> cheap, government-subsidized U.S. corn
Maybe the US gov't should stop subsidizing it? I assume that brings the price down quite a bit.
Maybe the US gov't should stop subsidizing it? I assume that brings the price down quite a bit.
Which is because the US restricts cheap sugar imports from Mexico, to make US sugar cane farming profitable.
My first thought when I saw the headline was that Mexico corn restrictions were retaliation for US sugar restrictions.
Cane sugar is cheaper than beet sugar.
Alas, the sugar beet industry is also just another creature of tariffs and subsidies.
See eg https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-us-spends-4-billion-a-... for the US. The situation in Europe was similar when I last looked, but that was at least a decade ago.
See https://www.researchgate.net/figure/White-Sugar-Prices-Euro-... to see that sugar is much more expensive inside the EU than on the world market.
And https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-sugar-prices-graphic-i... and https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/food-farming-f...
https://www.ragus.co.uk/tariffs-on-sugars-explained/ also seemed interesting. They say:
> The basic tariff for importing direct consumption sugar into the EU is €419 per tonne. So, every tonne of sugar imported from a non-EU country costs an extra €419. Raw sugar imported into the EU is to be further refined into white sugar attracts a tariff of €339 per tonne.
now imagine that it was actual food shortages because we outsourced farming for short term profit, food subsidies are a national security issue. Outsourcing food production to maximize(short-term) economic efficiency is exactly the type of short sighted decision that has resulted in China taking over global manufacturing
1. Topsoil loss 2. Mismanagement of surface water and subsurface reserves 3. Centralization and consolidation, decimating rural communities which would be producing more labor intensive food in a crisis 4. Lower biodiversity, increased risk of catastrophic loss 5. The whole system relies on global trade to make useful food anyway
If national security were the actual driving force, farm policy would look a lot different.
What exactly don’t you think I know about farming practices? I personally know both commodity farmers and sustainable vegetable farmers.
We should have a universal subsidy, not preferential subsidy for some food groups.
For instance, 87 cents of every dollar that a dairy farmer makes is from subsidy. That is ridiculous.
One reading (87% of gross income) is obviously problematic, and another (87% of profit) is exactly what you'd expect to get if you add almost any subsidy to a previously low-margin activity.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/12/best-way-...
That can be generalized and of course is not limited to farming.
a) our agricultural sector isn't diverse or strong enough anyway, if we get cut off from imports we are fucked even with subsidies
b) ramping up basic agriculture doesn't seem that hard, as in that's an easier crisis scenario to handle
c) on the market if global food prices jumped (has happened in the past) the subsidized farmers were quick to export to richer markets at a higher price, I believe US also saw similar price jump effects when China was affected by pork shortages IIRC
Best case scenario is government just increases the emergency supplies they already have to cover the period it would take the production to ramp up
In case you missed it, this entire discussion here is about the US situation. The "U.S:" even is in the article's subtitle (once you click on the article) and the US and NAFTA are all over the article and this discussion.
And apparently, see the current topic, Mexico too thinks having a functioning farming sector is more important than having access to the cheapest goods. Other wise they would welcome that the US pays for them being able to import the products more cheaply because of the subsidies.
So, given that, I'm not sure why you think pointing to Mexico refutes my point?
Well, when you ban people from raising prices when they prepared for an emergency better than others, that tends to disincentives preparing for emergencies.
(And, yes, the US and many state ban raising prices whenever they declare emergencies.)
In addition, the farmland in eg the US isn't going away, just because you drop subsidies and tariffs from corn. People will just grow something else there, when corn isn't as profitable anymore.
(Or the land might drop in value.)
I intend to keep my car in operation for a long time, as a car for motorsport, so I converted it to E85 for performance and long term robustness of fuel supply. My guess is that as petroleum and diesel fuels go out of fashion, only niche consumers will need combustion fuels, and that will be motorsport and ethanol blends. Companies can already make ethanol racing blends work financially, so I expect it to stick around.
EDIT: Fuel lines? Are these things which one simply modifies for fun and profit?
Ethanol absorbs moisture. You cannot store gas that contains ethanol for as long as you can non ethanol gas. If you are putting your car in storage, it is prudent to flush out the ethanol. This can be as simple as running the tank down and filling up with regular gas, and then driving more so the lines don't have ethanol gas anymore.
Ethanol attacks rubber compounds in a different method than gasoline. You need to have special lines to run E85 gas. I presume he switched it out himself. Not sure what else is involved in the conversion.
For my setup I have an ethanol content sensor so I can run regular and ethanol based fuels, and I upgraded my fuel pump and injectors, as you need about twice as much fuel volume per combustion compared to regular unleaded.
To answer the "Why" of the parent post, typically it's because you can get more power out of a vehicle with ethanol.
The reason you can get more power out of ethanol fuels, is because the aforementioned increased volume of fuel cools the combustion temperature. Ethanol brings some of it's own oxygen, hence why you can combust that extra fuel without adding more air.
Lowering combustion temperatures reduces the tendency for an engine to "knock" or "ping". Knocking is when the flame front is uneven, which gives a poorly timed and high peak pressure combustion that can lead to catastrophic failure.
Most turbocharged or supercharged engines are "knock limited" meaning you could produce more power if you could eliminate the risk of knocking. This only gets worse as turbo/superchargers increase intake air temperatures, which increases combustion temperature, increasing the tendency to knock. So by using ethanol fuels, you decrease combustion temperatures and get back the ability to push the engine further using other parameters.