Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels

Environmental and energy impacts of corn ethanol

• Many commenters argue corn ethanol is an environmental disaster: heavy nitrogen fertilizer use, fossil-fuel‑intensive inputs, and runoff contributing to dead zones (e.g., Gulf of Mexico).
• Several note studies suggesting corn ethanol can require as much or more fossil energy than it displaces, especially once fertilizer, transport, and processing are counted.
• Others stress the carbon-cycle argument: ethanol’s CO₂ originally comes from the atmosphere via plants, unlike fossil fuels. Critics respond that this ignores emissions from land-use change and agricultural inputs, which can make net emissions worse than gasoline.
• Some defend modest ethanol use for fuel security and octane benefits, but say current mandated volumes are far too high.

Land use, alternatives, and food security

• Strong theme: opportunity cost of land. Multiple people point out that solar (especially agrivoltaics) on the same acreage can yield tens of times more usable energy than corn.
• Advocates of agrivoltaics say panels on 10–20% of farmland can generate large amounts of power, reduce fertilizer needs, and still allow farming and ecosystem diversity.
• Others argue land should prioritize food; subsidizing vegetables instead of ethanol would improve health and reduce indirect subsidies to meat.
• Counterpoint: agricultural subsidies (including corn) are framed by some as primarily about food security in crises; ethanol absorbs unpredictable surplus corn that would otherwise rot.
• Debate over crops: corn is robust but inefficient as fuel; sugarcane and sugar beets are cited as better ethanol sources where climate allows. Brazilian sugarcane ethanol is held up as an example of high EROI, though some question water and land impacts.

Lifecycle accounting and forests/biomass

• A key technical thread: past biofuel LCAs often ignored emissions from converting forests/grasslands/wetlands to cropland. Including these “indirect land-use change” emissions can turn corn ethanol from a claimed GHG reduction into a net increase.
• A long sub‑discussion covers wood pellets and forests: disagreement over whether managed forests and pellet burning are genuinely “renewable” or net carbon sources once land-use alternatives and soil degradation are considered.

Policy, lobbying, and politics

• Many see corn ethanol as corporate welfare for large agribusiness, entrenched by farm‑state politics and lobbying rather than climate merit.
• Some say the public was never truly fooled—biofuels were widely viewed as a fig leaf for extra subsidies and a way to dress energy‑security policy in green language.
• Others broaden this to systemic criticism of lobbying in US democracy and the difficulty of aligning policy with rigorous lifecycle science.

Technology and usage debates

• Comparisons between ethanol, batteries, synthetic e‑fuels, hydrogen, and nuclear‑powered fuel synthesis highlight that liquid fuels remain attractive for energy density in some sectors, but many agree EVs are superior for passenger cars.
• Practical experiences: some report E10/E85 causing worse mileage and drivability, while performance enthusiasts appreciate E85’s high octane when tuned for it.