English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

15 answers

I read all the other answers to this question before deciding to add my two bits. My conclusion, even after taking into consideration the few that offered alternative sources for ethanol production, is that yes, ethanol is the dumbest non-answer available for mass use fuel. Besides the stated, and obvious food price problems, there is also the fuel intense process of growing and harvesting ANY source for ethanol. Add to that the increased use of pesticides and herbacides in this country that we have spent billions and decades trying to reduce, and you now border on the insane. To truly bring ethanol as a fuel into the realm of insanity one merely has to take into account the fact that third world countries would further destroy the already fragile ecosystems they have to reap the profits that the giant ag corporations will promise them and never deliver. Why, just why, do the same people that insist they are for saving the environment also insist on such short sighted simplistic solutions. Is it because most of them live and work in urban settings and do not truly understand the agriculture business or the land and the people in that industry? I think they have an idealized image in their minds of this wonderful, self-sufficient, cheap, simple life out here in farm land, just waiting to answer all their prayers and release them from their servitude to "the man". This is never going to happen. Most of the "public" land one writer mentioned is in the form of forest land and is protected to a great degree as such. The land that doesn't fall under this type is typically unfit for "farming" of any kind. The best cropland in this great nation is either already owned by giant corporations, or we have stupidly insisted on building suburbs on it. The probem of what to fuel our vihicles, which we love and depend on so much, is not so simple, and a simple answer will just not do. There are more obstacles, and more moneyed corporations in the way than most of us are willing to acknowledge or accept and until we realize that although capitalism has desirable aspects, it is not the defining character of our nation, we are doomed to continue to forget that it is freedom, and the responsibilities that come with it that made us great, not cold hard cash at all costs.

2007-12-11 09:41:10 · answer #1 · answered by avatar2068 3 · 1 0

I agree. And something should be done concerning the commodity speculation that's going on which contributes to driving the prices higher. It's the same folks that drove gas prices higher when oil was over $100 a barrel. The unrest in the middle east has a direct correlation to the increase in food prices. Hungry folks and their families aren't a particularly docile lot.

2016-05-23 02:50:28 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

I think that invading an Arab, Muslim country after 9/11 as part of the war on terror was the dumbest idea I ever heard of. This comes close though. Our pols on the left and right have sold out to big agriculture. What a bunch of losers!

Chapter 3: Chapter ♦ PDFhttp://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/ethanol_policy-z.pdf ♦
Facts about Corn Ethanol Production and why we must make ethanol from cellulose

2007-12-11 09:20:07 · answer #3 · answered by Shane 7 · 0 1

If we used the corn that the government buys up and then sells back to have corn syrup made out of and instead used real sugar to sweeten our products the price of corn wouldn't rise a penny, and our health would improve in this nation.


corn syrup is the bane of our society.. look at your food label.. if it's sweetened it has it in it 95% of the time.


and then there's the fact that food prices are climbing because FUEL prices are climbing.. reduce fuel price and food price comes down as well.

2007-12-11 09:20:45 · answer #4 · answered by pip 7 · 1 0

No. Corn is in a surplus state. In fact there is so much of it farmers are sitting on it and losing money causing the need for increased subsidies. Calling on increased production of ethanol will both lighten the demand on petroleum production and relieve some of the need for farm subsidies.

2007-12-11 09:21:22 · answer #5 · answered by David M 6 · 2 1

No. While I personally don't think ethanol is the best way to go (we need to stop burning things for fuel), they are a lot of different sources for it like algae, sugar cane and beets.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-01-10-algae-powerplants_x.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-18-ethanol_x.htm

And if the United States would stop devouring so much beef and pork, there'd be enough grain for the rest of the world.

2007-12-11 09:28:16 · answer #6 · answered by contrarycrow 4 · 1 1

ethanol from food grains grown on prime agricultural land is a waste of resources. in the U.S. the push for ethanol from corn was a windfall profit for the corn producing states.

2007-12-11 09:21:00 · answer #7 · answered by bilez1 4 · 2 0

South American countries that have used ethanol successfully make it from sugar cane, not corn.

2007-12-11 09:59:35 · answer #8 · answered by correrafan 7 · 1 0

No,making fuel out of pomegranates would be dumber.
Actually there are still farmers being paid not to grow.

2007-12-11 09:17:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

food prices are going up because of increasing oil prices

2007-12-11 09:27:58 · answer #10 · answered by NEO PIRATE 3 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers