Immoral Gas

Moral dilema? Good grief. Reminds me of the moral dilema created by the ifb pastors I sat under in taped background music for special songs in service.:laugh:

 

Forcing poor people (and everybody else) to pay significantly more for basic staple food so a higher class person who can afford a more expensive E-85 equipped engine can save a little (or maybe nothing) on gas isn't a moral dilemma?

 

Here's another issue... ethanol means higher taxes. Ethanol users makes everybody pay with their taxes and higher food prices.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/the_many_myths_of_ethanol.html

"A simple question first. If ethanol's so good, why does it need government subsidies? Shouldn't producers be eager to make it, knowing that thrilled consumers will reward them with profits?

But consumers won't reward them, because without subsidies, ethanol would cost much more than gasoline."




Another problem cited in that same article...

"A University of Minnesota study shows that even turning all of America's corn into ethanol would meet only 12 percent of our gasoline demand. As Taylor told an energy conference last March, "For corn ethanol to completely displace gasoline consumption in this country, we would need to appropriate all cropland in the United States, turn it completely over to corn-ethanol production, and then find 20 percent more land on top of that for cultivation.""




Yet another...

"Studies indicate that the standard mixture of 90 percent ethanol and 10 percent gasoline pollutes worse than gasoline."





So basically... higher taxes, higher levels of pollution, higher number of trucks to carry the corrosive ethanol, higher corn prices, higher animal product food prices, higher prices of engines....

How exactly is this nothing but bad?

 

Poorly thought out to this point- yes
Bad decision- maybe
Moral dilema- no

 

Personally I think the moral part of it is that people know better and still have a choice. If you perform an action to benefit yourself while knowingly hurting others, that's a generic moral situation, and that's exactly what's going on. By saving a little at the pump, you are hurting others through higher taxes, higher food prices, higher pollution, etc. You still have a choice of using normal gas, or better yet seeking alternative forms of transportation, or not traveling as much, but people choose not to, which hurts others, which is where the morality comes into play.

 

By shopping at walmart, you hurt mom and pop stores...

But I still shop at walmart.

 

repeat after me...."Priesthood of the Believer..."

 

Good answer TT, and for that matter with any new technology or system the initial cost will always be higher. We just have to look at the bigger picture. So again....moral dilema-no.

 

That's exactly my problem with it though, and I see the opposite of what you do. Most people only look on the surface and "think" they see cheaper gas, less pollution, much less dependence on foreign oil, and overall peace on earth apparently.

However, if you DO look at the bigger picture, you find what I mentioned earlier... significantly higher food prices, less gas mileage, more pollution, more taxes, more expensive engines, hardly any foreign oil dependence cuts, etc. That's exactly the problem, most people aren't looking at the bigger picture, they only see "oh, I can save 20 cents a gallon if I use this ethanol stuff".

What exactly do you see in that bigger picture that I don't? I see nothing but bad things that show no signs of getting any better, only worse.

 

Ummmm....I haven't said one thing about ethynol gas one way or the other. My post was meant to be taken in general. Either way, it is still not a moral dilema.

 

Were you not saying that it's not a moral dilemma because we have to look at the whole picture? That's what it sounded like. It sounded like you were justifying these bad side effects as if they were temporary or something. IF that were the case, I'd agree with you. Since it's not, we're back to hurting others to benefit yourself.

 

It's not that complicated. I was not justifying anything. I was just pointing out that there is always going to be someone who is "hurt". That's business. That's life. TT's example of walmart hurting mom and pop stores is a prime example. Look at any new technological advancement and it ALWAYS boils down to whether the short term costs will outweigh the long term benefits. So, as I stated in my first post....

poorly thought to this point- yes
bad decision- maybe
moral dilemma- no

 

The problem, or at least the difference, is that in that example, certain businesses are hurt because that's the name of the game - capitalism. They know about that risk and assume it the minute they open up shop.

The difference with things like this situation is that it hurts our own kind, people who aren't in the business and may have nothing to do with it. It hurts your own family, everybody in your church, etc. It doesn't just hurt the guy who assumed that risk by going into business, it's everybody. Everybody suffers because of the greed of the people who try to save 20 cents a gallon.

It's simply taking money out of one person's wallet and putting it into yours... which, is the art of business. However, if the people you're taking the money from doesn't necessarily want to be players in this game, well, that's just wrong, it's stealing by using a proxy.

 

Really well all the taxes put on gas hurt me. That must be another one of those dilemas. If you start playing games like this you can find a moral dilema in just about anything. :BangHead:

 

Is the price of corn and corn fed animal meat really impacted currently by the level of use of ethanol as a fuel?

I could possibly see this as an issue if corn was considered a scarce resource and there was widespread use of ethanol as an alternative fuel.

I see the current use of ethanol as fuel as an opportunity for corn farmers to have additional markets, expand their supply and possibly allow for new corn farmers to enter into the market. If corn became too expensive as feed, are there alternative food sources for the animals?

The market tends to balance out these factors at lower levels of consumption. If ethanol became the primary fuel source around the world, that would be a different story.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/29/world/29food.html

"Soaring food prices, driven in part by demand for ethanol made from corn, have helped slash the amount of food aid the government buys to its lowest level in a decade, possibly resulting in more hungry people around the world this year.

The United States, the world’s dominant donor, has purchased less than half the amount of food aid this year that it did in 2000, according to new data from the Department of Agriculture.



The higher food prices have not only reduced the amount of American food aid for the hungry, but are also making it harder for the poorest people to buy food for themselves, economists and advocates for the hungry say.

“We fear the steady rise of food prices will hit those on the front lines of hunger the hardest,” said Josette Sheeran, executive director of the United Nations World Food Program. The United States is the biggest contributor to the agency. "



Pretty sobering article if you are still thinking these ideas I'm talking about are garbage, so check it out. It's shocking how Baptists can see proof that their fuel consumption is causing suffering by poor and hungry people and not think it's a moral issue at all.

 

And here in lies the agenda. This article is about big business and its destruction.

 

Since everybody is keen against arguing against the idea that ethanol use is bad... what exactly is good about it? Who here can explain why exactly it's anything but bad? Regardless of the details, ethanol use is hurting everybody (except the farmers/processors) financially (and in other ways), and I'd like to hear a good explanation as to why this is good.

 

Thanks for the article. I didn't notice the link in an earlier post you made.

It does sound like increased ethanol use as a fuel has resulted in a short term rise in food prices that has impacted food aid. The article did state that the price of corn has been dropping in recent months. My impression right now is that the market has not adjusted to the sudden increase in demand in corn resulting in a short term rise in food prices. If this persists, I agree with you that there is a moral issue at stake here.

 

I haven't seen anyone make such a statement yet.