What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- doiveo, on 11/19/2008, -4/+17The market, not gov. should decide.
- TMTurtle, on 11/20/2008, -4/+9The market doesn't have a conscience.
Granted, neither does the current administration.- jonnyboy1544, on 11/20/2008, -1/+4Conscience has nothing to do with it. You have good intentions. I do. Everyone does. Legislators did when they called for mortgages for those who can't afford it, and look what happened. Bush did when he called for an ethanol mandate that ended up running up food prices.
Let the market sort it out. It's the only unbiased means out there. - thejokker, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2Why do they need a conscience? Does the consumer have one, they are the ones deciding which product to buy. The consumer decides if they want to spend more on organic, or more on 'green' light bulbs, not the government.
- jonnyboy1544, on 11/20/2008, -1/+4Conscience has nothing to do with it. You have good intentions. I do. Everyone does. Legislators did when they called for mortgages for those who can't afford it, and look what happened. Bush did when he called for an ethanol mandate that ended up running up food prices.
- Target91, on 11/20/2008, -0/+5Well the market sure is taking it's time.
- jonnyboy1544, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2It tends to do that, but would you rather another government quick fix that makes everything worse?
- insllvn, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2Just curious, have you a) read Wealth of Nations or b) seen Mad Max?
- TMTurtle, on 11/20/2008, -4/+9The market doesn't have a conscience.
- crackedlogic, on 11/20/2008, -4/+11don't ***** with the NTF.
- Turambar, on 11/20/2008, -4/+3Your posturing insults us both, Vasudan! I will not give up my ship!
- cle2105, on 11/20/2008, -5/+33No ethanol. It will increase the price of food to a point that it more than offsets the decrease in the price of gasoline. There are much better ways to create environmentally friendly vehicles
- brstilson, on 11/20/2008, -0/+13Cellulosic ethanol is a much better solution. It uses the stalks and other inedible parts of the plant for fuel, so it's win-win.
- bjornski, on 11/20/2008, -0/+7Yet another reason to legalize hemp production.
- cle2105, on 11/20/2008, -0/+4Can't argue with that, well played
- subliminalurge, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2Not really.
While it's a better solution than using food products, don't discount the fact that leaving that stuff in the field to decompose helps keep the soil in good shape. Removing all of that stuff will dramatically increase the need for synthetic fertilizers over time.
- dave122, on 11/20/2008, -1/+4Cellulosic ethanol is a much better solution down the road, but we don't have the technology to process it yet. While I agree that corn ethanol is not the best solution, I think you would also find that most ethanol proponents also agree. It is a great stepping stone into moving forward with biofuels - we have the technology and are improving the infrastructure and vehicles around corn ethanol which will only help push the development of better methods of attaining biofuels. The first solar panel wasn't horribly efficient either.
And please, the food argument is ridiculous, the government has been paying farmers to not farm for years and as we move in the other forms of ethanol production we can use the parts of the plant that are generally considered waste and leave the 'food' part for you.- insllvn, on 11/20/2008, -0/+3"[T]he food argument is ridiculous..."
How about the all-the-arable-land-in-the-United-States-can't-support-enough-corn-to-power-all-our-cars argument?
How about the ethanol-still-produces-CO2-emissions-and-is-ergo-a-step-to-the-side-not-a-step-forward argument?
Small things (eg cars) should run off batteries or better yet fuel cells, big things (ie power plants) should be a combination of wind, hydro, solar, geothermal, etc, until nuclear fusion is ready. That leaves plenty of oil for the only things that need it: jets. Ethanol is a mistake, ethanol from corn is a scam being perpetrated by the agricultural lobby. - dave122, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1it's not a scam it's a step towards where we need to be, I don't know of anyone that thinks corn ethanol is the end solution, but it's a step in the right direction. Once we are able to produce ethanol from crop waste products we will be pretty close.
And yes ethanol produces CO2 emissions, but what you have to realize is that it is CO2 neutral. You fail to take into account the CO2 consumed by the plants during production as opposed to being buried in the earth. So it's not really a step to the side because we are not introducing new CO2 into the atmosphere.
We don't have the electrical infrastructure or the generation capabilities to be even close to doing what you are talking about with electric cars, while I agree that it would be a great place to be, we are 10x closer to cellusoic ethanol (which uses the majority of our existing infrastrucutre) than to your dream world.
Again, please check your facts. - insllvn, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1"what you have to realize is that it is CO2 neutral. You fail to take into account the CO2 consumed by the plants during production as opposed to being buried in the earth."
And you fail to take into account the fuel (oil) used to grow and process corn into ethanol. WHEN YOU MAKE IT FROM CORN, ETHANOL IS A NET ENERGY LOSS. The corn doesn't even come close to off setting the necessary emissions from its processing. My ideas will cost money, that is true, but they will also create jobs, and if done as public works, can be sold of later to private interest. If it is all managed well, a big IF I know, than it can be a net gain for our public treasury, and help eat away not only at our dependence on foreign oil, but our national debt. - dave122, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1what if you run the tractors/factories on ethanol? Again, I know and have said multiple times that ethanol is no where near perfect, but we are taking steps in the right direction. If you have a plan that gets us off of fossil fuels overnight i'd love to hear it.
- insllvn, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1"what if you run the tractors/factories on ethanol? "
Then ethanol gets even more expensive, as it is less fuel efficient than gasoline.
"Again, I know and have said multiple times that ethanol is no where near perfect, but we are taking steps in the right direction."
On this we can agree. I want to expand on something I said earlier. Ethanol is a mistake, much like sticking with internal combustion over electrics or refined steam power was a mistake. It is a workable mistake, and will not doom us all. Ethanol from corn is being pushed by the corn farming lobbyists and it is pretty much the worst source of ethanol. Sugar and switch grass are better. Biodiesel is also good, and comes from a plant I think could save much of our economy: cannabis. Corn is my real issue, not ethanol.
" If you have a plan that gets us off of fossil fuels overnight i'd love to hear it."
Well, it won't work overnight, but here is what I would do:
1. legalize cannabis (in fact all drugs, gambling and prostitution) and tax it - this pays for public works and supplants gasoline with biodiesel in the short run
2. large public works projects to build free energy power plants running on all the things I mentioned earlier
3. let the big three collapse, all those workers can work for the public works projects
4. tax credits and incentives to trade in cars for fancy new electrics
5. pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and cease ALL foreign aid, repurpose that money to
6. engage in comprehensive, localized effort to improve public transit - the goal should be car free cities with no sacrifice in convenience
7. America is energy independent, we sell of the power plants we built to recoup the cost, and I am left free to tackle universal health care and world peace (I have ideas...).
- insllvn, on 11/20/2008, -0/+3"[T]he food argument is ridiculous..."
- comedianX, on 11/20/2008, -1/+7This the common misconception with ethanol: that is somehow an exclusive byproduct of corn. You can make ethanol from damn near anything organic. This is especially true for algae which can grow anywhere, doesn't need fresh water, and gives a higher yield of ethanol per acre.
- insllvn, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1True, although it is often discounted because algae doesn't have a lobby.
- aduzik, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1Yes! I'm a lifelong Iowan, and I couldn't be more opposed to corn ethanol. It is _not_ environmentally friendly because growing vast amounts of corn for ethanol absolutely destroys the land. Iowa uses the biggest percentage of its landmass for agriculture of any state in the union already, and it shows. There are fertilizers in our drinking water, land erosion, destruction of natural wildlife habitat. It's awful. No ethanol, no way, no how.
They subsidize the crap out of ethanol here, too, so "Super" gas with ethanol is usually 10 cents cheaper. I absolutely refuse to buy it.
- brstilson, on 11/20/2008, -0/+13Cellulosic ethanol is a much better solution. It uses the stalks and other inedible parts of the plant for fuel, so it's win-win.
- MeatMountain, on 11/20/2008, -4/+23Its obvious Detroit just wants free money to continue on their failed business model of building ugly, unreliable, fuel inefficient vehicles. Nobody bailed me out when the place I worked for went under last year. Hard luck.
- cawpin, on 11/20/2008, -12/+9"just wants free money to continue on their failed business model of building ugly, unreliable, fuel inefficient vehicles"
The only problem with that reasoning is that none of the arguments are true.- kinerry, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2what pipe are you smoking?
- megaton, on 11/20/2008, -1/+1The place you worked for probably didn't affect 1.2 million jobs, entire manufacturing, materials, and service businesses, and account for a huge % of the national GDP. The Big Three going down isn't an, "Aww, too bad for the stupid, rich bastards," moment, it's a huge blow to the entire economy. Of course, you'd know that if you spent 5 less minutes reading digg and 5 more minutes learning about historical macroeconomic disasters.
Yes, it's a corrupt, nasty place, and giving them money is only patching a wound with one-ply tissue. But there are far more important things at stake at the moment, like, for example, the jobs of tens of millions of people around the world.
But my guess is you'd rather have a spiteful pity party than figure out why people are even considering it...- MeatMountain, on 11/20/2008, -1/+0So my tax money from working at smaller companies should go to bail out giant corporations that would love to stamp the place I work for out of existence? What kind of crazy robber barron Monopoly world do we live in?
- megaton, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2No, your tax money from working at smaller companies should go to bailing out millions of people who would be out of jobs. Can you read?
- PeeEqualsNP, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1Yeah MeatMountain, listen to megaton. Helping out the big industries is exactly what we need to do. Helping them out now will essentially be a benefit to the average American. Oh wait... isn't that "trickle-down" economics. I thought that wasn't supposed to work?
- cawpin, on 11/20/2008, -12/+9"just wants free money to continue on their failed business model of building ugly, unreliable, fuel inefficient vehicles"
- deepdish, on 11/20/2008, -2/+43I am going to use all caps because this drives me crazy, so here I go:
ETHANOL IS NOT THE ANSWER!!!!!!
I threw in lots of exclamation points too.
You get lower mpg with ethanol, sure it might cost less per gallon, but you are paying MORE per mile.
Lobbyist are pushing ethanol on us. It is not the answer. God how this frustrates me to no end.- BoneheadFarker, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2You're right, ethanol is a bad idea. Butynol, on the other hand...
- deepdish, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1I am all for creating fuel out of waste or algae or switchgrass. But corn is not the answer. We are choosing one of the less efficient wants of creating alternative fuels by choosing corn. But the lobbyist will push it through.
Greed is making the choice for us instead of logic and science. I am all for supporting the farmers, but ethanol is not the answer.
- deepdish, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1I am all for creating fuel out of waste or algae or switchgrass. But corn is not the answer. We are choosing one of the less efficient wants of creating alternative fuels by choosing corn. But the lobbyist will push it through.
- ulmedas, on 11/20/2008, -0/+4What? You don't think it's a good idea to use large swaths of out farm land to run our cars instead of providing food?
- compguy101101, on 11/20/2008, -1/+2I hate that you can't find regular gas without ethanol in it. I've dropped about 50 miles that I can drive using a tank full. People are oblivious and looking for the first quick fix that is mentioned. Like deepdish said "ETHANOL IS NOT THE ANSWER!!!!!!
- FairDinkumMate, on 11/20/2008, -1/+2I think you should take your exclamation points to a research site & do a little reading.
You are right in that ethanol achieves 70-75% of the mpg of gasoline. But that has NOTHING to do with the argument. If you could build an engine that ran on seawater would it matter if it only got 20% the mpg per gallon of seawater when compared to gasoline?
That said, the corn ethanol industry in the US is ridiculous. I find it quite ironic that an industry that survives ONLY due to government subsidies is now talking down to another industry asking for subsidies/a loan, whatever.
There is no logic at all in subsidizing corn ethanol in the US. Even with subsidies it is expensive, corn is 1/7th as efficient at producing ethanol as sugar(the other currently viable crop), there isn't enough arable land available in the US for corn to produce the amount of ethanol required to replace gasoline. So what's the point? It can't stop(or substantially reduce) dependence on foreign oil, it isn't cheaper, it is hurting food prices & there is nothing to show that producing corn ethanol in any way helps to move towards an effective cellulosic ethanol solution. The government has once again sold out the taxpayers to help out the big farming companies that receive the vast bulk of these subsisidies.
But ethanol isn't a bad idea. Brazil is a net oil exporting country now due to ethanol. Ethanol from sugar powers more than 50% of their vehicle fleet & they have the land, climate & water to produce it. When made in the right places from the right sources, ethanol is a fantastic stepping stone away from oil. I'd be interested in hearing the government's logic on taxing ethanol from Brazil significantly more than oil from the Middle East...- deepdish, on 11/20/2008, -1/+1Do the math. I have many times. Ethanol cost more per mile even though it cost less per gallon.
This is not even taking into consideration the fuel used to produce the corn in the first place
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/
You do some research. - senlei23, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1agreed, bad idea and probably didn't help the big 3
the exemptions they had for making their vehicles E85 to keep their gas guzzling vehicles on the road instead of finding alternative smarter vehicles. big slow cooked crock 'o sh*t - warriorscot, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1Deepdish I don't think he was really thinking much on the price and to be honest if it was environmentally sound alternative I don't think cost would be a major factor unless it was excessive which ethanol usually isn't.
The main problem with Ethanol is that it isn't environmentally sound, even in Brazil it isn't if you look closely the numbers wouldn't work for a western nation we need too much and we can't produce the necessary feedstocks in quantity, Brazil only manages to do it by decimating huge chunks of rainforest and maybe it is fighting global warming but we kind of need the rainforest if we wan't to continue having the luxury of sufficient oxygen to breathe not to mention the other benefits of that particular environment. The growth of such large quantities of sugar cane is also not so good for the area in other ways. - FairDinkumMate, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1Would you people please look at some FACTS & stop sprouting oil industry funded MSM talking points!
* Sugar is grown in the SOUTH of Brazil(predominantly in Sao Paulo state), nowhere near the Amazon. The Amazon is as far from sugar growing areas as Alaska is from New York! Land clearing in the Amazon is done mostly by graziers although soy farmers do some. More than 40% of Brazil' s arable ;and(outside of the Amazon) is still unused
* Sugar ethanol is economically viable based solely on the availability of suitable land & climate. The production of sugar in modern farms is very automated making labour costs a minimal part of final cost.
- deepdish, on 11/20/2008, -1/+1Do the math. I have many times. Ethanol cost more per mile even though it cost less per gallon.
- Yogitw, on 11/20/2008, -2/+1No *****.
Get it through your heads people, turning food into fuel is a bad idea. - AmericanParty, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2It's not about MPG, it's about energy independence.
- warriorscot, on 11/20/2008, -1/+1Nobody is energy independent, even oil rich nations aren't as they require overseas processing and materials. Energy independence is just a BS buzzword that US politicians use to scare people, what you want is Energy security a very very different notion.
- AmericanParty, on 11/21/2008, -0/+3@warriorscot
ever heard of this country called Brazil? I guess not if you think nobody is energy independent
- BoneheadFarker, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2You're right, ethanol is a bad idea. Butynol, on the other hand...
- MalarkeyPN, on 11/20/2008, -2/+13I'm from Iowa and even though I know this would be great for the farmers there I have to oppose ethanol because it does NOT reduce carbon emissions, because growing corn is terrible for land and, heh heh, oh yeah, it means we're burning food.
So I'm siding with the Turkey fellas, gents.- l2digg, on 11/20/2008, -6/+4A) Growing corn is not terrible for the land, I don't know who told you this. There's a reason that farmers rotate crops in and out every year.
B) You aren't burning the same corn that people eat.- bjornski, on 11/20/2008, -1/+3Yeah, they're just burning up animal feed.
Do you eat meat? Well, it will cost EVEN MORE if we keep feeding the corn to our vehicles instead of our yummy, edible animals. - MalarkeyPN, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2While the corn used for ethanol may not be fit for human consumption, the land used to produce that corn could produce food if it weren't used to produce fuel.
Also:
http://www.agriview.com/articles/2007/03/15/crop_n ...
"Dick Wolkowski, UW-Madison soil scientist, thinks a consequence of long-term continuous corn production could be the adoption of more aggressive tillage to manage large amounts of residue, potentially leading to decreased soil quality and more soil loss."
FYI, at the end of the article, another researcher disagrees with Wolkowski.
- bjornski, on 11/20/2008, -1/+3Yeah, they're just burning up animal feed.
- bjornski, on 11/20/2008, -0/+4Plus, most of the farmers that would benefit from a program such as this are groups like ADM, not your local farmers.
It's just more money for the mega-corps. - PeeEqualsNP, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2ADM and Cargill will make a lot of money from a government sponsored ethanol program, but so would local farmers. Who do you think buys the corn from the local farmers? Either other farmers with livestock, their own livestock need it, or they sell it to ADM, Cargill, etc. because very few local farmers also possess the ability to their own processing. ADM and Cargill do grow some of their own corn and soybeans, but they buy a large portion of it. Their main focus is in the processing of the materials and making stuff out of corn and soybeans... like ethanol. Since they purchase the corn from the local farmers, local farmers will see a benefit as well.
The problem would be that the corn for ethanol brings in more profit to both entities than corn processed for foods (which has a SUPER high demand). To make the most money, they wont process as much corn for food and that means higher food prices. Which sucks cause there is corn and soy bi-products EVERYWHERE.
- l2digg, on 11/20/2008, -6/+4A) Growing corn is not terrible for the land, I don't know who told you this. There's a reason that farmers rotate crops in and out every year.
- teethandeyes, on 11/20/2008, -10/+5GO DETROIT!
- AmericanParty, on 11/20/2008, -0/+3yay failed business practices!
- DangerCollie, on 11/20/2008, -4/+7Darn National Turkey Federation...if it wasn't for them we'd have energy independence!
Funny Detroit opposes flex fuel vehicles because they sell a lot of them in Brazil. Detroit opposed mileage standards, limits on emissions, flex fuel vehicles, they took California to court over the zero emissions car...see a trend here? Detroit is opposing everything that's good for the country.
So no big surprise they're aligned with a bunch of turkeys.- cawpin, on 11/20/2008, -2/+4You're an idiot. Detroit doesn't oppose flex fuel vehicle. GM was the first to mass market them. What they're opposing is more of the same regulations that ran them into the ground over the last ten years. the government has interfered and now they're trying to run away and telling the Big 3 to "Deal with it" when they aren't the ones that caused it.
- awtripp, on 11/20/2008, -4/+10***** ethanol. NO FOOD FOR FUEL!
- Treoinmypocket, on 11/20/2008, -4/+15Jesus Christ!
People we HAVE to start fighting these damned ethanol lobbyists! Alternative fuels are needed but ethanol is a ***** choice. Its inefficient, has costly ramifications for other products and will NOT get us where we want to go.
Start flaming your Congressmen to kill this effort. - parasitewasp, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2Seems the more things change the more they stay the same.
Seems the gov should mandate at least 10 to 20% electric car production, but that won't happen now or in the near future.- pw378, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1If you mandate electric cars, you will have the same problem you did with Ethanol mandates.
There is not enough electricity produced to supply power all the cars, even 10-20% would probably crush the current power grid. We need to build more Nuclear and Hydro power plants first, while upgrading the transmission infrastructure... only then can we be ready for a huge number of electric vehicles.
- pw378, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1If you mandate electric cars, you will have the same problem you did with Ethanol mandates.
- brstilson, on 11/20/2008, -1/+12I work for a Turkey supplier that employs over 400 workers in my area. The rise in corn prices has severely hurt our business. If ethanol from corn was a worthwhile endeavor, that would be one thing, but the energy used to produce ethanol compared with the energy actually produced is inverted, and there is a net energy loss when making it. Not only that, what the corn lobby won't tell you is that since there is less energy per given volume in ethanol when compared to gasoline, you will actually burn more of it volume-wise than gas, so it really isn't saving you any money anyway.
In Brazil, ethanol is produced from sugar cane stalks, and the stalks from corn are also being looked into as a source. Cellulosic ethanol is really the answer here. It doesn't make any sense to turn food into a fuel source when there is a food shortage.- dave122, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1Wrong, there is a 1:1.2 energy input to output ratio with corn ethanol, it's not horribly efficient to produce, but we don't waste energy making it.
p.s. yes cellulosic ethanol is the better solution but until there is a viable way to produce it (cellulosic ethanol actually takes more energy to produce than you get out of it with our current methods) it doesn't make much sense to use it now does it?
You really need to get your facts straight. - FairDinkumMate, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2@brstilson - Well done for differentiating corn ethanol from sugar ethanol.
I must correct one point though. Ethanol in Brazil is made from the sugar in sugar cane, not the stalks. So it isn't 'cellulosic' ethanol being produced. It does produce 7 times more ethanol than corn though!
The 'bagasse' as it's known(left over stalks after crushing, leaves, etc) are used though. Each ethanol plant has it's own power generator & a lot of the power they use is produced by the burning of the 'bagasse' in these generators.
- dave122, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1Wrong, there is a 1:1.2 energy input to output ratio with corn ethanol, it's not horribly efficient to produce, but we don't waste energy making it.
- lebondarken, on 11/20/2008, -0/+4The government trusting self regulation is what has gotten us so far down the *****. And corn based fules will ruin the commoditiy market and make real people starve due to inflated food prices. Go Algae!
- giddytonk, on 11/20/2008, -2/+3I'm against the bailout, but if a bailout occurs, beggars can't be choosers GM.
- pathouston22, on 11/20/2008, -2/+3Hmmm, if only there were starving people in the world who needed food more than we needed a crappy gasoline substitute.
- l2digg, on 11/20/2008, -9/+6I paid $1.67 for a gallon of gasoline today in Des Moines and when I'm driving about 30 miles a day round-trip to and from work, I fill up every 7 work days on a 15 gallon tank.
The corn that is made into ethanol is not the same corn that is eaten, please pull your heads out of your asses. By that logic we should stop drinking vodka because of the world food shortage. Come on.- radiopayola, on 11/20/2008, -1/+9It is the same as the corn used in animal feed, and you do eat those animals...drink their milk...etc... Also, if all of these farmers are growing non-food products...who's growing the food? So, back at ya...pull your head out.
- l2digg, on 11/20/2008, -5/+2Farmers do not feed their animals 100% corn. It's a mix of grain, hay, corn, molasses and a lot of other ingredients. So by your logic we shouldn't be using any of the ingredients in animal feed for anything but animal food?
Again, ethanol has nothing to do with a world food shortage. There will always be starving people, and it doesn't have anything to do with what you put in your gas tank. - fancypantscz, on 11/20/2008, -0/+3or the land used to grow not food corn, could grow food corn if it were not for crappy corn based ethanol
- nonymous666, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2> Farmers do not feed their animals 100% corn. It's a mix of grain, hay, corn, molasses and a lot of other ingredients.
For small farmers, that's true. But for the huge corporate farms, which is where the vast majority of your meat comes from, the cattle are fattened up by being fed primarily corn, with protein added via pigs blood to bulk up their muscle. You think a 10,000 acre industrial farm that has 100,000 head of cattle is really feeding them all nice meals of hay and molasses? - AmericanParty, on 11/20/2008, -2/+2Fancypantscz
before you comment about growing corn for humans, please learn something it first. - bjornski, on 11/20/2008, -0/+3Please, tell me how a farmer using his 10,000 acres to grow subsidized ethanol corn is going to use that to grow food corn too.
Farmland isn't infinite. Farmers will use it to grow what pays them the most. If that's subsidized corn for ethanol, that's 10,000 acres of food corn that aren't being grown.
Before you comment about anything, please learn something (about) it first. - radiopayola, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2@l2digg
Actually, that's not my logic at all... I'll 1 through 10 it for you.. Maybe that will help:
1. Farmer X produced 1000 bushels of corn for human consumption in 2006
2. Farmer X sees that the going rate for non-consumable corn is going to be really high in 2007
3. Farmer X produces 1000 bushels of non-consumable corn in 2007
4. The supply of corn for human consumption goes down in 2007 because Farmer X and all of his buddies stopped growing it.
5. As a result of reduced supply, the price of corn for human consumption goes up.
6. Corn is really expensive so Joe Sixpack buys rice to feed his family instead of corn. The demand for rice goes up.
7. As a result of increased demand, the price of rice goes up
8. Food shortage
9. ???
10. Profit!
- l2digg, on 11/20/2008, -5/+2Farmers do not feed their animals 100% corn. It's a mix of grain, hay, corn, molasses and a lot of other ingredients. So by your logic we shouldn't be using any of the ingredients in animal feed for anything but animal food?
- bjornski, on 11/20/2008, -1/+4Not eaten by people. But it's pulled right out of the animal feed stock. Which means higher food costs.
And unless you do a lot of driving outside of what you pointed out here, your 14mpg sucks ass. Stop trying to raise everyone's food costs so you can drive a vehicle that gets ***** mileage. - Number23, on 11/20/2008, -1/+4Sure, but land used to grow corn for ethanol is land NOT used for growing corn to eat.
- dave122, on 11/20/2008, -0/+4Damn gas is 1.67? I filled up yesterday and it was 1.69 :D
- nonymous666, on 11/20/2008, -0/+3Of course it's not the same corn. But it's the same land.
Nobody has ever been concerned about the corn being 'diverted' to ethanol instead of food
The concern has always been about land being used to grown corn usable for ethanol instead of for corn we can eat (or feed to animals).
- radiopayola, on 11/20/2008, -1/+9It is the same as the corn used in animal feed, and you do eat those animals...drink their milk...etc... Also, if all of these farmers are growing non-food products...who's growing the food? So, back at ya...pull your head out.
- Shadwell, on 11/20/2008, -1/+2_Every_ energy option entails very undesirable drawbacks. Want electric cars? Better be cool with coal and nuclear waste. Want wind turbines? Better live with migraines insomnia and noise pollution. Ethanol is a transitional source of fuel. People will not be using it in 100 years to power vehicles but it is a compelling option in the interim. I wish people would quit focusing on the imperfections of these solutions and on forward progress away from foreign fossil fuels.
- JohnFromChicago, on 11/20/2008, -0/+6This is a serious problem our country if not the world is facing. Real human beings are dying. Real human beings are suffering. The answer is not in choosing which lobbyists should get their way. The answer lies in free people making choices in a free market. The government shouldn't be subsidizing anything. Free markets and competition will turn up a better solution faster than a fixed game.
I'm sick of hearing about industries who are "too big to fail". There is no such thing. - rocknrollninja, on 11/20/2008, -4/+61. end embargo on cuba.
2. start producing ethanol from sugar cane
3. ????- AmericanParty, on 11/20/2008, -0/+23. Coal to Oil
- Midtowner, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1profit.
- AmericanParty, on 11/20/2008, -0/+23. Coal to Oil
- fancypantscz, on 11/20/2008, -2/+2move into a city and get a bike
- Qwert302, on 11/20/2008, -2/+6Ethanol=a Joke.
- Aleut, on 11/20/2008, -1/+4Hmm... Who are the Democrats more indebted to, big agribusiness or the labor unions? That's a tough call.
- AmericanParty, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2change my ass
- Target91, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1I don't think we should tie ourselves to corn even more. What happens if we get a corn version of the potato famine? (How likely is that anyways?)
This just screams alien invasion. - CharlesSaint, on 11/20/2008, -0/+8Sandbox Iowan here, reporting in.
***** ethanol, and ***** this bailout in general. The company I work for has applied for ~2 billion in the bailout money as well, so ***** them too (google it and I'm sure you can figure out who I'm talking about). I'm not happy about the company I work for being down, but that's the way the ball bounces in capitalism. My stock in the company has lost a good 40% of its value in the last two weeks, and I'm not a rich person by any means, but I work hard and am proud of where I am and what I do. I held onto my stock in the company when it declined because I believe in the company I work for, but after reading about them applying for a cut of this bailout money, it makes me think twice. Before, we we may have been down, but at least we were fighting it out on our own, and not asking for an unearned check from uncle Sam.
If profits were at record highs right now, would we be applying to GIVE two billion away to the taxpayer? Of course not. So why are we asking for money FROM the taxpayer in a publicly traded company, and giving them NO EQUITY in return? It pisses me off. - roofview, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1We are running out of chances to get this right Ethanol made from corn is not right. Ethanol made from other sources ok but is not the answer. Generally I'm not in favor of a bailout for the big three until I think of the thousands of jobs and lives that will be ruined if they fail. So give them a loan with a lot of safe guards built in including requiring them to move away from their failed business practices. They need to build reliable smaller vehicles that get at least 36 MPG. I believe the security of the nation is also at risk here if we can't turn this economy around. Finally get rid of lobbyists , these people have only the interests of the people that employ them in mind. They have no regard for people or the nation, its time we woke up and put an end of these leaches who attach themselves to political leaders and suck the good out of the country. .
- rlittle66, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1No to tHe BAIL OUT!!! The automotive industry has been manufacturing the same old gas hogs for decades and we keep buying them, wonder why they never stopped to make it surprisingly better? Such as severly increased MPG or Durability or Both. The reason is that we have not demanded it from them we as a whole say " Oh, wow a whole 3 more miles per gallon that is fantastic" NOT! I have not been impressed for years with the newest model of the same ole crap they (the Automakeers) keep dishing out.
- ancientshoes, on 11/20/2008, -1/+1how about we just all admit that manmade global warming is farcical so we won't even have to have this goddamn stupid discussion
- Target91, on 11/20/2008, -1/+2Even if it is we will run out of oil sooner or later. W might as well come up with viable alternatives now while we have time to figure out which combination of alternative energy is best.
- GreyFlcn, on 11/20/2008, -0/+0In short, biofuels aren't going to do the trick.
http://greyfalcon.net/biolimits.png
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol2
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol3
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol10
And it saying "OMG Cellulosic" isn't really much help, since you still have scarcities of:
1. Ammonia
2. Phosporous
3. Potassium
4. Fresh Water
5. Farmland
Just because it's inedible doesn't mean it doesn't require the same raw material inputs. - AmericanParty, on 11/20/2008, -1/+2To all the people who say "***** ethanol" please read:
You claim the corn will drive up food prices. That would only be true if we were short of corn supplies due to overconsumption, which it certainly is not.
Even if it did drive up the prices of corn, for those of you who don't know, High Fructose Corn Syrup isn't the most healthy thing for people to eat. The more ethanol we use, the less energy dependent we become. Drilling isn't the answer, ethanol isn't the final solution. Ethanol is just the transition between oil and whatever we find to be the best overall fuel source.- Midtowner, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1So perhaps you can educate us.
Creating ethanol energy results in a net loss of energy, correct?
- Midtowner, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1So perhaps you can educate us.
- mojonyc212, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1I used to support Ethanol approach. But, really, I think it's not the right solution due to the speculative aftermaths on food. As usual, human excess kills all honest opportunities. Electric and other alternative non food based energies will be better.
- CaptainPlanet, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1ethanol is already a disaster. no food for fuel!
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is 