[OC] Sugarcane was first introduced to Brazil in 1532. Half a millennium later, the country produces over 700M tonnes yearly (roughly the same amount as all of Asia, and 7x the amount produced by Africa)SillyFlyGuy t1_j82jjqq wrote
Reply to comment by Roadkill_Bingo in [OC] Sugarcane was first introduced to Brazil in 1532. Half a millennium later, the country produces over 700M tonnes yearly (roughly the same amount as all of Asia, and 7x the amount produced by Africa) by latinometrics
It's about assuring our food supply.
Half of the corn we grow goes into our cars. Meaning we grow twice as much as we need. We have all the manpower, equipment, and logistics to double food output instantly. No ramp up or lead time needed, just stop burning the corn already harvested.
That gives us a nice cushion in case something truly catastrophic happens. Gives us time to find a solution, if there's a solution to find.
Coloradostoneman t1_j82ruqh wrote
Do we need twice as much food?
sifterandrake t1_j82ztja wrote
Yes!
You. Do. Not. Fuck. Around. With. Famine.
It's just simply that devastating to country.
Having a secure food supply in case of a multitude of disasters is probably the single most important aspect to national security.
Coloradostoneman t1_j84gys6 wrote
But we don't have a famine right now. And you can't store corn for ever.
40for60 t1_j8cbnza wrote
Its about keeping the farm industry stable.
https://ethanolproducer.com/articles/3855/building-the-minnesota-model
Coloradostoneman t1_j8dh8t2 wrote
I know that. Having a stable farm sector is a pretty good hedge against famine. Much better than trying to store an infinite amount of corn.
Look, I don't like corn ethanol as a fuel. But the idea that it is causing people to starve is just absurd.
It can probably be stated accurately that a smaller percentage of humanity is calorie deprived today than at any point in history.
markpreston54 t1_j834lh2 wrote
Maybe not double, but when it comes to food you better be safe than sorry
Coloradostoneman t1_j84hkoy wrote
Not sure if you have noticed, but we have a much bigger problem with obesity than hunger right now. We don't have enough storage capacity to reduce the consumption of corn by ethanol massively.
markpreston54 t1_j84kg35 wrote
If you somehow feel that obesity is even close to the problem of hunger is the very evidence that the food policy US had is quite successful.
Frankly speaking obesity may take several years off your life, but starvation takes all of them.
Besides, obesity is a life choice and one can very well just not eat and throwaway any leftover. We can't do that if we don't have the food in the first place.
One thing that contributed the high obesity rate is high food cost of healthy food, so there are arguments to be made to expand the growing of the healthy food, maybe corn land should be spared for the healthier vegetables, but this is not argument for not growing excess food at all
Coloradostoneman t1_j84wno1 wrote
PgYes, it is better to be fat than to starve, but nobody is starving because Midwest corn is made into ethanol. People are hungry because of distribution problems.
Midwest corn also doesn't change the cost of healthy food anywhere.
19wolf t1_j8311xp wrote
So when famine hits do we just eat more corn? What good is doubling our available corn for food if we're not doubling any other ingredients?
Scented-Sound t1_j83g4p2 wrote
Here is, fortunately, someone who's never been in danger of not having food.
40for60 t1_j8cbsxi wrote
No we would switch the land to wheat. Corn saved farmers in the 70's and helped reduce the reliance on OPEC oil.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments