• Subsidize Biofuels Now

    Without a doubt, biofuels should be subsidized by the federal government. Producing these fuels costs a lot of resources and money, so the government needs to offer subsidies in order to make these fuels worth pursuing. Otherwise, farmers and engineers have no incentive to manufacture these biofuels in the United States.

  • Biofuels Should Be Subsidized

    Yes, biofuels should be subsidized by the government so that research in to biofuels continues. By being granted government subsidies, companies that work to produce biofuels would have greater incentive to do so. Eventually, such subsides and such work on biofuels could lead the United States to finally end its reliance on fossil fuels.

  • Harmful to environment, no net gain of energy, too expensive

    First of all, biofuels harm the environment. They use up our land and water resources that are essential to us. Land is cleared for the production of biofuels which furthers global warming, destroys ecosystems, and can cause soil erosion. Also, much water is used up for irrigation and manufacturing of biofuels which causes a stress on water sources. Second of all, biofuels do NOT have a net gain of energy. Most of the energy for biofuels comes from the sun, and makes the production of biofuels an energy-intensive process. More energy is needed to make a gallon of ethanol than there actually is in ethanol. Third of all, biofuels are too expensive. Refining biofuels is expensive because people need to invest in the business. Biofuels also need to be extracted which is very costly, so many companies desert their projects. Not only are refining and extracting biofuels expensive but so is harvesting and storing biofuels. Along with being expensive the production of biofuels is very time consuming. In conclusion, I feel it has been overly evident that the government should NOT subsidize biofuels.

  • Biofuels not justified.

    Biofuels do not affect global warming. There has been little if any warming in the past 15 years. Valid scientific studies prove that man made CO2 at the most causes 1 part per 1000. Biofuels reduce gas mileage and only work on vehicles due to modification. They are death on small engines. It cost more to produce than regular gas and increases the cost of corn. We burn food for fuel when people in other countries are starving. With the access of oil from shale oil fields we have the potential of an adequate oil supple without depending on the Middle East. We just need our country to allow us to drill it. There is no valid reason to use biofuels other than to subsidize the farmers and industries producing it.

  • Biofuels should not be subsidized.

    Biofuels should not be subsidized because they are not a good solution to our energy problems. The government should invest in renewable and clean energy sources that do not contribute to carbon emissions and global warming. Although ethanol is renewable, it has many of the same problems as traditional fossil fuels.

  • Does not add up

    Basic environmental econ: the cheapest options are usually the ones best for the environment. Biofuels burn to less toxic gases, sure, but what is subsidizing them? It involves using tax dollars to artifically lower the price of fuels. But the taxes come from much more debt is accrued, how much more oil is sold (the US is the largest exporter, and if we're not using it we're selling it), how much fuel is used to grow and transport the crops and process them? Is it worth it? Are fewer gases even produced?

  • Nothing Should Be Subsidized at the Federal Level

    Taxpayer dollars shouldn't go to subsidize private businesses or commercial enterprises. The fact that E-85 is cheaper than regular unleaded fuel right now is enough to drive the market. More and more cars have "flex fuel" options that can use corn-based ethanol blends as fuel. Oil companies, and biofuel producers, shouldn't be subsidized as the United States allegedly runs on a free market economy.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.