IPCC to declare biofuels an environmental hazard

[westwall]

So "Bush wasn't a conservative!" is the excuse the faux-skeptics are trying to peddle. Good luck with that.

The faux-skeptics should be condemning, by name, all of those corn belt politicians now that put these policies in place. That presents an interesting problem for the faux-skeptics. They'll handle it in their usual way, by doing whatever TheParty tells them. If TheParty says to ignore the people who did it and blame it on the liberals, then that's what they'll do.

Ummmm, we did silly person, we did!

 

[Abraham3]

My knowledge is thin, but I don't know anyone here that was a staunch advocate for ethanol. The question of whether or not there use reduced emissions has always been a close one. And the effect ethanol production has had on the nations corn supply has been pretty much indisputable. I think it's nice to know we can do it. Someday there'll be no oil left and it's good to know we can make gas and diesel from plant material when the time comes. But that's about it. Assuming the IPCC's work here is supported by others - that it is not falsified - I would support dropping any regulatory requirements mandating the incorporation of ethanol into fuel stocks.

 

[Politico]

It's good to see the conservatives finally catching up with the liberals on opposition to ethanol subsidies.

Why were they so late to the party? Too much government cash flowing into Republican districts.

Wow. If it wasn't for Liberals there wouldn't be any Ethanol.

 

[Abraham3]

There is a lot of interesting information about ethanol in the Wikipedia article at Ethanol fuel in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of note, the article describes different ways to make ethanol with no impact on food crops or land use. Ethanol is currently being made from human waste, for one, with the potential to make several billion gallons a year (current annual production is 13.2 billion). Also, though ethanol received a significant share of the blame from the World Bank for sharply rising world food prices in 2008, later commenters stated:

"An RFA rebuttal said that the World Bank analysis was highly subjective and that the author considered only "the impact of global food prices from the weak dollar and the direct and indirect effect of high petroleum prices and attribute[d] everything else to biofuels."[163]
A 2010 World Bank study concluded that its previous study may have overestimated the impact, as "the effect of biofuels on food prices has not been as large as originally thought, but that the use of commodities by financial investors (the so-called ”financialization of commodities&#8221 may have been partly responsible for the 2007/08 spike."[164]
A July 2008 OECD economic assessment[165] agreed about the negative effects of subsidies and trade restrictions, but found that the impact of biofuels on food prices was much smaller. The OECD study found that existing biofuel support policies would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by no more than 0.8 percent by 2015. It called for more open markets in biofuels and feedstocks to improve efficiency and lower costs. The OECD study concluded that "...current biofuel support measures alone are estimated to increase average wheat prices by about 5 percent, maize by around 7 percent and vegetable oil by about 19 percent over the next 10 years."[166]
The 2008 financial crisis illustrated corn ethanol's limited impact on corn prices, which fell 50% from their July 2008 high by October 2008, in tandem with other commodities, including oil, while corn ethanol production continued unabated"

There is also the matter of the jobs that will be lost if ethanol production is halted. The ethanol industry provides jobs in " agriculture, construction, operations and maintenance, mostly in rural communities." I know how conservatives hate taking anti-buusiness actions that will hurt America's working stiffs.

 

[Iceweasel]

So "Bush wasn't a conservative!" is the excuse the faux-skeptics are trying to peddle. Good luck with that.

The faux-skeptics should be condemning, by name, all of those corn belt politicians now that put these policies in place. That presents an interesting problem for the faux-skeptics. They'll handle it in their usual way, by doing whatever TheParty tells them. If TheParty says to ignore the people who did it and blame it on the liberals, then that's what they'll do.

I don't need luck. I said he wasn't a fiscal conservative, you can't read. He wasn't, it isn't a matter of opinion. You're accusing your political enemies of having your shortcomings.

 

[Abraham3]

You voted for him. Twice.

 

[longknife]

Here's a bit more on this from today's Forbes and America's Al Jazeera:

It's Final -- Corn Ethanol Is Of No Use

First off, James Conca, the author of this post claims 30+ years researching the field so he must have some insight into this. He sites an IPCC report that says:

The summary in the new report also states, “Increasing bioenergy crop cultivation poses risks to ecosystems ahttp://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/4/21/study-doubts-biofuelsclimatebenefits.htmlnd biodiversity” (WGIII IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ).

The report lists many potential negative risks of development, such as direct conflicts between land for fuels and land for food, other land-use changes, water scarcity, loss of biodiversity and nitrogen pollution through the excessive use of fertilizers (Scientific American Biofuels Might Hold Back Progress Combating Climate Change - Scientific American).

So, go to the link to the report and decide for yourself @Forbes a It's Final -- Corn Ethanol Is Of No Use - Forbes

Me? I've long believed that we need to find another source for biofuels other than corn. Millions depend upon it for their daily subsistence and we Americans have little idea of just how important it is to the foods we take in daily.

And from Al Jazeera America comes this: Study: Fuel from Corn Waste Worse than Gasoline @ Study: Fuel from corn waste worse than gasoline | Al Jazeera America