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

131–140 of 248 posts

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

#131

Post by walnutclosefarm »

kortilla wrote: post #36
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.

There are all kinds of things "wrong" with the way we raise corn in this country. It's environmentally unsound (among other things, it's killing the Gulf of Mexico). It's not economically viable, absent significant government subsidies. It's the source of the worst (high fructose corn syrup) and second worse (too much meat in our diet) food induced health problems in the country. And it is, as the posted article points out, at the center of a huge "clean energy" scam.

We could contribute a great deal more to feeding the world, and doing less damage to the environment and our health, but alternative uses for much of the land that is in corn in the US.

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

#132

Post by JasonFruit »

pibechorro wrote: post #99
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…

Subcidies are 90% of the reason our country is turning to shit. It leads to corruption, massive distortions and zombie companies that only exist as parasites on tax payers. From the ballooning student debt, to the ridiculous military industry, to prisons being at record numbers, etc. We need a lean and efficient economy which functions "as is", a true and fair free market. Politics should have close to no impact on i…

You're being downvoted to oblivion but you're speaking my language. Government needs to get out of the way and let people thrive, rather than stepping in to subsidize the ways they're failing and encourage them to continue.

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

#133

Post by otikik »

AniseAbyss wrote: post #83
spiderfarmer wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The romantic view people have of peasant farms is ruining all discourse about agriculture. I blame the books people read to toddlers. Peasant farms were labor intensive, disease ridden, high risk, low reward businesses that shortened lives and ruined families. But somehow for a lot of people this episode in the history of farming is seen as the optimal blueprint for sustainable farming. They ignore the fact that all…

My country is one of the biggest agricultural exporters in the world yet less than 1% of the population works in the farming industry. Farming is what drives all the mechanization and robotics research.

> Farming is what drives all the mechanization and robotics research

I don't doubt it is a big drive, but wouldn't the military take the biggest portion of that cake?

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

#134

Post by walnutclosefarm »

eloisius wrote: post #62
raxxorrax wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, in that case it is just as bad. But I don't understand how it could ever be worse than gasoline since part of the CO2 in bio-ethanol should at least come from already unbound CO2.

Because the process from growing corn to distilling ethanol requires more energy than it produces. That energy has to come from somewhere, i.e. fossil fuels. It would be cleaner to just burn the fossil fuels than to run the energy through the Rube Goldberg machine of farm subsidies and ethanol.

Not literally true from the energetics point of view, but close enough that when you add in the other carbon releasing side effects (degradation of soil carbon, land clearing) that comes with increased corn production, it is a net carbon producer right now. That's what this study is all about.

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

#135

Post by ZeroGravitas »

panny wrote: post #15
invalidator wrote: post #5

This article misses a key point: Ethanol is used to oxygenate the fuel, which reduces carbon monoxide and soot emissions. It replaced MTBE in that role. It was never intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Producing it requires more energy than it provides, and this was known long before it was introduced. It might be possible to power the production with renewable energy, but that's just extra steps for powerin…

That's revisionist history, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSlNzgvogxk

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I just watched that video and it supports what the original commenter stated.

The bill introduced many things, some efficiency regulations and investments in new tech were aimed at climate change. When he introduces ethanol, he specifically calls out diversification of energy supplies and reduction of imports and not carbon.

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

#136

Post by walnutclosefarm »

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/

In the last century, kinda sorta. In the major corn producing region of the US (I live in Iowa, the heart of the beast), crop rotation is largely reduced to choosing, based on markets whether to grow corn or soybeans on any particular acre. Dairy farmers still grow some alfalfa here and there, but the black earth midwest is pretty much corn and soybeans, full stop.

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

#137

Post by donarb »

gruez wrote: post #116
mrfusion wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why doesn’t another state move its primary up? It seems like an easy way to get more influence?

I vaguely remember a state trying that, and getting smacked by the federal government in retaliation.

The federal government is not responsible for presidential primary elections. It is the parties that are.

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

#138

Post by aklemm »

kortilla wrote: post #36
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.

Fewer people is the answer. Is there a way to humanely, ethically, and justly limit the population?

Conventionally, talking heads seem to indicate the right way forward is to use tech and industrial agriculture to support 20bn+ on the planet. Seems totally doable, but at the cost of losing the natural environment as well as more natural food sources altogether.

Anyway, I say get us back to around 5bn people and keep it there.

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

#139

Post by donarb »

gruez wrote: post #122
AniseAbyss wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always thought the GOP hates welfare programs...

As always, a party's political beliefs are more complicated than being pro-[thing] or anti-[thing]. To steelman the GOP, I'd say that they're against welfare for individuals because for the most part they're transfer payments that don't require any "work" to obtain (short of filling out some forms). They think that's bad because it encourages laziness. To my knowledge farm subsidies aren't implemented that way. They'…

> you still need to actually produce something to get that government money

This farmer faked his paperwork and got $1.6 million in illegal farm subsidies.

https://thecounter.org/man-found-guilty-stealing-1-3-million...

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

#140

Post by rhino369 »

aklemm wrote: post #138
kortilla wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Fewer people is the answer. Is there a way to humanely, ethically, and justly limit the population? Conventionally, talking heads seem to indicate the right way forward is to use tech and industrial agriculture to support 20bn+ on the planet. Seems totally doable, but at the cost of losing the natural environment as well as more natural food sources altogether. Anyway, I say get us back to around 5bn people and keep…

You would said 500 million people 200 years ago.

Malthusians in 200 years will say 50 billion.

Post reply on HN