Hacker News Reader

California policy makers' (ardent environmentalists) "Low Carbon Fuel Standard" require 10% corn-derived ethanol in gasoline sold in the state. Are they not environmentalisting hard enough?

View on HN

No. 10%, first, is short of 100%. It's short of the 15% required in Iowa, not known for its environmental policy. It's a subsidy to corn producers that doesn't significantly affect oil producers. An actual carbon reduction method would be phasing out oil entirely.

Ditto, it’s a handout to agribusiness, worsens fuel quality, and has a very debatable benefit otherwise.

So, choke the oceans too? Which is it? Is corn-derived ethanol a fabulous "renewable energy", or is it yesterday's bad idea?

It is, purely, a mass transfer of cash from consumers to Archer Daniels Midland, among the world's worst corporations. It has uniformly negative benefit for anybody besides Archer Daniels Midland.

Anytime you have occasion to communicate with somebody involved in federal governance—e.g., any member of Congress—always ask what they are doing to stop subsiding Archer Daniels Midland.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com