Posted on 01/09/2015 10:58:39 AM PST by george76
The fiscal impact of the ethanol mandate is huge — Michaels estimated it totals “billions, easily” in direct and indirect money — but it has come under attack by liberals as well as conservatives and appears to have lost some of its clout on Capitol Hill.
For example, the Environmental Protection Agency — which administers the Renewable Fuel Standard — is considering a cut to the amount of ethanol blended into the nation’s gasoline supply.
...
a growing number of environmentalists want the ethanol requirement eliminated, too.
...
In 2007, Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed into law an updated version of the RFS, requiring an increasing amount of biofuels mixed into gasoline — starting at 9 billion gallons in 2008 and increasing to 36 billion gallons by 2022.
...
The requirements have had a huge effect on farming in the nation’s heartland. It’s estimated 40 percent of the corn raised in the U.S. goes to ethanol.
“If we took all the corn that was diverted to ethanol and used it for its other normal uses for feed grains and foods, etc., the price of corn would be much, much lower than it is now,”
...
Ethanol is knocked by critics who say the fuel can hurt car engines — particularly those built before the RFS went into effect — as well as smaller gasoline-powered engines, such as lawnmowers and weed trimmers.
...
In 2010, Al Gore told a green energy business conference he regretted his earlier support for ethanol subsidies and tied it to his presidential ambitions at the time.
(Excerpt) Read more at watchdog.org ...
If it is harmful financially for Americans, the GOP will keep it in place.
One can hope they would. The big problem is Iowa trying to hold the GOP hostage saying they will not support anyone who is opposed to their gravy train.
Me, I want to see how big a “corn mountain” that Iowa can grow.
What I find remarkable, but totally predictable, is that Liberals now - suddenly - hate ethanol. After all, it was Liberals who told us ethanol was good for the environment. Liberals, wrong again. But I remember when Liberals told us brown grocery bags were evil and that we had to use plastic bags instead. Ooops, wrong again, huh.
Are Liberals ever right about anything, or is it enough simply to have good intentions and strong emotions?
House Approves Keystone XL Pipeline
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3245198/posts
The Dems were brilliant when they put food stamps under the Ag Dept to administer. Ethanol is similar.
Both sides of the aisle loving them for different reasons.
Personally, I want to bankrupt OPEC. Corn ethanol is an important tool. It is also probably just a bridge to third generation feedstocks, which I expect we will see in 5-10 years.
The price of corn, by the way, is less than half of what it was two years ago. Not that you will hear any acknowledgment of that from the food vs. fuel alarmists.
“After all, it was Liberals who told us ethanol was good for the environment.”
The same liberals pushed plastic grocery bags on us a few decades ago, and now they can’t outlaw them fast enough.
PS — If the Obama Administration turns against ethanol now, it is because U.S. ethanol undercuts the Arabs. And we know where this president stands on that issue.
If ethanol is so great why does its use in gasoline mandated?
The only answer is the power of the corn lobby.
AMEN!
LOL too funny!
This Congress? Taking on a federal subsidy? Don’t hold your breath waiting on this.
>> Personally, I want to bankrupt OPEC. Corn ethanol is an important tool.
The enterprising American petroleum industry has just proven that we don’t need a single drop of ethanol to bankrupt OPEC.
Ethanol is an engine-destroying boondoggle. Anyone who *wants* to burn ethanol for whatever reason should be free to do so. Supply and demand will regulate it properly. But mandating ethanol is horrible policy.
At first I read: “I’m going to need this to >>ruin<< my car.” It’s funny with “run” but even funnier with “ruin”.
I know a lot of leftie greenies here in Vermont, and NONE of them supports ethanol in gas.
The left was fooled into supporting this nonsense originally, but it no longer has support from anyone but the factory farmers who get all the tax money and the politicians who get the votes and donations. Pure, unadulterated political cronyism.
But they’ll keep it going just as long as they can.
Instead of selling gasoline with ethanol in it, then spending $5 on a small can of something to neutralize the ethanol, why not just take it out of the gasoline, and sell ethanol in $5 cans for the idiots that want it.
Oh...the corn lobby, that’s right. Rush has said for years, “if you want the real reason, follow the money.
Besides, it would be great to be able to find some good corn for a change!
Why do you say Ethanol reduces gasoline prices at the pump?
Ethanol can be created from coal about 30% cheaper than corn. Just eliminating the requirement that the ethanol comes from corn will open up competition and bring prices down.
Two words : ag lobby
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.