Ethanol Demand in U.S. Adds to Food, Fertilizer Costs?

It's funny that 2 people have tried to blame this on liberals.

Bush has pushed corn-based ethanol hard because it's a way for him to appear to be environmentally conscious while at the same time helping farmers by increasing the demand for corn. In reality, corn-based ethanol has long been known not to be much of an improvement over gasoline with regards to the environment, and further study has now shown that it's far worse.

The blame lies with politicians who use the environment as a ruse to increase their support among farmers, without considering the environmental and scientific reality of the situation.

Why does everyone think ethanol was created for global warming? It was a selling point but the number 1 reason was to reduce foreign oil dependency. Number 2 was to help the farmer. 3 is cleaner air. It may have failed in 2 of these and added a few more to it but keep in mind that we were supplementing the farmers before which might be reduced now.

Also there is a certain amount of land and if someone can make a living by growing something on that land they are going to have a crop on it weather it goes to ethanol or some other product.

There is no Hydrogen reserves out there so it must be created just like ethanol needs to be created so creating it is going to cause pollution.

I want more efficient vehicles. The more miles per gallon the better and mathematically the less pollution to the mile. If they can do it with gasoline fine. Electric batteries fine. Hydrogen fine. What I've read is battery cars have a potential of 150 mpg. That means $2 to $4 dollars of electricity to charge it and X amount of range compared to current gas prices. If that is true then lets find out and make it happen.

I know, "batteries aren't good enough yet". If not, throw some tax money into it and get them good enough. It's can be possible to recharge a good battery in 10 minutes so the gas stations can recharge them for long trips with a few upgrades. People can shop for snacks while they charge. Gas stations don't make scwat off of gas anyway most of there profits are off of goods in the station so they might be happy about that option.

Big oil makes all the money and big oil causes a lot of the pollution. Let's cut big oil in half and improve our air and save money at the same time.

The US Goverment was conceived in a way that large states would not dominate small states, hence all states have 2 senators. Public policy on agriculture is therefore set on the basis of the votes of the dozen or so midwest and plains states where corn and wheat is grown. The bio-fuel policy helps farmers, cooperatives, and corporations in these states and they have a powerful influence with some 30 senators. From a thermodynamic point of view the policy violates the laws of thermodynamics. Photosynthesis is only 0.1% efficient in converting sunlight into food calories. The land would be better used to have wind farms and or photo voltaic farms. These states would then have to compete with the western and southwestern states for wind or PV pork barrel funds. Actually with PV being 150 times more efficient than photosynthesis the pork may be a lot more tasty and for sure less of a waste of tax payers dollars. Somehow we have to view wind farms and PV farms as an agricultural enterprise and then the money may flow in the direction that adds less entropy to the planet. Visit www.greenenergyexplained.com

Ethanol gives liberal environmentalists (Hollywood actors) a warm fuzzy feeling. Much like electric cars in the past did. You may remember the buzz about electric cars. Plug them in at night and BOOM!! no emmissions. What the LE's failed to tell you is where the electricity came from. Hollywood's electricity comes from two sources. Damming the Colorado River and from coal/gas powered plants. So their electric cars didnt help the environment at all. It only helped to boost their little egos. Today's ethanol craze does much the same. Sure, no fossil fuels are burned in the cars. BUT, many fossil fuels go into the corn in the form of fertilizers. In fact, much of the nitrogen in the fertilizer makes it thru the distilation process and into the ethanol. The result, when the ethanol is burned, nitrogen is released into the air. Nitrogen in the atmosohere results in acid rain. The bottom line is that ethanol is no better a fuel than oil. We already have available a fuel source that is completely emission free. Some people call it hydrogen. The only by product: water. When hydrogen is burned, it combines with oxygen to form water which drips harmlessly out of the tailpipe. All that is lacking is distribution infrastructure and a way to use hydrogen in cold climates. Once this is accomplished, we can have enviromentally sound vehicles. In the meantime, we have to quit taking our advice from Hollywood. They're actors for god's sake!!

Miles O'brien did a special about the environment and ethanol last night on Broken Government called Scorched Earth. It is because the politicians would rather benefit the U.S. economy instead of give money to terrorist regimes. It makes people think they are doing something green and it is much easier than converting cars to electricity or hydrogen.

Bushenomics! Great deal for farmers, for awhile, and for the oil companies who supply the fertilizers, and for the political parties who rake in the bribes used to get the necessary legislation passed.

Terrible deal for the driving public, for food prices, for the environment. Thousands of ppl will starve in under developed countries because of the increased price of grain.

Huge disaster!

Because it makes everyone feel fuzzy, warm and green even if it does not provide the benefits everyone claims.

High oil price adds cost to everything, not just food.

Because the liberals will not allow any new oil drilling, so now other countries are taking the oil.

cause people out their wanna feel good even if they want to hurt mother nature. It makes people feel good.