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

221–230 of 257 posts

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

#221

Post by 9rx »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #220
9rx wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Yes, they just explained way. The goal isnt fairness, its preventing famine.

The goal isn't fairness, but it is fair[1]. There is nothing in the crop subsidies that would compel you to grow, say, corn over a vegetable.

Corn does receive the lion's share of the subsidies, but that's because we grow way more corn, because that's what the consumer chooses to buy (either directly or indirectly [e.g. meat]).

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

#222

Post by HDThoreaun »

9rx wrote: post #221
HDThoreaun wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they just explained way. The goal isnt fairness, its preventing famine.

The goal isn't fairness, but it is fair[1]. There is nothing in the crop subsidies that would compel you to grow, say, corn over a vegetable. Corn does receive the lion's share of the subsidies, but that's because we grow way more corn, because that's what the consumer chooses to buy (either directly or indirectly [e.g. meat]).

Right, and part of why we grow way more corn is the subsidies(vast majority of corn is going to animals, they eat whatever is cheapest). The subsidies lead to too much corn growth which means they are poorly applied, even if they are fair.

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

#223

Post by red-iron-pine »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #217
raverbashing wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sugarcane, but I think in terms of total plant weight vs yield even sugar beets beat corn

I live in the corn belt and can assure you that sugarcane does not grow here

that sugar does not grow there does not change the fact that corn is very inefficient for biofuel

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

#224

Post by 9rx »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #222
9rx wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal isn't fairness, but it is fair[1]. There is nothing in the crop subsidies that would compel you to grow, say, corn over a vegetable. Corn does receive the lion's share of the subsidies, but that's because we grow way more corn, because that's what the consumer chooses to buy (either directly or indirectly [e.g. meat]).

Right, and part of why we grow way more corn is the subsidies(vast majority of corn is going to animals, they eat whatever is cheapest). The subsidies lead to too much corn growth which means they are poorly applied, even if they are fair.

> part of why we grow way more corn is the subsidies

That would imply that subsidies give reason to produce corn over a vegetable, which isn't the case. The subsidies are "fair" — even when that isn't the goal.

You are right that corn is cheap, but that's a result of technology and the nature of what it is. It requires almost no human effort to produce. Stuff like vegetables, on the other hand, remain incredibly labor intensive even on the most technically advanced farms. It is a much harder problem to solve.

As compared to virtually every other food, grain is significantly simpler to handle in almost every way from seeding right to storage and distribution. And corn benefits from being insanely high yielding compared to other grains.

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

#225

Post by RivieraKid »

lithocarpus wrote: post #187
RivieraKid wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dead trees and other plants in a mature forest are decomposed and in that process, carbon is released back into the atmosphere.

His point is charcoal doesn't decompose which is why we find soil with 5000 year old charcoal in it. It's basically permanently sequestered.

Is it something that commonly happens in forests? I think mature forests today are approximately carbon neutral.

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

#226

Post by slumberlust »

pkphilip wrote: post #215
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 requires a LOT of water - so you need around 2000-2860 litres of water for every litre of ethanol.

Is that a lot? We would need some other examples to compare--specifically corn.

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

#227

Post by unanonymousanon »

9rx wrote: post #202
glorpsicle wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[dead]

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

#228

Post by quickthrowman »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #68
PaulHoule wrote: post #2

For years I saw saturation ads for the Archer-Daniels-Midland Corporation on PBS, I found out years that this is the prime beneficiary of the ethanol program. Farmers growing corn for ethanol are growing broke despite subsidies. The program is an environmental disaster because people in the Mississippi River basin should be growing anything except corn because corn is a crop that requires huge imports of nitrogen fer…

Unless I'm going senile, I've done this calculation a few times and consistently I get that a solar farm produces 25-50 times more energy a year than corn.

You can eat corn if food imports aren’t available, but as far as I’m aware, photovoltaic cells are not edible.

Food security is the primary reason for corn overproduction and ethanol is what we do with the excess corn instead of let it rot.

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

#229

Post by quickthrowman »

bgwalter wrote: post #180

Biofuels get the subsidies so that in case of a major crisis like war there is enough food and some fuel for essential services. It is not that hard to understand. It is possible that studies were tweaked to support another narrative, but farm subsidies always serve strategic interests.

Yeah, that’s my understanding of agricultural subsidies as well, and I’m surprised to see that only a couple low ranked comments (yours, and my top level comment) mention the food security angle when what we do with the excess corn is basically irrelevant if food security is the primary purpose of ag subsidies.

Wouldn’t be the first time most people on HN misunderstand an issue completely though.

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

#230

Post by quickthrowman »

thelastgallon wrote: post #174
tzs wrote: post #40

> Why would growing corn for ethanol and burning it in an engine be any climate-friendlier than growing that same corn for food and burning an equivalent amount of gasoline in an engine? The carbon absorbed in the field wouldn’t change; neither would the carbon emitted from the car. If the only difference was that producing ethanol emitted much more carbon than producing gasoline, where were ethanol’s benefits? Where…

>Where the carbon comes from matters. Your underlying assumption is carbon is required. We could use the same land for solar panels. 40 million acres are used to grow corn for ethanol subsidies (out of 93m total). If we use these 40m acres for solar, Annual Energy Production (in watt-hours): 52,272 terawatt-hours (TWh) To put that in context: The total electricity consumption of the U.S. is about 4,000 TWh/year. The…

Just one question: can you eat photovoltaic cells?

Corn is edible, and I’d be more than happy to eat cornmeal for years in the event of a global war that stopped food imports/exports. This is precisely the reason for agricultural subsidies, to ensure our nation can feed itself if all agricultural trade is cut off. We’d grind up field corn and eat cornmeal instead of starving to death with plenty of electricity but no food.

Post reply on HN