CreateDebate


Debate Info

3
2
Continue Ethanol Policy End Ethanol Policy
Debate Score:5
Arguments:3
Total Votes:6
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Continue Ethanol Policy (2)
 
 End Ethanol Policy (1)

Debate Creator

fruble(455) pic



Energy Independence or Food Price Independence?

Does oily food make us secure or hungry?

E.P.A. Won’t Ease Requirements for Ethanol in Gas

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/07/business/08ethanol.html?hp

Continue Ethanol Policy

Side Score: 3
VS.

End Ethanol Policy

Side Score: 2

Ethanol has been a very useful substance for thousands of years and there is little reason to discontinue or reduce its production because of its overall value. Certainly, exploring all avenues concerning energy use and production must be escalated in the coming months and years, it is well known that there is no clear alternative on the near horizon.

In reading the article linked to this debate I understand that General Motors is shooting for Ethanol to be successfully blended with gasoline, in half the vehicles they now build, at a rate of 85% rather than the 10% ceiling we now have by the year 2012. I am of the opinion that this projection be mandatory for all automobile manufacturers in the USA along with those being exported to this country and that the overall percentage of vehicles being built to take that blend be designed within the next 8-10 years, if possible.

Ethanol will never be wasted because of its many uses. I say expand the growth of corn so we no longer have to decide how much goes for grain-fed livestock and how much is allotted for fuel, continue production of Ethanol and continue to investigate any and all possibilities of lowering our dependence on foreign oil.

Side: Continue production of Ethanol
1 point

No Other Alternative for Now

Sure. Solar power could lead to a brighter future. The prospect of electric cars is energizing. Hydrogen could be a viable alternative. And even algae-based oil is fermenting in the minds of environmentalists. But all of these alternatives share a common problem: they will take decades before they will be realized as real alternatives.

Our dependence on foreign oil puts America in a precarious strategic position.

Such factors as increasing scarcity of new oil fields, growing demand from Asia, and diminished output from existing producers should be enough to worry citizens at the pump. But the rising number of government-run oil firms should make national security agents at the Pentagon stay awake at night. The longer we continue to consume oil from dubious regimes in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, and Russia, the longer we help fill their coffers and indirectly fund political actions that many find reprehensible (e.g. military build-up, civil repression, or outright war). It makes no sense to be dependent on a resource that is predominantly in the control of one’s rivals.

Potential threats to the nation are clear. America’s national security is already endangered by the war on terror, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Our resources are spread so thin, that another confrontation could lead to national disaster. A confrontation does not have to be with an oil-producing nation either. It could be with an ally of those nations or a nation competing for the same oil. In either case, America would be beholden to petro-nations. Based on past actions, we have little reason to trust them.

Ethanol could be a way to side step this predicament. Also, it is the only viable, commercial alternative that exists today. The other alternatives will take decades to develop, and the millions of cars on the road today will take just as long to fall into obsolescence. Let us not fool ourselves and think that it is the fuel of the future. Ethanol does not adequately answer the impending climate crisis. In fact, by many (if not most) accounts the environment is left worse off. Further, the arable land that corn takes up and displaces makes food more expensive. This aggravates world hunger and has been the cause of widespread global food riots in developing nations. These are indeed problems.

But should they take precedence over America’s national security. At this moment, we can do very little to address environmental concerns in a significant way. The only option on the table is conservation and diminishing demand. Hunger and food riots on the other hand, can blame ethanol only in part. Counter-productive aid programs, corrupt governance, population growth, and the adoption of western diets in Asia all contribute to hunger more than ethanol. And as callous as this may sound, these riots are in areas of little strategic interest and happen on a small scale.

Ethanol should be viewed as a transitional solution until long-term, sustainable ones can be firmly established. Make no mistake about it: we need to get away from ethanol as soon as possible. Despite all of its disadvantages, though, there is no other alternative today.

Supporting Evidence: Mother Jones: Put a Tyrant in Your Tank (www.motherjones.com)
Side: ethanol
2 points

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7472532.stm

Bio fuels currently produce more problems they are attempting to solve. algae is the only 'bio product' that can provide the needs of humanity without stressing food stock.

http://www.greenchipstocks.com/aqx_p/2582?gclid=CJiGwc_-g5UCFQQbFQodS16prQ

Supporting Evidence: Algae can produce all the 'oil' needed but is being ignored (www.sapphireenergy.com)
Side: End Ethanol Policy