Quote:
Originally Posted by Gargamel
I know that was tongue in cheek, but the problem with that point of view is that the US government pays farmers to NOT grow corn. They get paid to not do what they're supposed to do. I can go for a Lima bean shortage if it means more farmers are growing corn and dropping our fuel prices.
|
Excellent analysis, Gargamel. You are mostly correct. The government does, indeed, pay farmers to not grow corn. It also pays them an inflated price for the corn they do grow. It's all part of a subsidy system that is so complex and counterproductive that I cannot begin to understand it. Supposedly it helps farmers, not that it has at all saved them from being dominated by agribusiness, which curiously reaps many of the same subsidies and price controls for some reason.
I could also use an increase in the corn supply and the resultant drop in corn prices, but somehow, that's not what's happening. We have, through state intervention, managed to achieve the impossible. We have increased the production of a product and simultaneously managed to make it more expensive at the same time. And we did it all for our own good and the good of the planet.
Quote:
|
And yes, the carbon footprint of ethanol vs petroleum is smaller. Just look at the infrastructure for each. Ethanol will be our hold over fuel until something better comes along.
|
From whence did you obtain this bizarre supposition? I tried to look it up but I find no credible champions of ethanol, other than the lobbies and some eco-tards. I reserve judgement, but I am curious.