Anytime you are taking food crops to use in gas tanks you are looking at a failed policy. Add to this that as the percentage of ethanol in gas rises, the gas mileage begins to drop. Add to this that ethanol is corrosive and damaging to engines. If you agree with this, then we have found something that we agree with. Good for us!
Corporations that 'raise crops' do it to make profits. They don't do it to feed people. Under our capitalistic system, particularly under a system where five major agri-business corporations control 95% of all the grain in the world you can't really say that the 'policy failed' as it's made billions of dollars for these corporations. I'd have to say it's a smashing success. Maybe it was sold as a 'climate policy', and it probably has made some difference in that regard, but getting this policy passed had major input from some, if not all of the largest trans national corporation in the world.
The Food Stamp program is another policy designed to add to agri business' bottom line. Sure, the program does feed people to some extent, but those billions of dollar goes directly or indirectly to the various corporate treasuries... the same as ethanol.
Two points of consensus on policy between skeptics and supporters so close together? (Nuclear was the other.) That asteroid must be about to hit…
Ethanol as an alternative fuel was analyzed as a source reduction turkey long ago. Though I have to admit, I wonder what genetic manipulation could bring into existence as a carbon neutral hydrocarbon producing plant?
In any event (regulars can stop reading now) source reduction does not address the carbon dioxide already released. I favor Iron fertilization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertil...
(Short version: iron is not very soluble in ocean water and is commonly a deficient nutrient there. Adding iron causes microscopic plants to multiply. The plants absorb carbon and a significant number sink, sequestering the carbon on the ocean floor. Nor is this just theory. Every part has been observed as natural processes or as experimental results. The overall method has been observed both ways.
Amazingly a number of people are all exited about a recent experimental result that allegedly left oxygen depleted zones. It was as if they'd never heard of eutrophication:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutrophicat...
Just add the iron more diffusely and you'll get results in line with the over a decades worth of more positive observed experimental AND natural results. Since this is an imitation of a natural process, either the "dead zones" are an avoidable abnormality or not significant to the environment. Take your pick.)
A method that is cheap, easy and quick.
Corn ethanol was always about buying votes in the Iowa straw polls.
The major push was to make gasoline burn better, and protect engines.
First lead was used to lubricate, and increase the life span of engines.
Lead was banned and MTBE was substituted.
MTBE was banned and ethanol was substituted.
nothing to do with climate. a real skeptic would check. it was about energy independence.
.....
ethanol consumption was driven by federal legislation aimed to reduce oil consumption and enhance energy security. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 required use of 7.5×109?US?gal (28×106?m3) of renewable fuel by 2012, and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 raised the standard, to 36×109?US?gal (140×106?m3) of annual renewable fuel use by 2022...
at least that was the excuse. buying votes was more likely
It was not a climate change policy.
Nope
more like a failed agri-business policy designed to buy farming votes.
I would say that the fact that people are using food to fill their gas tanks is a statement about how people worship the internal combustion engine.
http://ow.ly/FX9qW
