Environmental policy that is bad for environment

This wasn't even an environmental issue; it was corrupt politicians subsidizing big agribusiness. It is one of many legislative big failures as a result of the corruption of our political systems thanks to full time professional politicians whose main goal is to get re-elected and collect generous pension benefits.
 
ironically, the "conservation reserve" was not put in place to conserve the environment.....it was put in place to pay farmers NOT to grow corn because there was a massive surplus.......when ethanol production began and the surplus evaporated it became more profitable to plant the land than to let the government pay you not to.....

as to subsidizing big business, the majority of the ethanol plants in Iowa are owned and operated by local coops.....
 
When big oil and environmental groups BOTH say it is a bad idea, perhaps the idiots in DC should listen.

on the other hand, perhaps the environmentalists should consider the fact that big oil joins them in objecting would be another reason to take a look at their position against it.....
 
on the other hand, perhaps the environmentalists should consider the fact that big oil joins them in objecting would be another reason to take a look at their position against it.....

It is blatantly stupid to use food for fuel. Read the article... it is CAUSING pollution to do so. Not to mention tearing up conservation land that is not suitable for crops, but is being used anyway, causing more problems than are being solved.

The answer is more algae based biofuels. They use about 1% of the water required for crops and the byproduct they produce is actually a high carb food source for livestock. Plus the algae actually consumes pollutants. So it cleans the air, produces oil, produces food source... win win win. If you want another win, add in the fact that you can put these plants on any type of surface. So rocky terrain, unfarmable lands, etc...
 
It is blatantly stupid to use food for fuel.

agreed.....that's why we used something we had in surplus that was going to waste......I'm curious why that bothers you......

The answer is more algae based biofuels.

I have no problem with algae based fuels.....my favorite project used saltwater kelp.......unfortunately the company exploring that option went under last year.......
 
agreed.....that's why we used something we had in surplus that was going to waste......I'm curious why that bothers you......

Try reading the article... We are not just using excess... Farmers are plowing conservation land to grow more... That is a part of my problem. Another part is as i mentioned... It consumes far too much water.
 
Try reading the article... We are not just using excess... Farmers are plowing conservation land to grow more... That is a part of my problem. Another part is as i mentioned... It consumes far too much water.

I read the article.....and I am far more familiar with ethanol than you....do you think ethanol refineries consume more water than an oil refinery?......
 
I read the article.....and I am far more familiar with ethanol than you....do you think ethanol refineries consume more water than an oil refinery?......

I don't think you comprehend my position.

1) GRAIN consumes far more water to produce than algae
2) GRAIN is a food source, not a viable fuel.
3) I am suggesting instead of plowing under conservation land, we instead use the land for algae based biofuel.
 
I don't think you comprehend my position.

1) GRAIN consumes far more water to produce than algae
2) GRAIN is a food source, not a viable fuel.
3) I am suggesting instead of plowing under conservation land, we instead use the land for algae based biofuel.

hopefully you're joking.....raising grain uses far less water than producing algae.
also using corn a source of ethanol leaves a byproduct called brewer's mash which is a superior source of food to raw corn. Ethanol production actually enhances its benefit as a feed for cattle.
you realize if you use the conservation land for raising algae it still isn't conservation land, right?.......it would have to be covered with huge tanks of water to raise algae.....
 
Also, had you read the article, then why did I need to explain to you we weren't just using grain that would have gone to waste?

but we are......that's why they discovered it could be used for ethanol, they were researching possible uses for a waste product.....same with sugar cane in Brazil, orange peels in Florida and wood chips in Oregon.......
 
hopefully you're joking.....raising grain uses far less water than producing algae.

and thus ends your credibility on the issue. Algae uses about 1% of the water that grain does for ethanol production.

also using corn a source of ethanol leaves a byproduct called brewer's mash which is a superior source of food to raw corn. Ethanol production actually enhances its benefit as a feed for cattle.

As does algae. But you are again seeing farmers plow and pollute in order to try and produce more corn. Not to mention the fact that corn prices have almost tripled since the idiots started using food for fuel. That raises the costs of feeding live stock and also every other food that uses corn as an ingredient.

you realize if you use the conservation land for raising algae it still isn't conservation land, right?.......it would have to be covered with huge tanks of water to raise algae.....

You realize that you can put the algae sites on land without degrading the soil? without runoff from pesticides? while at the same time absorbing pollutants, not releasing them?
 
Think for a moment; what would cause farmers to grow more crops than they can sell? (think dairy farms and surplus butter).

farmers raised corn as an alternating crop with soybeans (profitable) because successive plantings of soybeans without rotation ruined the soil (not enough cellulose going back into the soil).......they lost money every year on the acres they planted with corn because there was more of it than was being used........the government subsidized the growing of corn to promote the very thing SF complains the growing of corn is destroying.....researches were looking for alternative uses of the grain to create markets for the surplus crops......they discovered ethanol.....
 
but we are......that's why they discovered it could be used for ethanol, they were researching possible uses for a waste product.....same with sugar cane in Brazil, orange peels in Florida and wood chips in Oregon.......

NO, we are not... which AGAIN shows you did not bother to read the article. We are plowing MORE land, we are EXPANDING our production of corn... that is NOT simply using 'waste'... it is tearing up more land for production of grain for fuel. Try reading the article.

The same holds true in Brazil... they began tearing down rain forest so they could plant more cane. You should try reading up on the issue before pretending you know more. It will help you avoid looking so foolish in the future.
 
and thus ends your credibility on the issue. Algae uses about 1% of the water that grain does for ethanol production.
uh, no.....algae grows IN water, plus you would still have to process the algae INTO ethanol which would require far more drying than corn (that is where the energy is consumed)......

As does algae. But you are again seeing farmers plow and pollute in order to try and produce more corn. Not to mention the fact that corn prices have almost tripled since the idiots started using food for fuel. That raises the costs of feeding live stock and also every other food that uses corn as an ingredient.
1) it doesn't raise the cost of feeding livestock because they can be fed what's left after ethanol is made with zero calorie loss......and the cost of the corn you consume as a human is less than the cost of the fuel it takes to deliver your food to the grocery store......
2) corn prices have tripled, meaning that instead of losing money on the acres grown to corn in a given year, farmers actually make a profit......are you opposed to someone making a profit instead of losing money?
3) provide a link to the claim that algae also leaves a by product that can be used as a food source....




You realize that you can put the algae sites on land without degrading the soil? without runoff from pesticides? while at the same time absorbing pollutants, not releasing them?

and you cannot put an "algae site" on land without degrading the soil......it would have to be grown either in a pond or in a tank....how do you propose to do either without impacting the land on which it is built?......
 
farmers raised corn as an alternating crop with soybeans (profitable) because successive plantings of soybeans without rotation ruined the soil (not enough cellulose going back into the soil).......they lost money every year on the acres they planted with corn because there was more of it than was being used........the government subsidized the growing of corn to promote the very thing SF complains the growing of corn is destroying.....researches were looking for alternative uses of the grain to create markets for the surplus crops......they discovered ethanol.....

Again, READ THE ARTICLE... they are not just using waste... look at the corn production since it began being used for fuel...

http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country=us&commodity=corn&graph=production
 
Again, READ THE ARTICLE... they are not just using waste... look at the corn production since it began being used for fuel...

http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country=us&commodity=corn&graph=production

it is no longer wasted.....

remember pictures like this back in the 90s?
images
 
Back
Top