OT of an OT: Ethanol

[Will]

Renegade 13 said:
Actually, you should think about it in another way. Canada is better off exporting more, since we really don't need those resources, or else we obviously wouldn't be exporting them. On the other hand, the US obviously does need those very same resources, or else they wouldn't be buying them. Therefore, in a trade war, Canada has the advantage since there's more 'stuff' that the US needs that Canada has, and less stuff Canada needs that the US has. In other words, the US needs Canada more than Canada needs the US, giving us the advantage in a trade war. Then again, we shouldn't deceive ourselves into thinking either country would "win" a trade war. Both sides would lose, it's just a matter of to what extent. We're better off as trading allies, trading with each other rather than certain other places from overseas who may not ultimately have the best interests of either country at heart.

I say your reasoning here is invalid. Somolia has imports per capita far lower than either the US or Canada. By your reasoning, people in Somolia must really not need anything. Really! They like starving to death!

No, the reason the US imports more is because the US has a lot of very rich people, and they like to buy things, lots of things. Sometimes they never even use what they buy, or use them once but never again. They don't need these things, but they want them. Also, on the particular subject of imports from Canada (since we're talking about a trade deficit with Canada), I believe a large portion of that deficit is from timber and beef. While people in the US may enjoy their wood-finish interiors, printing out emails instead of reading on a screen, and their Big Macs and steak dinners, we in no way need them.



But yes, if all economic activity between the US and Canada stopped, it would hurt for both. Using a completely arbitrary example, and one that has absolutely no facts whatsoever to back it up, I would imagine it would be like what would happen if everyone in Texas suddenly decided they weren't going to buy or sell anything made outside of their state anymore. Both economies would take a pretty big hit. However, I would have to agree with Hunpecked here. If the same were to happen between the US and Canada, it would have a much worse impact on Canada, simply because it is the smaller economy.

Anyway, back to the topic of Ethanol... after looking a bit more into just how much gasoline the US consumes per annum, and how much ethanol an acre of land can currently yield, and how much an acre could theoretically yield... I don't think it could replace gasoline unless there are some major changes. Specifically, we would need the equivalent of a hybrid car for ethanol fuel and have them be the dominant type of personal vehicle. There would also need to be a decrease in single commuters and a corresponding increase of carpooling and mass transit usage. And even then, if all available land went towards production of ethanol, I'm not sure if it would entirely cover the needs of a still-growing population. Yes, it sort of worked in Brazil, but that included the domestic oil production, and the number of vehicles per capita is much much smaller, etc. It seems the best option is to use agricultural waste to produce ethanol to be used in blends with gasoline, to lower the usage of oil (and probably the price per unit of fuel, with the way things are going now), while pursuing more agressive conservation and "greener" energy production methods.