AndiHutch

Oh boy!!! Just what I was looking for. How much for a pint of certified organic cable syrup? Can you guarantee it's less than 1% earwax by weight? If so I can go as high as tree fiddy.

My usual source on FB marketplace is playing hard to get. They said 'I know what I've got and I won't take less than a dub'. What a scammer LOL. Unless that syrup is gold plated I ain't paying 20 bucks for a pint, smh.

I saw a map on here how healthcare industry is like the the biggest employer in like 40 of the 50 states or something insane like that.

With a king, yes it's power play for sure.

Maybe so there is really no way to tell.

The real question is how many people you are willing to sacrifice for this. How many cities are you willing to burn down?

Nah that's not the right question. Talking like that makes you sound like a federal agent trying to entrap people. A better question might be who and what stands in the way of helping the people and how can we address those problems? But that is far less attention grabbing and harder to answer.

I mean Canada still has the British royalty if that's their kink. Not sure how it would help but I ain't gonna kink shame.

I'm not ignoring the monocrop and other environmental issues, I am instead focusing on the biggest cause of climate change, the burning of fossil fuels and the associated warming from it. Yes, monocrops and destruction of native habitats are an issue, but I can't do anything about that. I am not cutting down rainforest or logging natural forestland or burning prairieland.

We can’t quantify bioethanol as being better than x times better than fossil fuels because we can’t quantify exactly how fucked we are if we don’t stop practicing large scale agriculture in this destructive fashion.

I think both can be quantified to some extent. Maybe not perfectly, but well enough to figure out which is better overall. We can certainly quantify the impacts of already existing production processes like corn bioethanol, sugarcane bioethanol, and gasoline using GHG life cycle analyses. I didn't mean to say that bioethanol is always better than fossil fuel, I am sure there are some plants and production practices that could make it worse somewhere. But in the context of US corn bioethanol as produced today, it emits less greenhouse gases than gasoline per mile driven. See the links I already posted.

I would also guess that at Earth's current population and consumption levels that we need some large scale ag to ensure people don't starve (more than they already are). We can try to adapt it somewhat but it needs to be done carefully to ensure we don't cause more harm. This has happened historically in other countries when they tried to radically change their food production processes and could happen again.

Large-scale ag is harmful especially when huge amounts of natural forestry and habitats are destroyed for crops, but it is a somewhat lesser cause than the fuels being burned and their CO2. Burning fossil fuels is responsible for something like 70%+ of emissions related to climate change.

I don't own two cars, I don't really drive anywhere even. Public transit is not feasible where I am due to low population density. But when I do drive, I can fuel up with a cleaner fuel (as can anyone else in the country). Different circumstances call for different solutions, so please don't be so quick to assume that there is one universal best solution.

I request gold. Thank you for your attention to this matter. /s

Time to check out a history book or two. With that attitude, US would still be a colony of Britain. Or the US would've won in Vietnam instead of getting kicked out by the locals. Granted, it is a bit different without an ocean in between, but it could still happen. Or we could break up like what happened to the USSR.

Ok, here is a study that does factor land use change and transportation, and it is still about a 50% percent reduction. Corn ethanol emits 46% less greenhouse gases than gasoline. The land use changes referenced in the paper you linked seem a lot higher than most other sources I have seen. It makes me question whether they are calculating it accurately. I am no expert on how they should be calculated, but why is there a 30-40g co2 per MJ fuel produced difference in between the different studies? The figures I see in other studies are around ~5g co2 per MJ fuel not 38g.

So you would rather burn gasoline than biofuels even though it is worse for the environment? Because that is the alternative for most of existing vehicles on the road. It is better than gasoline, not perfect.

Yes, I agree there are better crops for biofuels than corn and some of subsidies are not well designed and applied.

My argument is that the existing ICE vehicles are still burning fuel and that it is better to burn a cleaner fuel CO2 wise than dirty fossil fuels in them.

Obviously the concept of producing three times more energy than it requires is absurd.

Yes, It's called solar power, plants naturally convert the sunlight to energy like solar panels just not nearly as efficiently. Also, as I put in the original comment the energy inputs being referenced are fossil energy inputs and the energy output is a lot cleaner because it is produced by the plant from the sun. I don't get why people seem thoroughly convinced it is a bad thing to grow plants for fuel instead of burning the harmful fossil fuels that we've known for decades are the cause of global warming.

The costs are likewise hidden: costs to the planet and costs to future generations.

I think you must be talking about fossil fuels here because it is absurd to fearmonger about growing plants. It is the carbon released by burning fossil fuels that is full of hidden costs in the form of future climate change and a less hospitable earth. Replacing a fossil fuel with a more clean, less polluting fuel source is helping to lessen those costs.

Stop letting perfect be the enemy of good, Corn ethanol emits 46% less greenhouse gases than gasoline.

Ok, I can see how factoring in (or not) land use changes could make a big difference in the numbers. I would however, attribute the cause of that to the poor policy put in place by the governmental bodies not an inherit factor of biofuel production. The subsidies put in place to encourage corn production in particular are unfair and could be the factor leading to those land use changes. I can see how policies boosting the price and lowering the risk of planting corn would lead to land being moved from somewhat natural prarieland or forest to cropland. I might take a more in depth look at both the studies later to compare them.

I wasn't referring to a specific fuel, I meant per amount of energy used it emits 66% percent less co2 since ethanol production in the US has a ~3x return on fossil fuel investment. I am basing the figure on the same source on the energy return on energy invested balance I used in my other comment in the thread. Here is the source.

It doesn't matter the mix it is in, since it takes the equivalent of 1 gallon of fossil energy and outputs 3x as much cleanish bioenergy. If it is E10 it would take 10 gallons before 1 gallon of ethanol was used, but that 1 gallon of ethanol would result in a third of the CO2 emissions compared to gasoline fuel.