no one actually uses corn anyway, right?

[caspian_x]

Almost as a follow up to yesterday's discussion, let us stop and ponder the following breakthrough

Comments

[coffeejedi]

Corn-based ethanol is a terrible long-term solution for an alternative fuel for a variety of reasons.

I actually heard a fascinating story on NPR a few weeks ago discussing the corn subsidies for US farmers, and why corn is in EVERYTHING that we eat. Seriously, check out your pantry, even a loaf of "wheat" bread, the second ingredient is generally "high-fructose corn syrup". Why is that in BREAD? (there are a few brands out there that either don't use sweetener, or use brown sugar and honey, they taste much better). Even the beef that we eat is corn-fed. It gives nice big fat cows, with very little protein or nutrition. The story basically put forward that we could not only improve our economy, but the entire world's economy if the US would just stop subsidising corn. We won't though, the agriculture lobby is way too powerfull and cuts across party lines.

[caspian_x]

John Stossel has a fascinating section in his latest book on why we should stop subsidizing ALL agriculture. There's no need for it anymore (if there ever was). Let the free market decide prices. Another country - New Zealand, I think? - did this not too long ago and their agriculture is doing better than before.

You know, if it wasn't a wasted vote, I might actually vote libertarian sometimes...

[clayfoot]

I don't understand why voting libertarian (or green or reform or democratic or republican) is a wasted vote. You're expressing your support for the candidates or issues you most want in office or in law. At the very least, you've contributed to a candidate's mandate (or lack thereof) from "the people."

[caspian_x]

Sure, if all you want to do is express yourself, then you have not wasted your vote. If you want to actually contribute to someone actually getting elected, at least in 99% of US elections you've just wasted your vote.

[anton_p_nym]

Using corn to generate fuel-grade alcohol is impractical. Too much of the energy invested in growing the corn goes into waste products (cob, stalk, husk) to make it a going concern. Add in that high-intensity farming techniques do gobble up fuel and you're looking at a losing proposition. Looking from that perspective ethanol fuel seems to be just a crop subsidy/price-support in shabby green clothing.

However, I don't see us running out of food as a result of fuel ethanol. Heck, the corn it's gobbling up is already heavily subsidised... there's a reason corn syrup is the prime sweetener in junk food.

-- Steve's thinking that North America vastly overproduces corn already, leading to the low crop prices and the resulting clamour for farm support programs. (Oh, yeah, and it doesn't help with obesity either.)

[caspian_x]

I don't see us *running out* per se, but with the demand for corn is so high, the supply will be constrained. Then imagine a drought hitting this summer. In addition to importing oil (since it would take much more farmland than we have in America for ethanol to completely eliminate our foreign oil dependence), we'll start importing our food. It's just a bad idea all around. I wish someone would stand up to the agriculture lobby.

[clayfoot]

It's already causing a mini crisis in Mexico, which long ago dropped domestic corn production in favor of buying American corn for use in their daily tortilla diet.

Solution

[resk]

We need to devise a way to make fuel out of human waste.

Re: Solution

[caspian_x]

It would give a whole new meaning to the phrase "piece of $#![ car"

Re: Solution

[resk]

Adam Sandler would have to write new lyrics to that song.

Okay, it's out.

[ubersaurus]

Yeah corn ethanol is retarded. One need only look at the massive lashback in mexico over the price of corn going up to see where that road leads.

On a related note we should subsidize more crops. There's no reason why junk food should be cheaper than actual food.

[coffeejedi]

Or, we could subsidize no crops, there'd be a period of adjustment, but I think it would be better for the economy in the long run.

Did you see the study that came out about obesity and income levels? Its so screwed up, poor families simply can't afford to eat healthy. Even though "lite" versions of food generally cost the same, the fat is just replaced with more high-fructose corn syrup, which turns directly into fat in your body!

[caspian_x]

YES. YES. YES. END FARM SUBSIDIES.

It's so nice when I rant about something and get lots of agreement. :o)

[kaali_thara]

Global warming is still a problem. I just don't happen to think finding something else to burn is exactly the solution.

[caspian_x]

The problem with that is with more choices comes more infrastructure to support all those options and prices go sky high. It's the same reason we don't have three cable companies to choose from. There's such a high barrier to entry and such high overhead (laying cable all around the entire area) that it becomes impractical to have all those options. Again, if the technology and the market is such that having several options for fuel becomes viable, GREAT! All the competition will drive more tech advances and lower prices for everyone. But until the MARKET shows us that is the case, let's not try to artificially make it so

[coffeejedi]

Wow, damn, took the words right out of my mouth about "infrastructure". Weird.

I think libertarians are more associated with Barry Goldwater conservativism than modern neo-cons. Don't forget too, that libertarians are also generally socially liberal, they don't want restrictions on abortion, gay marriage, or media censorship.

[caspian_x]

Which is why I'm conservative and not libertarian, at least for abortion and that other thing I've decided not to talk about for a while because I need a break from arguing about it.