There’s also the issue of whether natural gas or coal is used to (directly or indirectly) fuel the ethanol distillation plants. The CO2 content associated with coal burning is much higher than that of natural gas or oil.
Still, TVAA is correct insofar as it is proper to net out the CO2 absorbed by the corn plants.
Um, Eris, I’m not sure what you’re saying.
My understanding is that CO2 is a pretty stable molecule, such that planting trees in (say) Central America can offset CO2 emissions in New England. Also, to the extent that local CO2 levels are somewhat elevated, I don’t think they do any sort of climatic damage, at least that I’m aware of.
Come on. To put it simply, if ethanol was such a fabulously cost effective way to get energy, it wouldn’t need to be subsidized in the first place, unless there is some huge unfair market failure I’m missing (maybe a network externality, due to the different equipment needed to make use of the fuel, but that doesn’t seem to be a huge problem for those that do use it)
Unless there really are benefits to reducing our consumption of foriegn oil (and frankly, I don’t see it in the near term at low percentages: it isn’t a linear matter where a few more percentage points of ethanol usage equal a few percentage points less of headaches from having to deal with political fallout from OPEC), then the extra money being spent here is pure economic waste. The opportunity cost of just the farmers alone would be enormous, not to mention all the materials used to build and maintain the equipment for an expansion of an industry that cannot even pay for itself.
Doesn’t ethanol also evaporate ridiculously fast into the open air, which causes it’s own pollution troubles? Or so I remember reading and hope someone here knows something about.
If fossil fuels were such a fabulously cost-effective way to get energy, we wouldn’t have to subsidize them, either. I am not necessarily arguing that ethanol is good, but your argument that it isn’t doesn’t pass even the most basic standards of logical consistency.
This thread has certainly been illuminating. I know understand much better why people accept false and specious arguments.
TVAA what subsidies for fossil fuels? Gasoline is pretty heavily taxed in the US and it is taxed much more in Europe.
Just to give everyone an idea of the magnitude of these subsidies,
That was from one of scr4’s excellent links.
Separately, there’s also 23 cents of environmental damages associated with corn-to-ethanol production, though of course fossil fuels have their own externalities as well.
On Fossil Fuel Subsidies
This webpage specifies about $5 billion each year in US Fossil Fuel Subsidies. How does this compare with total fossil fuel spending? Well, in the mid 1990s the US consumed about 140 billion gallons of gasoline per year. Making a conservative assumption of gas at $1 per gallon (I know, it’s more expensiver today) gives us a (lowball) spending estimate of 140 billion dollars. 5/140 = less than 5%.* And this ignores fossil fuel use for heating and electricity production.
So, once again, a little research allows us to shed some light on this issue: ethanol subsidies are clearly much larger than fossil fuel subsidies, (assuming that ethanol sells for roughly the same amount as gasoline at the pump) at least as a proportion of their respective outputs. [sub]Of course on an absolute basis, the $1 billion of annual subsidies for ethanol are less than the $5 billion devoted to fossil fuels.[/sub]
Here, we find that total ethanol sales were $1.5 billion in 1994.
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309053927/html/56.html
Since then, ethanol output rose from 1.2 billion to 1.6 billions gallons in 2000. That would put sales in 2000 at about $2 billion dollars. Apparently, federal and state governments shelled out about half of that in subsidies.
Percentagewise, fossil fuel subsidies appear to be about an order of magnitude lower.
Hehro? While there is some subsidy for fossil fuels, they are also taxed to considerable degree, and by no means does the oil industry exist or thrive because of subsidy. Ethanol, on the other hand, owes much of its usage to lobbying, regulation, and government subsidy, most of it benefitting corporations like ADM, who, coincidentally enough, were pretty heavily involved in lobbying for these goodies.
Now, as I noted, you could well make an argument that oil owes its dominance to a QWERTY like externality: it’s what’s been used, the machines are all used to it, and changing it would be prohibitively expensive, thus unfairly pushing out what are perhaps more efficient energy sources. Of course, that argument works both ways when you consider the overall cost in switching, which is exactly what you MUST do when considering if government money is well spent in subsidizing this activity.
As flowbark demonstrates, if you are going to jump on some imagined claim of logical consistency, you might want to know the actual figures being talked about.
By assuming, for some reason, that I think that ethanol is bad simply because its subsidized, you miss the point that it’s bad because it NEEDS to be subsidized to sustain a fairly large portion of of its usage, and without any good argument being put forth for why its worth all the extra expenditure, which otherwise could have been used for something else.
OOOoo, you’ve confirmed your own superiority yet again by pre-emptively declaring yourself in the right, and your interpretation of all arguments pre-eminent. How surprising an outcome. Now, go back to stalking Libertarian.
Not possible at the moment. Down the memory hole: Has Libertarian been banned?
** Petroleum is also heavily subsidized, and ethanol is subsidized primarily because it’s a bootstrapped technology – petroleum refining required start-up as well.
What position am I asserting is correct?
I don’t know whether ethanol is a viable fuel, and it doesn’t even matter so much for this debate. But many of the arguments for and against it presented here are specious. Reading them has given me a greater insight into why people believe stupid things that they’re told. Get a grip, Apos.
Eventually, yes. CO[sub]2[/sub] is also heavier than air, and many large cities have much higher CO[sub]2[/sub] levels than the surrounding areas—for obvious reasons, yes. But for the CO[sub]2[/sub] to be used by plants, it has to get there. KnowwhatImean?
I have only heard just the right side of ambiguous reports that it caused elevated temperatures within cities, among other possible maladies. The documented truth of this eludes me, so I’m not going to put my foot down or anything. Just thought I’d mention it.
The local climates of cities have been shown to shift on a weekly cycle because the amount of exhaust put out by internal combustion vehicles changes during the weekends.
Enough said.
we can only say that the quoted sentance you provides us is wrong. we do not know if he meant to say something else or if he had some other reason for saying exacly that. we can not criticize him, only comment that this sentance is wrong.
bj0rn - …
Enough what said? Ethanol would create more CO[sub]2[/sub]—I invite you to check my calculations. Whether it would eventually get utilized by the plants is one question; whether having every vehicle out there create more CO[sub]2[/sub] will do nothing is another, wouldn’t you say?
Enough said.
Howyadoin,
Actually, the cause is not specifically determined, according to the study…
-Rav
That’s probably the stupidest article of Cecil’s I’ve ever read.
He didn’t resolve the debate at all, and he brought in a spurious point for no good reason. Way to go, Cecil!