Should governments mandate biofuels?

Question

In his 2007 State of the Union Address, President bush called for a several-fold expansion of the Renewable Fuel Standard,

a government program that mandates the use of "renewable" biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. Last year, the program required US fuel makers to use four billion gallons of renewables. The new plan would increase that requirement to 35 billion gallons by 2017. Combined with the raft of subsidies, tariffs, and tax breaks already in place to support US biofuel producers, the plan's approval would very likely spark a rapid expansion of ethanol and biodiesel production in the US over the next decade.

What do you think the potential unintended consequences of government-driven of biofuels may cause?

What roles have governments played in the move to biofuels?

What ecological and economic "ripple effects" has the move to biofuels created so far?

What further consequences might a mass shift to biofuels entail?

Answer 1

in time

Answer 2

First of all, politicians need to be taken out of the decision making process, and replaced by scientists.

the waste material from most food processing industries can be used to make biofuels.

the entire process is being mismanaged by corporations, like usual, in the drive for profit. and that is going to cost everyone in the long run by increased prices in corn and soybean, which will not even benefit farmers, because the people who supply fertilizer will just boost the prices of it. it is already happening.

the government needs to tighten restrictions on this, before it becomes a madhouse and we are all buying our groceries on a bull market.

fuels can be made from a chain of fermentation reactions of wastes which would recycle greenhouse gases rather than driving up the cost of our food supply. The profit would not be as great, so there is no incentive for the fuel industry to do the right thing, like usual.

Answer 3

No.  I think we all agree that to continue using a non-renewable fuel will only make richer few companies.  we also all agree that to continue burning fossil fuels at the rate we currently do is extremely harmful to the environment.

But ethanol and other so called biofuels is not a viable solution.  Please check enclosed article.

The government should continue to promote education and unbiased research.  We all are part of the problem and we all are also part of the solution.

Answer 4

No, unfortunately the result is the law of unintended consequences.  That is if we require biofuels it will raise prices of corn and place economic pressure on the food supply.  The seemingly environmental friendly solution will result in (a) higher gas prices, as biofuels are very expensive to produce and (b) higher food prices.  One problem …solved … two more created

Answer 5

No.  Mandating any particular solution to the problem is not the best way.   I would love for goverment to mandate the use of hybrids.  Regenerative braking just makes way too much sense not to be mandated.  But I really don't know whether forcing a car company to using this technology works, and it seems to me like too much interference with a business decision.  However, mandating much higher minimum mpg's is the way.  then the car company can decide how it will get there or whether is better for it to go into another line of work.  It is absolute ridicuous that the US car fleet only gets 1/2 the mpg of the Japanese fleet and less than even the Chinese fleet.  

This is ignorantly wasteful and we are now suffering wars as a result of political system that puts carmakers and oil companies interest ahead of the nation's by  politicians who are beholden to them for election and re-election contributions.

Answer 6

No. No way.  Bio-fuels are only "good" in certain geographic locations if CROP WASTE ONLY is used for processing.  Check around...there is a net energy loss in converting corn to alchohol...it's a really bad idea.  Brazil has been coming on strong with sugar cane, which is a lot more "efficient" on the conversion end, but you still have energy companies outbidding food farmers for cropland....then they move into the rainforests and burn them down.  "Bio_Fuels" are a politically popular step straight backward.

Answer 7

I think bio fuels will have no ill effects. I also think that if the government doesn't push for it then it won't happen because the big oil is making too much money and doesn't want to give it up. Cheaper fuel will also bring prices down on all market good due to less overhead costs.