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

121–130 of 248 posts

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

#121

Post by greenonions »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #28
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-…

Precisely my point. Maybe that's not a very future proof plan for Iowa? That sounds like at some point they are going to have to cut loose from the federal handouts.

It is apparently easier to make the subsidies continue forever than to consider growing alternatives.

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

#122

Post by gruez »

AniseAbyss wrote: post #80
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-…

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're implemented as price supports or loan programs, so you still need to actually produce something to get that government money.

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

#123

Post by gruez »

giantg2 wrote: post #74
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.

Depends on how you look at it. Agriculture generally requires a lot of water. Much of this corn is being irrigated with water from the aquifers. Sustainable farming is good, but I don't think we do very much of it. I wonder if there's any evidence that we can sustainably support 8 billion people. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/12/kansas-aqu...

>I wonder if there's any evidence that we can sustainably support 8 billion people.

it depends on the type of lifestyle you're willing to have and how much % of the GDP you're willing to pour into it. I'm sure you can sustainably feed all 8 billion people if we poured 50% of our GDP into food production and we only ate rice and beans.

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

#124

Post by walnutclosefarm »

mrfusion wrote: post #91
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-…

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

There is a law in Iowa that sets the date of our party caucuses earlier than the earliest primary. Our primaries are not first, rather it's the party caucuses here that are held as the first selection event in the Presidential race.

I am a rare Iowan in that I recognize that this system is dumb, and bad for the country. It's great for me - I have had the privilege of hearing in person in a small group setting every Democratic president since Jimmy Carter. I've talked with a couple of them. I can tell you from personal experience that Joe Biden's reputation as a "hands on" or "physical" campaigner was spot on - he embraced me as firmly and as intimately as any man every has (I am very rural looking, white male nearly his age, for the record). But for all that, the circus that is the Iowa caucuses is a stupid way to start the candidate selection process. I'd be happy to see the back of it.

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

#126

Post by jahnu »

tw3464575686 wrote: post #96
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.

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?

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

#127

Post by CivBase »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #76
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.

> Farming at scale is the only thing that allows all 8 billion people to eat. False; you can feed 8 billion people using small scale / non-industrial farming as well, it just means more people would be working in the farming industry and the cost might go up. But industrial farming is not to provide food, but to provide raw resources - I mean this very article is about growing corn to turn into bioethanol to mix in f…

> it just means more people would be working in the farming industry and the cost might go up.

You say that like it's a small thing. Keeping most of the population out agriculture and allowing them to produce other goods and services is the primary benefit of the agriculture industry.

> But industrial farming is not to provide food, but to provide raw resources - I mean this very article is about growing corn to turn into bioethanol to mix in fuel for cars.

Less than half of the corn produced in the US goes to ethanol production. Most of it goes towards feeding people - either directly or indirectly. If we include other produce, then the vast majority of the agriculture industry's output becomes food.

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

#128

Post by Broken_Hippo »

M2Ys4U wrote: post #49
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 I don't think anyone arguing that subsidies in general are bad, just that subsidising corn is bad...

My point is that we can't simply change subsidies from corn to other things without thinking about the other things that would need funding in order to do that. I personally don't think all of it is bad: It is a food and feed crop, after all, but I think we could do with more variety in such crops (not so much reliance on corn, and definitely not for ethanol)

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

#129

Post by phil21 »

giantg2 wrote: post #104
spiderfarmer wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They got a lot of exposure, even before Netflix. Now their model is to milk the brand they built. That's not traditional farming, that's marketing wrapped in farming.

Yeah, but if I remember correctly, actual farm operations were profitable, right? The marketing is just extra, or what it evolved into. Don't get me wrong - small farms are a lot of work. For the most part, at least one member of the family has to have an outside job with benefits just due to healthcare costs. But it can make some money. I hope to have a small farm as a "retirement" plan. It would mostly be an apiary…

> Yeah, but if I remember correctly, actual farm operations were profitable, right? The marketing is just extra, or what it evolved into.

Not really, there are different levels of profitable. Some extremely efficient operations can be profitable at scale, but no one is getting rich.

The places like you describe (have half a cow from one in my freezer now, from just outside Chicago) operate on marketing to upscale customers via advertising/co-marketing deals at fancy/local restaurants.

They also operate a number of farmers markets booths at about a half dozen markets in the city each weekend, and that is both a marketing and sales angle. This is where they pick up a large amount of their weekly subscriptions, and folks like me who order half a cow each year.

> I assume the biggest draw is the lifestyle ideals. It seems a common dream on this community.

I agree the idyllic dream sounds pretty great. However I'd suggest trying to not jump feet first into it. My parents were organic market garden farmers (one of their specialities was mushrooms), and if you need to at least break even your job will look far more like marketing/sales with a bunch of back-breaking physical labor in between than farming or gardening. Animal husbandry is just as involved with the bonus of random emergencies popping up at inconvenient times.

The successful farms in the space tend to focus their time on the "business side" of the operation, and have the standard hired help the large farms have to actually run most of the farm itself. If you've ever visited a "small farm" that did weekend tours this is typically the model they are utilizing.

At "hobby farm" level it can be pretty relaxing if you have no need for the income itself, and don't mind putting good money after bad towards equipment to make your life easier. I've seen these operations work out, but lots of times these folks have an extremely hard time integrating into their new community and tend to move on in a few years.

Just trying to provide a different perspective. Farm life is hard, and involves long hours for very little financial remuneration. I'd only even consider doing it as an absurdly over capitalized hobby.

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

#130

Post by Broken_Hippo »

the_other wrote: post #34
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

I definitely do not back unregulated markets, and in general, do not think markets for food work. It isn't just food, but other things that are general necessities for the modern times. Utilities, roads, and medical care are other examples.

Post reply on HN