Posted on 11/29/2015 5:46:00 AM PST by Kaslin
A federal program, once launched, is impossible to kill. It doesn't matter if the scheme wastes money. It doesn't matter if the program doesn't work. It doesn't even matter if the program does the very opposite of what it is supposed to do. Every government program enters the world with an army of fairy godmothers prepared to fend off any effort to cut the cord -- hence the staying power of ethanol.
When President George W. Bush signed legislation to expand a federal requirement to blend gasoline with ethanol in 2007, he could claim with some credibility that he was pushing a renewable alternative to fossil fuels, on which Americans were so dependent. Yes, there were skeptics. I was one of them. But the Bush Renewable Fuel Standard flowed with the mainstream of American politics. In the 2008 presidential election, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was a big booster of the ethanol mandate.
Every year since then, ethanol has been harder to defend. A 2008 study published in Science magazine found that corn-based ethanol increases greenhouse gas emissions instead of reducing them. A 2009 study concluded that plowing fields to grow corn for ethanol could release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than ethanol offsets.
FactCheck.org looked at ethanol and found U.S. Department of Energy-sponsored research that concluded that ethanol reduces greenhouse gases. But it's hard to believe that the ethanol mandate is good for the environment when the Sierra Club, the Environmental Working Group and Friends of the Earth oppose the federal program. The Sierra Club describes claims that ethanol reduces carbon input as "extremely dubious."
Ethanol has fallen out of favor largely because it eats up so much of the corn supply. Some 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop goes into gas tanks, not stomachs. As demand for corn has risen, so have food prices. As the cost of feed has risen, so have beef prices. ActionAid USA and other anti-poverty groups also oppose ethanol supports.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has worked across the aisle to end ethanol supports, in part to spur the production of biofuels with smaller environmental footprints. This year, to her undying credit, she joined with Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., to sponsor the Corn Ethanol Mandate Elimination Act of 2015.
Matt Dempsey, a former staffer for Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., of climate skepticism fame, has watched the left and right come together against ethanol for a decade. Now in public relations for the pro-business Center for Regulatory Solutions, Dempsey has been busy alerting states about the high cost folks outside Iowa pay for ethanol. Ethanol gets fewer miles to the gallon than gasoline. Thus, his group estimates that since 2005, the renewable standard has cost Californians an extra $13 billion at the pump.
With such a political heavyweight as Feinstein leading the opposition, you would expect California Democrats to support an effort that helps families keep groceries on the table. It says something about the political heft of the ethanol lobby, however, that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi co-signed a letter with fellow Democrats that urged the Obama administration to "keep in mind the need to reduce carbon pollution" as the president heads to the United Nations climate conference in Paris. The Environmental Protection Agency must release three-year ethanol standards by the end of the month, and Pelosi supports "a robust renewable fuels rule." Read: more ethanol.
Dempsey described the Pelosi letter as "a head-scratcher." He said, "It really stands out as one of the more bizarre moments for Pelosi." The only way it makes sense, Dempsey added, is if Pelosi wants to provide cover for the Obama administration to uphold a mandate that bites into everyone's wallet but, it seems, does not decrease greenhouse gases. Pelosi has to know how bad Obama would look touting ethanol as a tool to combat climate change. To pull off that stunt, Obama should avoid the City of Light and instead head for Iowa.
All that appears to make sense to me, that's why I don't expect government to ever squash it. Too many freeloaders making cash off of it now.
A political heavyweight but an intellectual featherweight.
But even a blind squirrel will occasionally find a nut.
“Some 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop goes into gas tanks, not stomachs. As demand for corn has risen, so have food prices. As the cost of feed has risen, so have beef prices.”
One problem with this is corn prices are in the dump. They are almost as low as they have ever been in the last ten years - and trending down.
I watch many acres of corn being combined for grain in our area when it never had before. Everyone knew what was going to happen with the corn price.
Somehow I think a more likely reason Pelosi is pro ethanol is that it is somehow putting money in her pocket.
I’m buying a new one soon since mine got flooded and me with it.
It will probably get ethanol free as much as possible.
I have some fuel perks rewards that are going to run out today. I’ll pick up a few gallons of ethanol free in a gas can for my oldies even though they are in different states of dead.
The ethanol mandate is to buy off Iowa farmers. Try killing the ethanol mandate and you have Iowa corn farmers in full revolt mode.
Ted Cruz Woos Iowa Ag Summit With Principled Anti-Ethanol Subsidy StanceHe says the same about wind, sugar and other subsidies. Instead he promises to ease taxes and regulation to allow industries to find their own path to prosperity.
Bump for a great article at the link above you provided.
I so admire Ted Cruz for taking a principled stand against ethanol subsidies and to propose a better, conservative solution to assist Iowa businesses with less government. Taking this stand publicly at an Iowa Ag Summit is more evidence of his integrity. It's really gratifying to see he received great applause from the crowd for his honesty.
Cruz campaign: "Ted Cruz is straightforward about what he believes, whether he is in Iowa, Texas, or Washington DC. We need more leaders who tell the truth about what they will do and the response to that kind of honesty is very positive."
Sucking up to the corn belt.
“I support a candidate who has firmly and unequivocally asserted that he intends to end subsidies and mandates to support ethanol, wind and other “green†fuels.”
I’ll “one-up” that and say I support a candidate who will end subsidies for ALL businesses. The Federal Gov’t is not in the business of picking winners and losers, but is in the business of carrying out the dictates of the Constitution ONLY!
The Feds can provide a subsidy to all businesses by second hand way of reducing the tax rate and regulations.
Subsidies only ease the symptoms but don’t cure the disease.
You are kidding, right? Pelosi invented bizarre moments.
“As the cost of feed has risen, so have beef prices. “
Anyone with a basic knowledge of agriculture knows this isn’t the case.
Beef prices went up due to the severe drought that was in the southwest for many years. This caused ranchers to liquidate their cow herds.
Rains and pastures are back; but the build cycle takes a long time to get the herds back.
It is happening however; and cattle prices have recently dropped.
Follow the money.
Muslims will be offended with Alcohol in their car
It's important to get this piece of the argument against ethanol correct.
Ethanol proponents will say that the corn grown to produce ethanol is not corn that's fit for human consumption, so growing corn for fuel doesn't affect food prices.
That's complete bullshit.
While it may be true that the corn grown for ethanol production isn't fit for human (or animal) consumption, the land used to grow ethanol producing corn is land that would otherwise be used to grow food!
By reducing the amount of usable land to grow food, ethanol does in fact INCREASE food prices across the board for EVERYONE.
Making ethanol is also a NET LOSS in terms of energy. It takes more energy to produce it than burning ethanol actually creates. Cars for example, lose anywhere from 1-3mpg as a result of just 10% ethanol in every gallon of gas. That means every vehicle on the road burns more fuel, not less per every 100 miles driven.
Then there's the argument that ethanol actually increases pollution, I'll save that one for another time.
DEFINITION of 'Subsidy' from Investopedia:
A benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction. The subsidy is usually given to remove some type of burden and is often considered to be in the interest of the public.
Politics play an important part in subsidization. In general, the left is more in favor of having subsidized industries, while the right feels that industry should stand on its own without public funds.
In laymans terms: "Subsidies" are in fact nothing more than a Government sanctioned transfer of wealth through force of law, from one economic or social sector to another. No right thinking Conservative would support subsidies of ANY kind.
Ethanol bad, Butanol good.
It's important to get this piece of the argument against ethanol correct.
Yes, and you didn't.
Ethanol proponents will say that the corn grown to produce ethanol is not corn that's fit for human consumption, so growing corn for fuel doesn't affect food prices. That's complete bullshit.
No, it isn't. It also doesn't or barely affects feed prices.
While it may be true that the corn grown for ethanol production isn't fit for human (or animal) consumption
It is absolutely fit for livestock feed, that was the traditional purpose for that crop in hog and beef producing states. Furthermore, due to bio-processing, the spent mash, after the alcohol is extracted is a superior feed to the unprocessed corn. They then sell it as livestock feed.
the land used to grow ethanol producing corn is land that would otherwise be used to grow food!
Wrong again honey.
Ever been to the Cornhusker State? Their corn is basically a hydroponic crop, where they plant hybrid feed corn in the almost STERILE SAND and irrigate the hell out of it with anhydrous ammonia etc as a fertilizer. The sand just holds up the corn-stalks. If they could grow anything else there, they would.
By reducing the amount of usable land to grow food, ethanol does in fact INCREASE food prices across the board for EVERYONE.
Really? I can buy 5 ears of sweet corn in Maine for a buck...How much cheaper can you expect it to be? Corn chips are two bucks a bag, but how do you explain the outrageous prices they are getting for potato chips?
Otherwise, you're probably right.
But they should be making booze out of the corn-squeezins and GIVING it to the terrorists.
I buy my small engine gas at the local airport, Aircraft gas is alcohol free, however you can’t burn it in a car because it has so much lead it will plug your catalytic converter.
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.