People Will Be Poorer & Starve Due to Ethanol. Water Aquifers Will Be Sucked Dry to Produce Ethanol?

Question

Are Liberals paying attention to the major downsides of ethanol?

Prices have soared and will continue to soar as America takes more and more of the crops that it grows and uses it for ethanol. How can poor people in Africa afford to pay twice as much for food as they have in the past?

It takes 1,700 gallons of water to grow the corn needed to produce one gallon of ethanol. Ethanol and draining aquifers far too fast. People will pay the price.

In order to produce grains for both food and ethanol, we'll need to cut down even more forests.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2007/2007-09-21-091.asp

Answer 1

Shut up man you don't even know what you're talking about. It is us republicans who are for ethanol and all domestic fuels to replace the oil that we import from islamic terrorist supporting countries and russia. You have bought the liberal argument against energy independence hook line and sinker. Plus all your "facts" are wrong. It doesn't take 1,700 gallons of water to make a gallon of ethanol from corn. Corn ethanol is important but only a minor part of energy independence. The next generation bio-fuels we are producing now are made from industrial waste, non food crops, unused biomass and landfill waste. Even the liberals argument against land usage is wrong we have over 1.03 billion acres of farmland only 300 million acres are currently used with much of that subsidized by the gov't to not grow anything on the land. Get a clue!

Answer 2

Ethanol is an idea supported by both parties, dear. Liberals, because they get the gullible environmentalist vote. Conservatives, because they get the farm industry's votes and lobbyist money. But I imagine that once people start to catch on to what a tremendously bad idea ethanol is, then yes, Liberals will want to put a stop to depriving the disadvantaged of food. Wish I could say the same of Conservatives.

Answer 3

Not only will it cause starvation, but it is also not as efficient as oil and it would not make a big change in pollution. It also takes a lot more energy to produce it then it does to use it. The only reason why politicians are pushing for ethanol is because they want to look green in order to win the presidential election... the best option would be to use wind and solar power.

http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/56047/

This is a wonderful article all about he downsides of using ethanol...PLEASE READ!!!!! (btw, this should not be an issue about political parties, it will affect us all)

Answer 4

subsidizing the production of ethanol is for votes in the farm belt areas, ethanol is very energy inefficient using nearly as much energy to produce than it yields, it'll cause food prices to rise dramatically, we are already running low on water in many places, esp the SW as the snow pack in the Rockies declines due to global warming and the Colorado runs lower and lower.....there will be only one answer, and that is to recognize we are on an unsustainable path, of lifestyle and have been for 100 years (we just didn't realize it til about 25 years ago when we did nothing). We are gonna have to recognize we must simplify our lifestyle, live more locally, make/buy less junk, and we must accept that the population will have to be allowed to shink....it only grew this big because of cheap abundant energy, specificall oil and gas...so as that declines this huge population cannot continue to be supported.

Answer 5

It appears that you have been imbibing some ethanol to arrive at these conclusions.

Corn is not the only source of ethanol.

Non-potable water may be used to produce ethanol; the water becomes purfied during this process and would even be safe for human consumption.

Answer 6

I don't like the fact that my tax money is being used to subsidize the production of a product that is less efficient than the product it replaces. I have not heard any one in either party speak out against ethanol so blame both the Dem's. and the Rep's. for this .

Answer 7

Hopefully, EVERYBODY is paying attention. But, somehow I doubt it.

Plant-based bio-fuels are a fallacy. There is not enough biomass on the entire planet to replace fossil fuels. The entire arable portion of the earth would have to be clear-cut and planted, which would result in soil erosion, loss of aquifers and a denuding of the planet and the collapse of our ecosystem and a slow death of mankind.

If you have more than a couple of brain cells to juggle and like to read technical studies by well-respected professors who are 1,000,000,000 time smarter than you (and me), check out the link:

Answer 8

Bush promised to expand government funding and incentives to develop alternative fuels, including ethanol, back in 2003.

Your infantile jab at "liberals" merely proves that you aren't a clear thinker.

Answer 9

Switch grass is the answer. Twice as much energy as oil, uses less water to grow, grown by American farmers, high yield per acre, no more American money going to Middle eastern countries to fund their hate for us. It grows like a weed in the Midwest.

President Bush likes this. I don't see a downside!!!

Answer 10

Why did Republicans enact legislation which subsidized the production of ethanol then?