centof

Lol, Do you really think the law will apply to them?

I definitely agree the corn subsidies are wasteful and over-funded. Also I'm sure your well meaning, but the myth that it takes 2 gallons to produce 1 gallon of ethanol seems like misleading oil propaganda. What is your source on that claim?

It takes two gallons of fossil fuels (counting fertilizer, transportation, and all other inputs) to make one gallon of ethanol

Even corn ethanol (one of the worst ways to make ethanol) still produces 30% more energy than the energy used to produce it. And with better production practices, it could be a lot better (and might be right now since the numbers are somewhat old) than that. That means less pollution.

Country Type Energy balance

United States Corn ethanol 1.3

Germany Biodiesel 2.5

Brazil Sugarcane ethanol 8

United States Cellulosic ethanol† 2–36

Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel#Environment

Harvesting, transportation, fermentation are high co2 emitters

They don't have to be. They are currently because equipment and vehicles mostly run on gasoline. If the farm equipment and fuel transporters were modified to run on the ethanol it would be co2 neutral or somewhat co2 negative as the co2 harvested by the plants would be stored for later release when burning the fuel or fermenting before burning.

Heating for fermentation and distilling could also be powered by co2 neutral biomass such as crop byproducts or well managed wood forests. Usually fertilizer is less necessary with organic and permaculture growing practices since the natural diversity of plants' keeps the soil healthy and well nourished.

Land owners making ethanol precursors would want high yield crops.

Corn is actually one of the lower yield corps per acre when grown for ethanol. It averages around 350 gallons per acre. Crops such as sugar cane, sugar beets, sorghum, cassava, cattails and even natural prairie grasses all produce more than that per acre.

Corn is used so widely for ethanol in the US because of all the government subsidies keeping its price artificially low.

Well managed plant fuel is definitely better for the environment than fossil fuels. Brazil has been running most of its cars on ethanol grown from the byproducts of sugar cane production since they forced the carmakers there to adopt their engines to run it in response to the 1970s oil price shock.

So you mean it's not ethanol that's the problem, it's the way it's produced usually via monocrops like corn with massive subsidies. If you produced it more sustainably with a more natural permaculture like prairie grasses, wouldn't it be better than the co2 emitting gasoline status quo?

Do that if you'd like, I didn't accuse you of anything. I can't know that you were referring to their comment history and not the comment asking for added alt text if you don't post that.

Very classy, you see a foreign language and call it spam and garbage.

I would appreciate a source for that. I don't really need it but it at least helps amplify it for the lurkers.

ETA: Here's one- https://campaignlegal.org/update/these-hidden-provisions-budget-bill-undermine-our-democracy

But the reconciliation bill would require anyone suing the government to pay a bond before the court can use its contempt power to enforce injunctions or restraining orders meant to halt illegal actions.

By restricting this authority, the House bill threatens the power of the judicial branch. On its own, that represents an attack on the rule of law and the separation of powers that underlies our democracy.

Basically it seems like it is adding a paywall paid by the suer before the judge can use their contempt power against the executive branch. Such a blatant power grab for Trump's executive. Very unfair and bad.

That could be but I feel like good propaganda does use other stories and narratives to boost its persuasive power. IF it was due to risk assessments then they should put that in the article. I feel like if they had solid proof, they would be willing to actually share that proof with the public rather than just hearsay that these stories have been.

If there was evidence of it being China, I would think they would be a lot less subtle about it then running articles about sus components without mentioning the connection Iberian incident. Something more direct like 'Iberian outage caused by kill switches in Chinese solar equipment' rather than running separate stories and leaving it to the reader to connect the stories on their own.

That's what makes it suspicious too me, too much fearmongering and too little substance and facts in the articles.

Seems like a case of good cop / bad cop. The democrats drag their feet on actually doing anything til the end of their term and then just a few months later the republicans work to undo it. I am skeptical the Justice department under either admin wanted this to happen.

It wasn’t pointless at all. It accomplished exactly what the conservatiives wanted to do.

Don't forget the Russians' too. They put big money and effort into dividing and weaking the eu. And it worked and it is still working.

Ah yes let's try to stifle Chinese innovation by ... checks notes ... expanding our surveillance state. Usually we are the ones calling China a surveillance state, but it's fine(it's not) once we do it.

Idk, feels like US propaganda to me. All the articles about it are suspiciously light on details and it just so happens to coincide well with US Oil based energy policy and our(US) susceptibility to China fearmongering.

Edited to add: I know this is the Europe comm but I feel like US media narratives definitely trickles over to Europe.