Poll: should biofuels be scrapped?

Question

A. Yes, they cost a lot and are unproven

B. Yes, they cost a lot

C. Yes, so I can still have a choice between food and fuel

D. No, I don't have to eat to get where I'm going

E. No, they represent the best way to get to the supermarket these days.

Answer 1

only if you want to sell your soul to the middle east.

Answer 2

E. Only 5% of Canada's corn acerage is going to ethanol. The price of food has been under inflated since the mid-1980's, so now farmers are actually getting a fair price for there hard earned crop. This is actually a good thing because then we don't have to pay towards there subsidization programs, because they can actually make money now. Currently the price of corn is going up because of the rains in the mid west of the states , which is heavily dealying the planting of corn. Most of the corn goes towards animal feed and not for human consumption.

Answer 3

No they shouldn't be scrapped, however all gvmt subsidizes to corporations to build these plants should end.

Answer 4

Ah, clearly C as currently conceptualized.  However, using algae and the like are much more efficient and should be followed.  No simple answer here.

These multiple choice things oversimplify complex issues.

Answer 5

C

Answer 6

C.

Answer 7

I agree with fiddlefixins.

The price of corn has absolutely skyrocketed lately because of biofuels, so right now I would answer C. However, with more research into cellulosic ethanol, we might be able to harvest the corn to eat, and use the stalks and other waste to turn into biofuels.

Also, people need to drive less regardless of where the fuel comes from. It still requires energy.