But, it reduces global warming. So, I guess it's worth it. What do you think?
2007-03-11 11:50:40 · 13 answers · asked by duck 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Since 90% of all corn grown goes to cattle feed, what's 5000 bushels
2007-03-11 11:55:45 · answer #1 · answered by Experto Credo 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
i be attentive to I sound like a broken checklist. yet, this is all portion of the Obama Administrations and his non-administration advisers. They intend to weigh down the gadget, cave in it, and then they are able to rebuild each little thing from the floor up the way they want it, leaving out the form. It sounds loopy, i be attentive to. yet seem up Cloward and Piven. They clarify how this works. Obama and the persons he pals with do unlike u . s . a . of america. bear in concepts Michelle Obama asserting for the 1st time i'm pleased with my u . s . a .? That become throughout Obama's candidacy. She has in no way been proud in the past that? you are able to discover each little thing he's doing is only making issues worse. he's an sensible guy, he knows he's making it worse.
2016-11-24 21:08:13 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Tell the libs to quit paying farmers not to grow corn then.
There is nothing wrong with ethanol and I don't think it reduces global warming at all I thought it was supposed to reduce our dependence on foreign oil or something? Whatever, Liberals are the enemy not ethanol.
2007-03-11 11:55:13 · answer #3 · answered by archangel72901 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I think you are an idiot
75% of corn goes to animal feed anyway, and all of the byproducts of the ethanol industry are fed to livestock, so I don't see where it takes away any food source at all.
2007-03-13 05:29:17 · answer #4 · answered by spelunker64 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You know anything about farming, genius?
Just curious...
Corn is one of the easiest crops to grow. It'll grow in pure sand if you feed and water it, although the roots can't anchor as tightly as in denser soil.
What I'm telling you is put down the pipe; we could grow enough corn for fuel and food, and support more agriculture anywhere on the globe.
Hell, we sent our best horitculturalists to the Soviet Union during the cold war to help THEM with crops; why wouldn't we help anyone else?
2007-03-12 10:41:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sure.... The only *real* solution to the GW problem is less people using resources and adding green house gasses to the atmosphere. So if millions (or, better, billions) of poor starve so that we can have ethanol... then that's a good thing.... Right?
2007-03-11 12:28:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think you're looking at this, totally wrong. The corn used to produce ethanol is not for human consumption.
Yes, it's worth it.
2007-03-11 11:57:36 · answer #7 · answered by rustybones 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You sound like you work for OPEC. It is erroneous to believe bio-diverse fuels will worsen the effects of hunger in our country. It is more accurate to believe such fuels will create a new independence for America. A country where we no longer rely on foreign sources to power our industries or our vehicles.
2007-03-11 12:15:48 · answer #8 · answered by Jackson Leslie 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If those starving people don't have the money to buy that corn, no one is going to sell it to them. They'll sell it to you for your car.
2007-03-11 11:54:39 · answer #9 · answered by Comy 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The US (by itself) can produce far much more corn than we ever use or export.
So, we either don't grow it, or we grow it and export it (which we don't seem to be doing) or we grow it and use it for fuel.
If we're not going to export the grain, we might as well use it.
2007-03-11 11:55:01 · answer #10 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋