Assuming u buy into climate change agenda. I don't.

Seems like all the green new stuff really takes more fuel to produce than just using fossil fuels. That big farming and mining equipment drinks lots of fuel. The promoters of these great new ideas are the only benefactors. JMHO

Roger that Flipper.

Unless they can covert it in oxygen it’s probably not good for the environment then, the whole idea that you burn no lead but more of it because of poor performance it never seemed like we ever really gained much.

It's all a crock

I've said that to my farmer friends right from the beginning. Senators from Iowa and Illinois were the early backers of ethanol. Lots of people have made millions from it.

well it is just plane wasteful

just in Natural gas needed to make it you could just drive the car on that and save everything else.

it wasn't about saving the planet it was about lining a pocket book from day one.


want to make a change , if it changes the climate or not , incentivize insulating houses to R30 in the walls R40 in the ceiling
use the energy saving to Fuel your car

make the car to be maintained and on CNG no reason it can't hit 500K miles then get a get rebuild and do it again.

making things disposable and using rare earth metals isn't going to make things green. might make some people rich but not green

large grazing operations taking up the space that ethanol corn is taking now , where you need no fertilizer and you could ride your horse or small motorbike out to to move the herd it sure would mean a lot more wild life also

heating largely on dead and dying trees any where it is feasible

plant the edges of those new pastures in trees for shade for the animals and fuel to heat with

it is going to change the labor dynamic but that is going to change any way

Nuclear

Natural gas powered vehicles makes more sense than electric ones. It's all about money, not pollution or saving the planet.

Do you guys really believe the study the article is based on is factual and not agenda motivated? I don't for one minute. I could care less one way or the other about ethanol. But people buying into misleading, agenda motivate, pretend science done with intention to mislead the general public is killing this country. With that said I hate government interference in our economy with subsidies and usage mandates which our farmers are getting more dependent on every year but that report is exactly what I said it was.

A lot of things in the Ag world I don't like (and I make my living in it) but I also see the left making agriculture look like the bad guys falsely to further there agenda. Be careful what you believe. The same people that hate guns, trapping and the use of natural resources are the ones that try to make agriculture look like the bad guys.

I don't think farmers are the bad guys at all , most really love the land but they grow stuff and when growing corn pays the bills they grow corn , if hay payed the bills they would grow hay

they follow the path that lets them keep farming most are hopelessly addicted to it as a way of life.

Me either

Imagine that?

Here's an idea. How about stripping ALL govt monies and input from the ag and automotive sectors, and all other ares of the market while we're at it, and let's see how market forces shake it out.

Yup

The modern larger scale farming with the corresponding much higher yields use a fraction of the fossil fuels per bushel or ton then even a few decades ago. Especially for corn, beans and wheat. Harvesting forages (hay, haylage) etc. with 3-5 cuts per year utilizes a lot of energy in harvesting, not as much in N fertilizer and chemicals. The politicians created the ethanol market which basically created a market for about 30% more corn. Farmers may well prefer not to raise as much corn but the profit numbers lead them there. We grow over 300 million acres plus of just wheat, corn and beans. If the very dry weather from the great plains and to the great basin persist then hay could be a crop to ship there if there is to be millions of range cattle having calves. Right now ranchers can not afford to pay the price for hay that would cause a farmer to not raise corn or beans and invest in more expensive and high maintenance equipment.
If we are going to get rid of all credits and subsidies then the depletion allowance should go as well. It is not as important today as in the past due to the much lower taxes on businesses but still a significant subsidy.
It would be better in my opinion that we could have more decentralized Ag and other industries but capitalism favors those that win and win big. The larger long term loss is the lack of creativity that we get from many involved in producing products and finding new and better ways. When we had smaller businesses we had smaller government, just maybe we have set ourselves up for exactly what many never wanted.

I'm wondering what it REALLY costs to produce and distribute a gallon of gasoline.
It costs to pump it as crude.
It costs to ship it to a distilling plant. Thats a long sea voyage sometimes.
It costs to distill it.
It costs to ship it to a gas station. Of course this cost is shared with alcohol.
just

AKAjust,
Flipper might know this, but I just read yesterday that Marathon Oil, oil shale business, can make money on $35 a barrel oil.

I'm not saying the oil companies didn't take a big hit the last few years, and I know they actually do pay more in taxes than other large companies, no matter how the left vilifies them.

And it is a free market. But if you can do oil shale at $35/barrel, make money, and supply gas at a reasonable cost to the consumer, there is no need for the US to suffer climate control when the major polluters are in Asia.

Cooking corn to make ethanol was not a good idea.