re: #7 Obdicut

Oh, so you only want the ‘pollution’ aspect of it taxed, and not other environmental damages?

No, you’re not getting it. Corn biodeisel is very economically viable once its emissions are taxed. It doesn’t have a bad emission profile; that’s not why its inefficient. It’s because of the emissions that are necessary to produce it; the emissions for the harvesters, combines, trucks transporting it, etc. etc. Which is actually a quite complicated calculation.

As is, for example, figuring out whether or not photovoltaic cells made with rare-earth elements— that have to be extracted using energy-intensive methods— are actually a net energy benefit.

Why do you think these calculations are simple?

You also need to add the impact of growing fuel rather than growing food, and the fact that when you burn any hydro carbon you are still making CO2.

A better emissions profile argument might have been viable 30 years ago had the governments of the world taken this seriously. Today, better emissions profile means it kills you slightly less quickly.

If we do not cut total global carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 starting now, we guarantee a 2 degree warmer world.

If we do something half assed like burn a bunch of ethanol up until 2050, we start guaranteeing a four degree world in the 2070s. We simply can not afford ant fantasies on this.

Further that reduction in emissions needs to be thought of in light of the warming Siberian and Canadian bogs and methane release from there and the oceans.