Comments inserted:
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 23:45:35 -0000
From: "motie_d <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RE:Ag subsidies
--- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, "Crabb, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I would think that instead of having agricultural subsidies,
> or paying people NOT to grow things on their land, that
> we should instead get subsidize them to grow biofuel on their
land.
I disagree with subsidies in general. I thoroughly disagree with
paying subsidies for producing massive quantities of a product that
can't be marketted. If automakers produce more cars than they can
sell in a year, should the government set a price above the market
value of them, and buy all they can produce at that artificially
inflated price?
The product *would* be able to be marketed. It would be used to grow crops
that can
be converted to biodiesel that can be melted into the current diesel market
at 10% <something like that> or can be sold to owners of engines that can
run 100% biodiesel.
I don't know if it has to be a subsidy.. it could just be the gov't buying
the product, and then doing to convert itself, and then selling the final
product. Instead of paying people to do nothing, the fact that there is a
market for the oil producing crops <rapeseed or palm> would
raise the price of the crops anyway, due to increased demand. Here atleast
the taxpayer
pays for 'something' instead of 'nothing'
>
> Or agree to pay $X per amount of product., if you still want to
keep the
> price of soybeans up.
That is somewhat what is currently happening. The problem comes in
when there is no limit on the amount produced. Once production has
far exceeded demand, it becomes a disposal problem to get rid of the
excess.
Since we are importing vast quantities of oil for fuel thirsty SUV's then it
should be
no problem to dispose of the excess oil from the crop into these vehicles.
<even if the customer if oblivious. Ie.. the diesel pumps are 10%
biodiesel.. or 100%>
The idea is that it would potentially drop the price of a renewable fuel
from say.. $2 dollars to
$1.50.. enough to make even people who dont care be green <even if they
didnt want to>
Any renewable fuel displaces oil out of the ground. Also removes evil oil
Companies from foreign countries.
> Paying somone to grow a different crop just sounds
> so wrong.
I'm not sure I understand your statement.
What i meant to say is that paying someone not to grow anything sounds so
wrong. Sorry.. sometimes i misspeak what I mean to say.
>
> anyway.. then we could at least get more homegrown oil in the
market.
If the goal is to get more homegrown Oil on the market, it would
make
much more sense to me to grow a crop that produces more Oil than
Corn! Canola comes instantly to mind.
Right.. thats what i was trying to say earlier.. it didnt make it from my
brain to my fingers
I would rather pay farmers to grow something that is useful, than pay some
large
farming company to grow 'nothing' . <I am sure donations are made to get the
right contracts to grow 'nothing'>
> >
> Atleast if we took the oil that is produced from the said crops
that the
> gov't paid
> $X for... that and converted it to biodiesel on the market.. that
would
> atleast lower the
> price of biodiesel..
That is also the current situation. The government has paid an
artificially high price for Corn and Soybeans. Now they are paying
to
dispose of it. I agree that producing an alternative form of fuel
from it is better than putting it in a landfill, but a much better
solution would be to not pay for the excess production to begin
with,
and let the Farmers grow Oil or Biomass crops for energy use
instead.
Yes, paying farmers to do nothing, to make the price of corn at a reasonable
price, does nothing
but shift the cost to the taxpayers. With gov't paying to 'grow oil' then
the prices will be high enough from the increased demand. It might even
make use of normally dry locations for Palm oil collection. Will these grow
well in New Mexico, Arizona.,. other arid regions? <not normally
good for 'farming'..?
>
> Paying people, with taxpayer dollars, for *something* is a lesser
evil than
> paying people, with taxpayer dollars, to do *nothing*.
>
Not necessarily. It may be better to pay them to do nothing, than it
is to pay them to do something, then have to pay someone else to
dispose of whatever it was you paid the first group for doing.
I wasnt trying to advocate paying people to do something just to throw it
way.. I was just not very clear. Here is a better statement: Paying people,
with taxpayer dollars, for *something <needed>* is a lesser evil than paying
people, with taxpayer dollars, to do *nothing<to keep prices up>*. 'Lesser
evil' in that some people will still argue that anything gov't pays for is
bad.
A better solution would be to pay the first group for doing
something
productive, such as growing energy crops instead of Corn and
Soybeans. They may even find it to be profitable enough to grow
energy crops without government subsidies.
right - o ! Soybeans i think is atleast 'ok' . I think it produces 2.5
times as much oil, and
there are byproducts of the process that can be marketed. but far better
is sunflower and
peanut oil. 2.5x that of soy.! Atleast you can argue that too many peanuts
will lower the price of peanut butter sandwiches for school kids... save
save save. and whats left is high protein! anyone eaten the stuff left
over after the peanuts are pressed?
The farmers wouldn't be dependant of the government 'controllers
of
the purse strings' any more, so you can be assured that the
controllers will be absolutely opposed to it. After all, it isn't
their money anyway!
I can only imagine what a 'Power Trip' it must be to be able to buy
power and influence, using someone else's money! They are unlikely
to
voluntarily and willingly go quietly into the night!
--end
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/
Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
