fuel crisis in the mid east with revolution, House Republicans still stay stubbornly loyal to oil the thing is the reason it wazzint passed is cuz it was unconstitutional but because if ethynol is used most of them lose money
theevanmachineFeb 25, 2011
its ridiculous how even at the beginning of what could be a fuel crisis in the mid east with revolution, House Republicans still stay stubbornly loyal to oil the thing is the reason it wazzint passed is cuz it was unconstitutional but because if ethynol is used most of them lose money
Philly_mktgFeb 25, 2011
The marine industry are also very worried about the safety of this fuel as it is extremely hygroscopic, marine vessels have reported becoming stranded in the sea because of water in the gasoline.