Do you agree with the government subsidizing the burning of food for fuel?
It's on the list of the top 5 dumbest things the us govt has ever done.
I don't agree with the government subsidizing anything. I don't even think subsidies are misplaced good intentions. It's not hard to figure out who they hurt and who they help, and I can tell you they don't help the people who "need" to be helped.
"Do you agree with government subsidizing..."
Agree. Easiest way to answer it.
We should just drop the import duty on sugar and then Brazilian farmers would be able to supply us with sugar at a much lower price than corn. Sugar is also more efficiently converted to ethanol.
The reason sugar cost as much as it does now is because the federal government.
I know, that's why we should drop the import duty and the price supports.
Ethanol makes gas cheaper for you or it makes money for the oil companies. Both are traded on the commodities markets. The December futures are the most traded currently. Ethanol costs 1.668/gal and gas costs 2.6229/gal.
This costs tax payers nothing. It's simply cheaper. The great thing in my opinion is that it's a domestic fuel which creates jobs where they are needed and makes us less dependent on importing oil from countries who don't like us.
No, what creates jobs is REAL energy like the natural gas boom happening in the Dakotas. We're now the world's largest energy producer because of it. Drill, baby, drill.
I think we should have all of it. Everything which can make us independent of oil from the Middle East is good.
By the way, something to consider with Ethanol subsidies supposedly going away...
I hardily support it.
Sorry, I support doing it but not subsidizing it.
To my knowledge there's no subsidy in ethanol in 2013. If you believe there is, I would like to see documentation. Ethanol is cheaper than gas and the oil companies make money by blending ethanol in.
Subsidy or not, the price of food is skyrocketing because we're stupidly using our food for gas. Not only that, but even if you converted 100% of corn to Ethanol it would only power 12% of cars. This was a disaster from the beginning.
AND it's been proven Ethanol is worse for the environment, not better. This entire house of cards needs to come crumbling down.
The corn which is used is the same as used for feed, but after the ethanol has been extracted the remaining product called DGGS is used for feed. Some farmers argue the DGGS is better as feed because it's easier to digest for the animals. There's no
...loss for the farmers. We grow a lot more corn than we used to, some for export to China. This country gets jobs and we avoid buying oil from the Middle East.
That's great feed is unaffected, but it's still a fact that humans need real corn and when we idiotically convert it to fuel, the price goes up (as it has). Plus there isn't enough to make a difference anyway *and* it's worse for the environment.
Corn for human consumption is about 1% of total production. The rest goes to corn syrup, feed, fuel etc. The type used for fuel/feed is not used for human food.
We should just produce more, it's a free market. Btw some ethanol is needed in gas as an oxidizer, it replaced MTBE which caused cancer. Ethanol also increases the octane level which helps cars running premium.
No it doesn't. It takes 1 1/4 gallon of Ethanol to get the same performance as a gallon of gasoline. And we actually have to put more energy into the production of Ethanol than we get out of it.
No and I don't think it is. If you're referring to ethanol, it used to be subsidized but I don't think it is in 2013. If you have other information, I'd like to see the documentation.
Yes an no. Straight out subsidies are gone but still mandated by law to use a certian amount.
True but I only argue against the notion that there are subsidies, because I don't think it's true. The mandate forced them to get the industry started, but now it actually makes the gas cheaper so for once we had a successful government program.