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

141–150 of 248 posts

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

#141

Post by ZeroGravitas »

hnbad wrote: post #54

I hate to be that guy, but the only reliable way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to drastically reduce emissions. Switching to biofuel doesn't fix climate change because biofuel is still terrible. Switching to electric cars doesn't fix climate change because electric power is still terrible (not to mention all the damage from lithium mining, manufacturing and battery replacements). The only solution is to make…

The problem with this kind of comment is that it's hard to know what direction you are travelling.

If you used to deny climate change was happening, then denied it was a problem, then denied it was human caused, then denied that there was any alternative and so on, then your opinion now is still some kind of progress towards objective reality.

If on the other hand, you started with the consensus reality of qualified scientists and have now regressed into this opinion which seems just like negative energy directed at necessary change then that's a bad thing.

The former seems more likely though, or maybe that's just the optimist in me.

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

#142

Post by walnutclosefarm »

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

Actually, I think your view is the revisionist one. I have lived my entire life in big corn country, and I can tell you that without question, ethanol production was billed as an energy play. Note that the blending standard for ethanol in gasoline requires nearly twice the ethanol required as a direct replacement for MTBE as an oxygenate. This is to guarantee a market for ethanol produced from corn.

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

#143

Post by Aunche »

imtringued wrote: post #45
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…

Well a lot of conventional farms that are hyperoptimized barely make enough money to get by. It is quite weird how we can't maintain something as basic as food security with a market based economy.

Depends on what you mean by food security. We're guarenteed to have enough food without crop subsidies. We would just import a lot more than we export. The government seems that as a national security risk.

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

#144

Post by ZeroGravitas »

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'…

Paying someone to do something destructive in order to produce something you don't want isn't very smart, even if it keeps them busy in a way that fools them I to feeling productive. If we all did that it would be worse than doing nothing.

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

#145

Post by jwarden »

talideon wrote: post #57
njarboe wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-…

So, rather than a banana republic, it's a corn state?

Corn Kingdom?

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

#146

Post by gruez »

donarb wrote: post #139
gruez wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I'm not sure what your point is? Obviously they didn't intend for people to defraud the system. It's like asking "how can democrats be for welfare programs for the poor when fraud causes some of that to be diverted to non-poor criminals?"

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

#147

Post by phil21 »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #135
panny wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree. I can't speak to how this was marketed/pitched at a national level, but in my (midwestern) state it was a huge deal so even as a kid I paid attention to it.

I don't remember much of a climate pitch at all. Everyone immediately pointed out that it cost more energy than it produced. The pitch to the public where I lived at the time was national security (energy independence), and of course the demand it would generate for the local corn industry.

There was probably some greenwashing of it going on, but I certainly don't recall much.

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

#148

Post by seniorivn »

evancoop wrote: post #103

How many products are subsidized on one and and regulated on the other? Corn is subsidized in production, but then when those subsidies yield health-hindering quantities of cheap sweetener (corn syrup), we attempt to regulate its application and consumption. Now, we'll subsidize growth again, but then regulate the greenhouse emissions on the other. It is one thing for government regulation to address externalities (g…

from political and management standpoint it's the same thing you as a society wanted regulatory institutions to exist and do their best, so they did. Don't like the result? Good luck fixing it without firing all those people who messed it up in the first place.

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

#149

Post by tw3464575686 »

jahnu wrote: post #126
tw3464575686 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Small-scale sustainable farms produce more food per hectare than industrial farming. However, they are usually less profitable, since they need more manpower per hectare. Efficiency in terms of money earned is not the same as efficiency in terms of food produced, and with a growing population and a diminishing area of arable land, one seems more critical than the other, especially when you consider that i…

> Small-scale sustainable farms produce more food per hectare than industrial farming. I thought that was only true in poor and developing countries but that large industrial farms in highly developed nations produced way more than everybody else. Have you a source you could share as this is a very interesting point?

Ha, no, you're right. Don't remember were i first heard it, but looking for the sources now, it seems that small farms are more productive in poor countries, but less productive than industrial farms in developed nations. However, the source i found for that [0] doesn't mention what techniques are used, and seems to only focus on size. So now i'm curious if there is reliable data looking at differences in yield between farming techniques? (e.g. industrial/chemical vs organic vs permaculture)

[0] https://grist.org/food/do-industrial-agricultural-methods-ac...

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

#150

Post by gruez »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #144
gruez wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

Paying someone to do something destructive in order to produce something you don't want isn't very smart, even if it keeps them busy in a way that fools them I to feeling productive. If we all did that it would be worse than doing nothing.

>to do something destructive

is growing corn a destructive activity on net? If it is, then we shouldn't just be cutting subsidies, we should be banning it outright. As it relates to this discussion (ie. "are republicans hypocrites because they're anti individual welfare but pro agricultural welfare"), we can safely assume that republicans don't think that and therefore aren't hypocrites. This is not to say whether growing corn is actually destructive or not, only that the republican view is at least self-consistent.

Post reply on HN