4 ms·
While I think Bush's corn ethanol policy was stupid [2], I've come around to thinking there might be a silver lining. [South] Korea was supposed to be getting 3
by teslabox 5y ago
While I think Bush's corn ethanol policy was stupid [2], I've come around to thinking there might be a silver lining. [South] Korea was supposed to be getting 300,000mt of corn from Ukraine. They went on the open market and couldn't find replacement corn for delivery in the April-May period: https://www.agricensus.com/Article/S-Korean-feed-makers-mull-force-majeure-on-Ukraine-corn-loss-20921.html https://www.agricensus.com/Article/S-Korean-feed-makers-mull...
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20061802 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20061802
From my earlier comment [0]:
> Our modern Civilization is more vulnerable to an average once-a-millennium volcanic eruption than it's ever been, on account of our numbers and our dependency on supply chains for our sustenance.
> From the linked article: "In fact, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization estimated the 2012 worldwide food storage to last for 74 days." (pg. 9)
> Grains are useful because they store well. Storage is not economical, but it is essential for reducing the suffering which would result from an 1816-like scenario in our modern world.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28595353 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28595353
/methinks it's much better to have a 7-year supply of grain than a 74-day supply.
Wars also cause tremendous disruption to supply chains. The conflict in Ukraine is going to cause massive problems for food distribution.
What do you do with your corn surplus, when it's just not needed? What do you do with stored grains after they're 7 years old, or if they become moldy? Ethanol seems logical.
If we hit an oh-shit moment (loss of growing seasons due to a volcanic winter/war/etc), we can turn off the ethanol plants and use the corn to supply calories for people.
tl/dr: essential to turn off the ethanol plants until we have 7 years of grains stored up.
- thawaya3113 5y agoThe Ethanol policy was always known to be BS. The only reason there wasn’t a huge outcry against it was because it was looked at as the GOP finally accepting the reality of climate change and the need to do something about it, even if they still hadn’t come around to hurting their donors even slightly for that cause. But it was looked as a huge step forward. Let’s not forget that McCain, in 2008, as the GOP Presidential candidate completely accepted both the reality of and need to do something about climate change in his campaign. Here’s a deeper look into his policy: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2008/05/mccains-climate-change-policy/53086/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2008/05/mccains... He was aiming for 1990 levels of emission by 2020! But what was not predicted was the complete crazification of the GOP following the 2012 election. And that crazification meant a U-turn which understandably completely erased almost all memories of the context of the Bush ethanol policy.