Let's See If I Have This Straight...
First our government pays farmers to not grow things… like corn for instance. Actually it appears that most of these “Farm Subsidies” go to big agribusiness and not small farmers but that is a subject for another day.
Then we start pushing for alternative energy and one of the possibilities is ethanol which is usually made from corn. I understand there are other things like sugar cane, switch grass, etc. that can also be used to make ethanol but again that is a separate subject.
Then we are told that the demand for corn to make ethanol has caused the cost of corn to go way up. This causes, among other things, big trouble for the poor in Mexico who can no longer afford the corn they need for their basic food staple, the tortilla, and big trouble for ranchers who need corn to feed their stock.
So the next thing we hear is that ethanol as an alternative fuel is a problem because of the high cost and short supply of corn. ???????! What have I missed here?
Does it not seem reasonable that if our government stopped paying agriculture to not grow corn:
It would save the government money.
It would bring the price of corn back into reach for the poor of Mexico.
It would give the ranchers adequate feed for their stock.
It would give more small farmers a profitable crop to grow.
It would produce the needed corn for an alternative energy source.
It has also been mentioned, though rarely, that possibly the process of converting corn to ethanol is itself a gobbler of energy making it a poor choice as an alternative. That may well be, and that would be a reasonable argument against ethanol. So why then do we hear about all the illogical reasons and very little about the one reason that might make sense? Where oh where have all the thinking people gone?