Do you think that the federal government should be subsidizing ethanol or should we be spending that money somewhere else?



  1. 0 Votes

    No. While Ethanol is a biofuel, the global impact of mass ethanol production is extremely negative; particularly in the way subsidies work to corn producers and how the price of food can rise. Instead, I think the government should be investing in large scale solar and wind power. These are proven to have minimal negative environmental impacts and with the support of the government, has the potential to really take off.

  2. 0 Votes

    Ethanol is in almost all senses of the term counterproductive, both in terms of economical and environmental sustainability.  Since it takes more energy (and more money) to produce ethanol than it does gasoline, it can only be described as a poor investment.  “Subsidizing” would be a nice gesture, but it wouldn’t be of any benefit to most consumers.

    In my opinion, because a lot of money is being thrown around unnecessarily in any government (pardon the generalization), a serious re-evaluation of our nation’s priorities in spending is necessary.  Government subsidization is a lifesaver in various scenarios, and in environmental terms it would make sense to subsidize those that are working to benefit their respective local environment.  In my humble opinion, solar panels, home/community gardens, carpool groops or other environmentally conscious practices should be rewarded.  Though this may be quite idealistic, I do not personally see it as an impossible goal.

  3. 0 Votes

    No, I think if there is going to be a market for ethanol then the private sector must establish it so it is as sufficient as possible.

Please signup or login to answer this question.

Sorry,At this time user registration is disabled. We will open registration soon!