.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Born at the Crest of the Empire

Saturday, April 22, 2006

Just a question.

With ethanol all the rage as "the answer" to our oil dependency(really, probably not), what are the ethics of using our agricultural capacity to grow corn for ethanol to fuel our cars when people around the world are dying of starvation?

I'm not sure how I feel, but I've not heard it mentioned in the debate and I think it's a question that needs to be discussed.

posted by mikevotes at 12:44 PM

8 Comments:

  • As you imply, ethanol particularly from corn, is not a viable solution. We had a post up awhile back (Lynne put it up I think) about Brazil and the use of sugar cane for ethanol, which yields 8X the energy used to create the ethanol. Corn is like 1.5, or some similarly ridiculous outcome. Either way, we couldn't grow enough to meet our needs and it does nothing to solve the greenhouse problem. And ... oh yeah, we have to eat.

    By Blogger Greyhair, at 3:49 PM  

  • And they get all the sugar out first.

    Could something better be grown? Something genetically engineered to have a high fiber content like cane, but could be grown in places where we currently pay people not to grow crops.

    Still, no ethanol program would ever be "the answer", and in the future, idle crop land might not be so common.

    By Blogger Praguetwin, at 4:40 PM  

  • greyhair,

    From memory, the numbers I remember was that to make any kind of impact, we would have to convert 60-80% of our farmland and that's only for partial replacement.

    And Praguetwin,

    That's a good question. I am not an expert, but I think it would be far easier and far more efficient to aim for 15% conservation. But no president wants to be the one to say the "American way of life" needs changing.

    After all, that's what the terrorists are doing according to the rhetoric. They're trying to take away the "American way of life."

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 5:16 PM  

  • AS far as I am aware there are still serious issues with ethanol and engine integrity.
    Australia was forced by insurers to put a 10% cap on gas/ethanol mix to stop engine part degrading.
    There was a developing ethanol production industry based on crops such as sugar beet. But this was overtaken by South American imports.
    Either way, I agree there is an ethical problem which could probably be solved with better engine technology.

    By Blogger Cartledge, at 5:40 PM  

  • Yes, I think so too. And perhaps the fact that corn sugar is added to everything might at the very least reduce the use in most food products (unnecessarily) and reduce the appetite for sweets. Doesn't answer the oil matter but perhaps diverting corn to a different use as opposed to diabetes?

    By Blogger Lily, at 9:00 PM  

  • Again, I don't know enough about the tech, but that's interesting, cartledge. One story I read, maybe WSJ, maybe 6 weeks ago, was touting Brazil's ethanol mix, and I think I remember something like a 30% blend.

    Elizabeth, I don't know, I don't know the corn processing breakdow. Although I do seem to remember that a huge percentage of corn production goes into livestock feed.(and I like your picture.)

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 10:45 PM  

  • As long as we are looking for the answer we will find no answer. This must be approached with a mix of solutions, not the least of which is a reinventions of our transportation and energy distribution infrastructure. This administration and its heirs (i.e. Republicans) are not only not up to the task, they are opposed to it.

    We need national leadership akin to a combination of the Manhattan Project, the Interstate Highway Project, and the Apollo Project. Good luck. We also need to realize that the problem we're trying to solve is not necessarily cheaper energy, but sustainable, renewable and cleaner energy.

    By Blogger -epm, at 8:25 AM  

  • Coming from farming country, I'll address your original question -- not on viability, but on the ethics of grain for fuel given starving multitudes. The U.S. historically has paid farmers NOT to plant crops on notable amounts of acreage in order to ensure stable grain prices. This began during the great depression when farms were in great duress, and continued into the late 1990's. There is little doubt these policies would be reinstuted were our agriculture system again jeopardized.

    So, our ethics have already been tested on this point. We have a long-standing record of taking no issue in reducing global food supplies to protect our own economic interests. Now, you might argue, "yes, but that was directly about our food supply, this is energy." However, the government could easily have paid the farms the subsidies anyway, and donated the excess grain to countries who could not afford to pay for it anyway.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:55 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home