Is biodiesel and ethanol fuel production worth losing lives?

Question

We knew the price of beef would go up when ethanol fuel from corn began being subsidized by our tax dollars. The profits from growing corn have gone through the roof thanks to our (the tax payers) generosity or congresses stupidity!. Not only are beef prices are up (what do cows eat?) but so is milk, icecream and cheese. What will they do now, increase subsidies on milk so the politicians won't be accused of adversely affecting childrens developement?
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/markets/united_states/article2080599.ece

It's getting so bad that the UN says they can't afford to feed the starving Africans any more. Doesn't anyone consider ALL the consequences before catering to environmental activists and big agriculture lobyists? Or did they think a few hundred-thousand Africans wouldn't be missed.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/7345310a-32fb-11dc-a9e8-0000779fd2ac.html

AfMiYg - You are right about ethanol being an energy loser. Plus growing corn has a big environmental impact from soil depletion and fertilizer and insecticide runoff into steams.

The "global warmers" don't want us burning coal because it has a slightly higher carbon-to-hydrogen ratio than oil. In fact, according to Kyoto, coal is bad but ethanol is good. In fact Kyoto is OK with cutting down old-growth forests for fuel as long as you replant them with faster growing pine or fir trees.
http://archive.greenpeace.org/pressreleases/climate/2000nov9.html

BroHam - blame the uN not me. I'm just the messenger.

Z H - obesity is a cultural thing BECAUSE fat wives are a sign that their husband is a good provider. This is what you would expect in a continent where 850 million are starving.

Mark T - I know what you are saying. I have first hand knowledge of this phenomena in Nepal. When food is abundant, the people pro-create like rabbits. When the food runs out the kids are sent to orphanages subsidized by foreign charities through the UN and the World Bank. So what is the answer? Let them starve so future generations won't? Maybe...

Answer 1

I suspect it is true that ethanol is an energy loser right now. However, with advancements in chemical processing, it may trend toward energy neutral. Furthermore, if more of the process can be converted from petroleum based to electricity based, the energy input can be shifted to either something America has a lot of (coal), or something green (solar, wind, etc). As a result, even if it were energy neutral, the USA would be importing less than the equivalent of one gallon of gasoline to produce the equivalent of one gallon.

So, even if it's energy neutral, we'd be cutting our importation of foreign oil, which is good foreign policy.

Of course, it doesn't look like ethanol is there yet. But, it is improving, and more research dollars couldn't hurt.

I tend to agree though -- the ethanol industry right now is a big pork giveaway to agrobusiness. Congress should be dumping more money into research, so that we can find ways to grow, process, and deliver ethanol using less energy.

Answer 2

This question is as reasonable as saying "is having stairs in houses worth losing lives" or "should we have cars - as they kill people".

The point here though, is that it ISN'T even that simple, the problem in feeding starving people is that they then stop starving and immediately go into "breed like crazy" mode - until the population has swollen to a NEW level of insustainability.

I hate to state the obvious, but many parts of Africa are so massively overcrowded for the resources of the land - that until they learn not to procreate faster than they are dying off, then they will ALWAYS be in a state of starvation - becuase the moment thery are not, they will breed until they are.

Not trying to be horrible - just stating the obvious instead of making politically correct speeches which *DO* cost lives.

So biodiesel and ethanol? As we are running low on the natural alternatives, then yes realistically they are going to be in increasing demand, biodisel especially.

Mark

Answer 3

Ethanol is not the answer. The politicians, once again, are caving in to the agri-lobby and big oil and simply not representing the people in an honest effect to fund real research into alternative energy. We are not the only nation whose very livelihood depends on a steady supply of oil - and this is what fuels the chaos in the Middle East.
We cannot expect any real R&D from big oil - alternative energies will not come from Exxon/Mobile - the government must fund the universities and private research labs for alternate energy sources. We have the technology and ingenuity to solve this crisis - and it won't be by converting cattle feed to low octane fuel.

Answer 4

Theoretically, Bio-diesel and Ethanol does not increase greenhouse gas, because they produce CO2 that was previously captured by corn in the case of ethanol, or animal or vegetable fats in the case of bio-diesel. Actual production methods will require additional fuels to refine or harvest these new fuels, probably in the form of petroleum products, which were stored underground for thousands of years. The petroleum products contribute additional CO2 to the atmosphere.

Answer 5

Ethanol is expensive to produce.

It could be a prospect in the future, but until people find out a more efficient and less expensive way to produce it then the government shouldn't invest in it. we should focus on reducing our energy usage.

Answer 6

yes. less lives lost due to Exxon's need to have 80+% of the oil contracts in Iraq. I dont honestly care about starvation etc. The whole starving africa thing is GROSSLY exaggerated. Why is diabetes type 2 going up 110% in africa and similarly in the USA? Well in the USA we have obesity which is the major cause for this disease I would say that obesity is a big problem over there as well see the link for evidence of the obesity problem in Africa.

http://www.vitabeat.com/africa-faces-growing-obesity-problem/v/5033/

Answer 7

That is all BS!! And I suppose you are all for wasting lives on oil instead? That's working well. This is just all a bunch of swill, and if you buy into it you aren't too swift. You don't know what you're talking about and you're obviously one of those people who believes everything they read in the news. I don't even know where to start to help you in the right direction here. I recommend you do some more research on it before posting any more questions like this.

Answer 8

I question how smart this is too. I can't believe people are actually saying that they don't care about starvation. And the amazing thing is are think they are leftists. Wow!

Answer 9

what is energy "dependence" on the Middle East costing us? Maybe compare the two in a cost/benefit analysis and see which one wins.

Answer 10

Who cares about africans what about americans?