Corn to ethanol is already energy negative, why are we going deeper into this fallacy?
I wonder if it's some sort of rationale for keeping the corn subsidies while also framing it a a greener alternative to crude oil extraction.
Edit: After actually reading the article, yes this is the case. Apparently their proposed methods emit roughly 50% less emissions, which I think might be worth it depending on how much is expended to grow the corn and process the fuel. You could be right in the end though but if there are less emissions in general, it might be worth it.
An actual renewable fuel instead of fossil fuels
So we're going to give food to planes instead of hungry people. does this guy know it's an election year?
We're actually giving about half the US corn crop to cars already. The other half goes to animals, with a rounding error going to people.
I also recommend reading the article: the policy makes it difficult to get a subsidy to convert corn into jet-a fuel
I saw the part about it being hard to get the subsidy. Sounds like it's happening anyway.
Actually we give corn to animals you can then later eat. If we actually start eating what we instead inefficently feed into animal farming, we could feed twice as many people as exist and still have left overs for creating fuels.
Can we finally get rid of the leaded aviation gasoline while we're at it?
Still boggles my mind people are flying around recreationally pumping thousands of tons of heavy metal pollution into the air.
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.