I haven't looked closely at this topic, so prepare for nonsense. Anyway:
Rallem: "I find it odd that the production of ethanol is dirtier than the production of gasoline when the very reason today’s gasoline is cleaner than the fuel of the 1980s is that we are now adding a 10% ethanol mixture to the gasoline."
- Yes, it does seem odd, but maybe 10% results in a particularly clean combination which, on balance, reduces the gross CO2 - but maybe not, as we don't have the relevant data here (yet).
Rallem: "I think the answer is that this type of corn will probably be grown in northern farms where farmers already grew the plant to feed to their cows in the winter time and who now no longer have any cows"
- Whatever they've been growing, they've surely been contributing to the food supply, either directly or indirectly, right? Even "cow corn" is part of our food chain.
Rallem: "but the way I see it is they have no problem charging us $100. + for a barrel of oil so why should I care if we charge them the same for a bushel of corn?"
- True, wealthy oil exporters and developed nations won't starve whatever the cost, but what of the not so rich? Recently, there's been turmoil in the rice market due to policy changes by major rice exporters. This has hit poorer rice importing countries most severely.
Climate changes will probably require some shifts in crop production, and population growth will call for the most efficient use of land for food supply, to meet the needs not only of the rich export market, but also the poor. I imagine that failure to meet demand could result in, let's say, a lack of harmony - or to put it plainly, an increase in war and terrorism. So, is using perfectly good arable land for biofuels a sensible idea?
