yo mama Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 it burns cleaner than gasoline (if you discount the energy it takes to make the ethanol). I'm not sure it burns cleaner than other fossil fuels (like natural gas). Sure, gasoline is the more relevant comparison. We aren't fighting 2.5 wars in the middle east over natural gas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 if you can be tricked into supporting a stupid, unsupportable position out of simple dislike for a narrow swath of the people who recognize it as such, well then you're a lot stupider than I ever thought. If you think the opposition to the subsidies is based on anything other than another lobby's money well then you are the fool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 16, 2011 Author Share Posted June 16, 2011 If you think the opposition to the subsidies is based on anything other than another lobby's money well then you are the fool. what about all the environmentalists who oppose ethanol subsidies on those grounds? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 I'm not in as much of the "know" about sugar cane ethanol, but have read numerous articles that corn ethanol takes more energy to produce than it gives out. Also, I believe that the US govt. does not subsidize cane ethanol thereby rendering that resource as an insignificant provider of ethanol for the US. I think what many people fail to calculate into the equation for ethanol is it's detrimental impacts on many levels. First, you could start out with ethanol production and subsidies leading to an increase in the price of consumer/feed corn products. As many farmers begin to switch their crops for ethanol production they are lowering their production of corn that is used for foods and livestock feed, essentially driving up the price of these products that use corn. Ethanol production is environmentally harmful. In order to produce enough ethanol to have a significant impact on fossil fuel consumption, millions of acres of forest and other lands would have to be cleared for farming. You then have to water these crops, with water being a very finite resource as well. This would lead to damming of tributaries which could further screw up the ecology of our rivers and streams. You would also have a massive increase in the amount of fertilizers that would be used to nourish the crops. Most fertilizers today are made from petrochemicals, well, you see where that one is going. Further, with regard to the fertilizers, they would most certainly end up in lakes, rivers and creeks, this could also deteriorate the ecology of these waterways. From the clearing of these lands for ethanol crop production you also destroy natural, native, environments upon which numerous flora and fauna are dependent. The clearing can also lead to top soil erosion and in times of drought you could create a second dust bowl event. Without subsidies, to the tune of roughly $.55 per gallon, ethanol is not cheaper than gasoline. It takes 1 unit of hydrocarbons to produce 8 units of sugarcane ethanol. It takes 1 unit of hydrocarbons to produce 2 units of corn ethanol, which requires subsidies and tariffs to survive. To put this in its simplest terms: US corn ethanol bad; imported sugarcane ethanol good (or at least significantly superior). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 16, 2011 Author Share Posted June 16, 2011 We aren't fighting 2.5 wars in the middle east over natural gas. and we wouldn't need to, because we've got tons of it in our own backyard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 and we wouldn't need to, because we've got tons of it in our own backyard. We do. But based on our current consumption I believe that we still have to import about 1/4 of the natural gas we use. And unless everyone is going to start buying cars that run on natural gas (which I'm a proponent of) then ethanol is still a viable alternative to gasoline. It's not an "either/or" choice we have to make be between natural gas and ethanol. But corn-based ethanol is just silly in the face of cheaper, more environmentally-friendly imported sugarcane ethanol. Well, except to the corn farmers who are receiving subsidies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 It takes 1 unit of hydrocarbons to produce 8 units of sugarcane ethanol. It takes 1 unit of hydrocarbons to produce 2 units of corn ethanol, which requires subsidies and tariffs to survive. To put this in its simplest terms: US corn ethanol bad; imported sugarcane ethanol good (or at least significantly superior). Didn't Obama get beaten up recently over saying we were going to help subsidize Brazilian ethanol? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 16, 2011 Author Share Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) Didn't Obama get beaten up recently over saying we were going to help subsidize Brazilian ethanol? no, he was "beaten up" for supporting brazilian crude oil development.* no way in hell he would support brazilian ethanol by reducing domestic subsidies or reducing tarriffs. that would cost him hughly with the farm and union lobbies. Edited June 16, 2011 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 no, he was "beaten up" for supporting brazilian crude oil development. To be fair, it is hard to keep track of all of Obama's mistakes nowadays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Wait a minute. Did them democrats vote against Coburn because Jim DeMint added an amendment that would also end the estate tax and repeal the national renewable fuels mandate? And didn't DeMint add those amendments just to get the Democrats to vote against ending the subsidies? And did two days later the Democrats change their votes when it was determined DeMint's bull$hit could be dealt with seperately? Yeah, I'm the f*cking fool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Wait a minute. Did them democrats vote against Coburn because Jim DeMint added an amendment that would also end the estate tax and repeal the national renewable fuels mandate? And didn't DeMint add those amendments just to get the Democrats to vote against ending the subsidies? And did two days later the Democrats change their votes when it was determined DeMint's bull$hit could be dealt with seperately? Yeah, I'm the f*cking fool. Clubbie is surly today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Clubbie is surly today. the man is on a rampage.....steer clear now, ya hear? Clubbie has the upper hand....clubbie...has...the...upper...hand... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 16, 2011 Author Share Posted June 16, 2011 Wait a minute. Did them democrats vote against Coburn because Jim DeMint added an amendment that would also end the estate tax and repeal the national renewable fuels mandate? And didn't DeMint add those amendments just to get the Democrats to vote against ending the subsidies? And did two days later the Democrats change their votes when it was determined DeMint's bull$hit could be dealt with seperately? Yeah, I'm the f*cking fool. demint's version, as best I can tell, wasn't voted on. feel free to root around here and prove me wrong. so club, are al gore and the sierra club shills for BP now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 16, 2011 Author Share Posted June 16, 2011 this article is good reading in general, but particularly with regard to some of yo mama's assertions about brazilian ethanol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 this article is good reading in general, but particularly with regard to some of yo mama's assertions about brazilian ethanol. Brazil will be the next emerging empire in our post Mad Max phase....move to Brazil now.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) demint's version, as best I can tell, wasn't voted on. feel free to root around here and prove me wrong. so club, are al gore and the sierra club shills for BP now? All I said is that the vote was just more political BS not a vote on principle and so I was challenging the idea that what was going on was anything more than political gamesmanship. Apparently I nailed it: http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wi...riff-protection You should re-read my post, I've never said I favor subsidies or not. Argue with yourself about ethanol's impact on the environment. Your atricle references a vote to tell DeMint to go f*ck himself. If you are voting strictly on whether or not ethanol and ethanol subsidies are good, you don't add a last minute rider about estate taxes and renewable fuel mandates. I called your link BS for that basis alone and what the f*ck, I was right. Nothing but a bunch of excuse making around here today. Edited June 16, 2011 by Clubfoothead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 This is probably one of these "I voted for the bill before I voted against it" things that DC is so famously crooked for doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 ...move to Brazil now.. I've seen some of their wimmenz. Not a bad idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 I've seen some of their wimmenz. Not a bad idea. Something we can all agree with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Something we can all agree with. HAWT!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 16, 2011 Author Share Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) All I said is that the vote was just more political BS not a vote on principle and so I was challenging the idea that what was going on was anything more than political gamesmanship. Apparently I nailed it: http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wi...riff-protection You should re-read my post, I've never said I favor subsidies or not. Argue with yourself about ethanol's impact on the environment. Your atricle references a vote to tell DeMint to go f*ck himself. If you are voting strictly on whether or not ethanol and ethanol subsidies are good, you don't add a last minute rider about estate taxes and renewable fuel mandates. I called your link BS for that basis alone and what the f*ck, I was right. Nothing but a bunch of excuse making around here today. so hold on. a bunch of dems voted 'yes' on the exact same bill they voted 'no' on two days ago (neither had any "last minute demint rider"). political gamesmanship? absolutely, though I'm not so sure the culprits line up with who you think they are. I'm thinking there was a lot of push back on that vote in the last couple of days. you are the only person on either side of the aisle anywhere I've seen supporting it in any case, good for the senate taking an incremental step in the right direction, for a change. Edited June 16, 2011 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 this article is good reading in general, but particularly with regard to some of yo mama's assertions about brazilian ethanol. The politics of the Amazon are a hot topic - it is Brazil's version of our "wild west." Deforestation is a subject Brazil is very sensitive about, internally and internationally. The deforestation occurring to plant additional sugarcane for biofuel is largely fueled (not pun intended) by the desire to increase production for export. But the sugarcane used to make the ethanol that has contributed to Brazil's energy independence is largely grown on normal farmland. (They also have tremendous hydroelectric projects and just discovered one of the largest offshore oil and gas deposits in modern history). But the politics of the Amazon is a separate issue from the fact that sugarcane ethanol is a vastly superior product to corn-based ethanol, and that the US subsidies for corn growers is a farce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 16, 2011 Author Share Posted June 16, 2011 interesting, from a lefty blog... The mistake is his assumption that Senate Republicans just happened to abandon Norquist because they oppose ethanol, and so on this particular issue, they voted their opposition to ethanol over their opposition to taxes. That isn't what's going on here. Virtually all the media coverage has gotten this vote wrong. Tom Coburn was not going about this in order to eliminate the ethanol subsidy. He made no attempt to work with the House, line up a majority, woo Senate Democrats, arrange for a vote on favorable terms, or do any of the things that Senators do when they're trying to pass a law. His goal was to do one thing: set a trap for Grover Norquist. He's been laying the trap since March. The point of it is to establish a principle. Republicans working on a bipartisan deficit deal want to define the closing of tax expenditures as not constituting a tax increase. Their problem is that the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which virtually all Republicans in Congress have signed, specifically defines closing tax expenditures as a tax hike. Coburn's ploy was a way of getting a foot in the door. That's exactly why Norquist is so enraged at Coburn. I am with Coburn (as I almost always am on spending issues) in viewing most "tax credits" -- particularly this specifically targeted kind -- as spending, and thus viewing their repeal as more of a "spending cut" than a "tax hike". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 so hold on. a bunch of dems voted 'yes' on the exact same bill they voted 'no' on two days ago (neither had any "last minute demint rider"). political gamesmanship? absolutely, though I'm not so sure the culprits line up with who you think they are. I'm thinking there was a lot of push back on that vote in the last couple of days. you are the only person on either side of the aisle anywhere I've seen supporting it in any case, good for the senate taking an incremental step in the right direction, for a change. Seirously? You post an link to an article that attempts to imply democrats are trying to increase the deficit by supporting ethanol subsidies which also makes them hypocrits because ethanol is bad for the environment. Your atricle wants us to believe not only are republicans trying to trim the deficit but also protect the environment. I considered those assertions so dubious on their face that I replied that it makes me reconsider my position on ethanol since there is no way the right would ever support the environment without an alterior motive. As it turns out, your article references no vote on whether or not ethanol is good or bad or whether or not we should continue to subsidize it or not because some Republican is playing games with the estate tax and alternative energy mandates. I've never supported anything but the notion that your article and your inferences were total $hit and I was right. And as it turned out, everyone voted for what you wanted in the first place once it was determined that demint is a turd who can be ignored. Seems to me if it weren't for demint playing the games you decry you would have gotten what you wanted in the first place. So what's you gripe with democrats here? That they forced the republicans to stay on-point? You can put a gold start by my name on this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Game . . . set . . and match go to Clubby on this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.