Charlie you make some good arguments but in the end we will disagree.
1. We keep livestock mostly for food. Less livestock feed means less food.
2. Corn production can't meet the need (want) for fuel regardless of yield improvements. Using the entire US corn crop for ethanol would supply that countries fuel consumption for about 6 weeks. What about the other 46 weeks?
Maybe by using oil wiser they could stretch 46 weeks to 52 and still have corn to feed people.
3. We all know how much diesel, power, pesticides, fertilizer and labor go into a bushel of corn. I don't know how ethanol can claim to be a low C0 2 fuel.
4. In economics the allocation of scarce resources is controlled by the laws of supply and demand. To suggest we would have a 13 bln bus corn crop without subsidized ethanol is wrong. The effect of this policy is to drive corn production at the cost of other crop acreage and the inflation of crop inputs.
1. We keep livestock mostly for food. Less livestock feed means less food.
2. Corn production can't meet the need (want) for fuel regardless of yield improvements. Using the entire US corn crop for ethanol would supply that countries fuel consumption for about 6 weeks. What about the other 46 weeks?
Maybe by using oil wiser they could stretch 46 weeks to 52 and still have corn to feed people.
3. We all know how much diesel, power, pesticides, fertilizer and labor go into a bushel of corn. I don't know how ethanol can claim to be a low C0 2 fuel.
4. In economics the allocation of scarce resources is controlled by the laws of supply and demand. To suggest we would have a 13 bln bus corn crop without subsidized ethanol is wrong. The effect of this policy is to drive corn production at the cost of other crop acreage and the inflation of crop inputs.
Comment