Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 248 posts

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline

#31

Post by bradknowles »

mschuster91 wrote: post #30
bradknowles wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s European-style taxes for you. Sadly. You get a lot of benefits from European-style government, like socialized medicine. But then you also have to pay those taxes.

The thing is, taxes here are used as a nudge. Meaning, you have decent public transport (subsidized by said taxes) and as a result people are incentivized to commute with said public transport instead of the government having to build 20+ lanes [1] highways. [1]: https://www.cntraveler.com/story/the-worlds-widest-highway-s...

Taxes are likewise used a nudge here in the US.

Where allowed by the special interests, and only so far as it supports those special interests.

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline

#32

Post by watwut »

assttoasstmgr wrote: post #26
blihp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or... and I'm just spitballing here... perhaps switch to more productive crops? I would hope that no one believes we need fewer farmers here in the U.S. (we need more, IMO), but don't incentivize them to produce more of a given type of crop than actually makes sense.

It's not that simple. Farmers typically rotate crops between corn, soybeans, clover, wheat, etc. It helps restore nutrients to the soil. https://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheet/crop-rotation/

It is not like agriculture and farming was impossible without excessive production of corn.

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline

#33

Post by jillesvangurp »

assttoasstmgr wrote: post #20
jillesvangurp wrote: post #12

Corn in the US is mostly used for harmful purposes. It's used for producing fodder for intensive cattle farming (which of course produces lots of CO2). It's used for biofuel production, which as the article observes releases more CO2 than that it saves. And it's used for producing corn syrup which is an ingredient that nobody needs in their diet. The rest, which would be usage for e.g. corn bread or other staples of…

> Kill the subsidies and that whole industry slowly dies. That would be a good thing. Maybe repurpose the subsidies to have those farmers do something that actually is more productive and less harmful. So once we've put all the farmers out of work and declared success, what do you suggest they do that is "more productive"? Should they lease their corn fields to crypto bros?

By more productive, I mean something that is not a net negative contribution/actively harmful to our planet. If all farmers can do is convert subsidies into CO2 emissions for stuff that isn't technically needed, then we're better off with them not doing that. It's that simple.

This amount of corn is simply not needed and it never was. It only exists because of the subsidies. So, maybe grow stuff that is not contributing to destroying our planet and is actually worth something without a lot of subsidies. Organic farming seems pretty lucrative lately. Iowa has plenty of that happening already. There are plenty of things farmers can do that are actually needed that are much less harmful.

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline

#34

Post by the_other »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #27
blihp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or... and I'm just spitballing here... perhaps switch to more productive crops? I would hope that no one believes we need fewer farmers here in the U.S. (we need more, IMO), but don't incentivize them to produce more of a given type of crop than actually makes sense.

Switching to more productive crops wouldn't end subsidies. In face, we'd - at first - need more just to make sure folks have the proper equipment. If you currently grow corn and soybeans* then your equipment will be specialized for them, generally. I don't know about the current landscape, as it has been years since I've lived in the states, let alone mingled with farmers in the US, but at one point, they would pay f…

> Switching to more productive crops wouldn't end subsidies. In face, we'd - at first - need more just to make sure folks have the proper equipment. If you currently grow corn and soybeans* then your equipment will be specialized for them, generally.

So what you’re saying is that the market doesn’t work?

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline

#35

Post by jillesvangurp »

depereo wrote: post #25
assttoasstmgr wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Kill the subsidies and that whole industry slowly dies. That would be a good thing. Maybe repurpose the subsidies to have those farmers do something that actually is more productive and less harmful. So once we've put all the farmers out of work and declared success, what do you suggest they do that is "more productive"? Should they lease their corn fields to crypto bros?

....wheat? Rye? Any other similar staple crop? It doesn't have to be some extreme shut down, it can be a transition to something better for society.

Of course. Stop incentivizing bad stuff. Start incentivizing good stuff. The key thing is to start that transition and not to waste time prolonging the problem.

The Dutch government is actually paying farmers to stop farming. Nitrogen emissions are a big problem in densely populated areas and cattle farming is a known big contributor to that. So, they are paying farmers to get out of the business of converting subsidies into manure. The main point is not to keep them farming but to stop them from doing harmful things. If they can farm other things in a less harmful way; great. But otherwise, things like forests, nature reserves, etc. are also valuable to have. Nothing wrong with subsidizing farmers to create those.

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline

#36

Post by kortilla »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #12

Corn in the US is mostly used for harmful purposes. It's used for producing fodder for intensive cattle farming (which of course produces lots of CO2). It's used for biofuel production, which as the article observes releases more CO2 than that it saves. And it's used for producing corn syrup which is an ingredient that nobody needs in their diet. The rest, which would be usage for e.g. corn bread or other staples of…

> Nothing wrong with e.g. organically farmed corn.

There is nothing wrong with “factory”, “industrially”, or “sustainably” farmed corn either. Farming at scale is the only thing that allows all 8 billion people to eat.

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline

#37

Post by Retric »

assttoasstmgr wrote: post #26
blihp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or... and I'm just spitballing here... perhaps switch to more productive crops? I would hope that no one believes we need fewer farmers here in the U.S. (we need more, IMO), but don't incentivize them to produce more of a given type of crop than actually makes sense.

It's not that simple. Farmers typically rotate crops between corn, soybeans, clover, wheat, etc. It helps restore nutrients to the soil. https://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheet/crop-rotation/

The extreme investment needed to grow crops at scale has resulted in hyper specialization supplemented by fertilizers etc.

I have seen farms near me do Corn, Corn, Corn, Soy, Corn based on whatever they think will be most profitable.

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline

#39

Post by raxxorrax »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #12

Corn in the US is mostly used for harmful purposes. It's used for producing fodder for intensive cattle farming (which of course produces lots of CO2). It's used for biofuel production, which as the article observes releases more CO2 than that it saves. And it's used for producing corn syrup which is an ingredient that nobody needs in their diet. The rest, which would be usage for e.g. corn bread or other staples of…

Wouldn't the CO2 from corn be drawn from the atmosphere in the first place? Sure, if you grow corn and let it die, parts of its CO2 content would be bound in the soil. But does that calculation make sense when we look at our fossil fuel consumption? Sure, every bit helps...

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline

#40

Post by akvadrako »

njarboe wrote: post #19
jillesvangurp wrote: post #12

Corn in the US is mostly used for harmful purposes. It's used for producing fodder for intensive cattle farming (which of course produces lots of CO2). It's used for biofuel production, which as the article observes releases more CO2 than that it saves. And it's used for producing corn syrup which is an ingredient that nobody needs in their diet. The rest, which would be usage for e.g. corn bread or other staples of…

Iowa has the first primary every year in the US[1]. Iowa produces more corn than any state[2] while being 32nd in population. Corn is very important to people in Iowa and as long as the first two facts remain the same, corn will continue to be highly subsidized and supported in other ways by the US government. [1] https://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2024-primary-sche... [2] https://www.cropprophet.com/us-corn-…

Iowa doesn't have a primary at all, but a caucus.

New Hampshire has the first primary. It's a state law.

Post reply on HN