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

Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels

lithub.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 257 posts

Re: Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels

#201

Post by 9rx »

AngryData wrote: post #67
burnt-resistor wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corn and most ag subsidies are using taxpayer money for corporate welfare for mostly mega farming consortia with a smattering of medium and smaller farmers, who also can't exist in the rigged market without welfare. 5% of all US land, not just arable land, ALL land is used for mostly cow corn. It's absolute insanity. And then there's the federal US sugar cartel keeping prices artificially (no pun intended) high.

Crop subsidies are certainly poorly applied and poorly distributed, but we also need to not throw the baby out with the bath water. Crop subsidization is the only alternative to the granary system, which while decent still resulted in repeated famines for thousands of years basically everywhere, while no country that has decent crop subsidization ever has famine. Crop subsidization in general makes granaries 90% obso…

> Crop subsidies are certainly poorly applied and poorly distributed

Crop subsidies, since the 2014 reforms at least, are "fair" to all crops. That does mean that the most grown crops (which in the US is corn, by a large margin) receive the most subsidies, but is that truly poor application and distribution?

Re: Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels

#202

Post by 9rx »

glorpsicle wrote: post #192
unanonymousanon wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this takes too much responsibility off the politicians swayed by lobbyists and the corporations paying lobbyists. Don’t get me wrong, lobbyists have been middlemen in a lot of disastrous policy, but they’re not really the source of the problem.

The problem is a system which allows politicians to be influenced in this way, and the group of politicians that accept said influence. The lobbyists–while not very admirable in their own right–are simply acting in their own self-interest. Someone–those in charge–needs to deny them.

> The problem is a system which allows politicians to be influenced in this way

Well, that's (representative) democracy for you. If politicians were off doing their own thing you'd have a dictatorship instead. Being "influenced" (i.e. listening to the people who share their story) is the whole reason you hired the politician in the first place!

Yes, democracy is hard work. Everyone is supposed to be lobbying. That is what democracy is made of. It is your civic duty. But, understandably, most people would rather do something else — like complaining on HN about how those participating in democracy got their way.

That's why not everyone in the world actually believes in democracy. But, whether you like it or not, if you live in a democracy it is your duty to participate in it. Speaking to your representative regularly (i.e. lobbying) to air out your concerns is a necessity. They are not mind readers! If you choose not to, don't expect magic.

Re: Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels

#203

Post by addicted »

I thought the US approach to biofuels was always understood as a Republican head fake towards climate change action during Bush without doing anything that would threaten oil interests while simultaneously enriching their donor and voting base with all our tax dollars.

Re: Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels

#204

Post by [deleted] »

meindnoch wrote: post #103
scotty79 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But a pretty good battery.

Human-made batteries are much more efficient. Pumped hydro storage is more efficient. Heck, even electrolysing hydrogen from water has higher roundtrip efficiency than burning ethanol made from corn.

[deleted]

Re: Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels

#205

Post by littlexsparkee »

trollbridge wrote: post #177
throwaway_5633 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the things that concerns me most after studying agriculture for a couple of years is that people may definitely starve to fill other people’s gas tank. A lack of arable land is imminent and high income people at the gas pump, or eating meat (same economics) may well outspend those who don’t have enough food. Part of food inflation is attributed to biofuels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil

Hasn’t happened in Brazil at all, where food is quite affordable, and they’re a gigantic food exporter too.

the book cited in the article mentioned food riots in several developing countries (Mexico, Pakistan) on p.71 - prices would be affected either by displacing the crop in some of those countries or reducing exports from those that grow them

Re: Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels

#206

Post by pfdietz »

Geee wrote: post #168
pfdietz wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soil too eventually reaches an equilibrium where carbon injection and carbon oxidation are in balance. If what you thought was true, imagine a forest sitting there for millions of years. Where would this permanently sequestered carbon be going? Soils do not become unboundedly thick.

Well, that's what oil and coal are. Oil is formed from marine biomass, and coal is formed from plants.

The rate at which these are formed over time is very very small. Almost all carbon fixed by photosynthesis is oxidized over a much shorter time scale.

Re: Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels

#207

Post by littlexsparkee »

lazide wrote: post #55
knappe wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes perfect sense. Forest are only carbon sinks if they stay as a forest . The second you cut one down it goes from being a sink to source. Searchinger's argument states that more forests will be grown to be cut down if burning wood pellets (that are shipped from North America to the EU) is considered renewable and that means you're now cutting down even more forests to clear land for growing more trees. The lan…

Forests are not long term carbon sinks. They flatline rather quickly. This is obvious to anyone who has spent much time in a forest, because if this wasn’t the case, forests would be sitting on thousands of feet of sequestered carbon. Instead of a few feet (typically) of non-mineral soil. Forests also (typically) go through cycles of burning. The highest rate of carbon sequestration is when a forest is in the 3-25 ye…

Even fast growing trees need 10-20 years to start storing significant amounts of carbon and old-growth forests can sequester it for hundreds of years.

Re: Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels

#208

Post by boston_clone »

cpursley wrote: post #128

Just wait until you learn about the crazy stuff like corn syrup, “fortified” highly processed white bread and sugary kids cereal they’ve pushed for the last 40 years. There’s a reason the farm bill tackles both ends: Farm subsidies and SNAP - American taxpayers are literally subsidizing the obesity health crisis.

> they’ve

Who?

Re: Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels

#209

Post by 9rx »

hibikir wrote: post #122
burnt-resistor wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corn and most ag subsidies are using taxpayer money for corporate welfare for mostly mega farming consortia with a smattering of medium and smaller farmers, who also can't exist in the rigged market without welfare. 5% of all US land, not just arable land, ALL land is used for mostly cow corn. It's absolute insanity. And then there's the federal US sugar cartel keeping prices artificially (no pun intended) high.

Unfortunately farmers everywhere get subsidies: A lot of European farming would collapse and be replaced by farming done in the southern hemisphere if there weren't subsidies. As for too much corn, it's a purely economical plan: There's rotation with soybeans in most of the midwest because corn-corn-sobeans is more profitable and treats the land better. Your typical farmer would change to anything else that makes mor…

> Your typical farmer would change to anything else that makes more money per acre

As a grain farmer, I would want cooler tech first (which, granted, would follow if the money was there). I chose grain farming because it has the best toys.

Re: Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels

#210

Post by luqtas »

elsonrodriguez wrote: post #190
voxleone wrote: post #165

While it's true that Big Ag in the U.S. has oversold corn ethanol as a climate-friendly alternative, it's important to distinguish between types of biofuels. Not all ethanol is created equal. Take Brazil, for example. Their ethanol program is fundamentally different. It's based on sugarcane, not corn, and it has a spectacular EROI (Energy Return on Investment) of about 8:1. That means for every unit of energy put int…

> Sugarcane is mostly grown on degraded pastureland far from the Amazon. I vaguely recall campaigns against turning Amazon into pastureland via slash and burn.

blame meat.

highly productive areas on sugarcane aren't in Amazon [0]

[0] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bruno-Santos-52/publica...

Post reply on HN