Posted on 01/25/2006 6:20:34 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
Politicians from the northeast have largely opposed the government requirements for the use of ethanol, seeing it as uneconomical and little more than a subsidy to corn growers in states like Iowa.
Q. So why would George Pataki have turned up on Fox News this morning proposing a variety of New York State tax subsidies to promote the use of ethanol?
A. Please re-read the last nine words in the first paragraph: "a subsidy to corn growers in states like Iowa."
If there was any doubt that Pataki is giving serious consideration to a presidential run, his proposal this morning should have erased them. Ironically, it is a researcher from Cornell, New York's own land grant university, who has done the most to debunk proposals for ethanol use:
"Says David Pimentel of Cornell University, it takes the equivalent of 1.29 gallons of gasoline to produce enough ethanol to replace one gallon of gasoline at the pump. Instead of making the nation more energy self-sufficient, ethanol production actually increases our need for oil and gas imports, Pimentel says."
http://feinstein.senate.gov/05speeches/ethanol-oped.htm
Stay tuned to see if Pataki is back next week, proposing subsidies for . . . granite ;-)
Pataki was a better Gov then Cuomo but that is not saying much. He mostly was all talk no action. A waste if you ask me as a New Yorker. A snowball chance in hell to be President.
Well, ethanol does have the advantage of coming from Corn which is not controlled by a worldwide cartel of psychotic, homicidal, antiamerican marxists, jihadis, and thugs.
But if Pimentel is right and it takes 1.29 gallons of gas to produce one gallon of ethanol?
Primary ping to Today Show ping list.
Corn is grown and transported using fertilizers, tractor fuel, and diesel fuel generated from petroleum. Ethanol is ridiculous. If you want a subsidy for corn growers, ask for it honestly.
What the hell does this mean? If they mean the energy equivalent in electricity, this is a misleading statement. Almost no electricity is generated from petroleum from the Middle East.
This statement may very well be based on a totally flawed premise of what constitutes an "equivalent" gallon of gasoline. If Pimentel is in the political science department instead of the physics department, I'd say this is probably the case.
Don't waste your time, George.
I think it means that it takes that much energy to transform ethanol into fuel. Whether the energy comes from gasoline or elsewhere, if producing ethanol is a net energy loss it obviously does nothing to reduce our energy dependence.
This guy is an ass.
A couple of weeks ago, he was touting "biodiesel" as an alternative fuel source.
I guess he missed work the day NY banned sales of new diesel automobiles.
I agree that it's better to wean ourselves off of oil, but until something comes along that is as efficient and cheap as gasoline, we're not going to switch anything.
I disagree...it reduces our energy dependence on other countries, which is the goal isn't it? There is nothing wrong with being dependent on ourselves is there?
I see your point, but surely there have to be more efficient ways of doing it than losing a net .29 gallon equivalent for every gallon produced.
In any case, wouldn't you agree that for Pataki of all people to come out with this proposal now has something to do with GOP primary politics? Can't you imagine him on the stump in Iowa extolling his proposals?
He sounded like a democrat when describing the program. He will not attract Republicans with his programs forcing business to act. It was a big government, socialist presentation.
Don't get me wrong...ethanol for fuel is very inefficient (unless in its potable form). And I always hate the idea of government subsidies since is is pure socialism. But we already subsidize the oil companies by paying for their security, which is a major portion of their expense. Doesn't it make more sense to subsidize farmers than to subsidize oil companies?
I knew it! I went to your web page, and sure enough, you're from that major corn-growing state . . . Nevada! ;-)
But seriously, yes we want to explore alternatives to oil, but I would prefer to let the free market do it. And I am VERY suspicious of any politician looking ahead to the Iowa primaries who floats an ethanol subsidy proposal.
He's nuts.
Corn, not nuts ;-) But hey, maybe he can carry California with a pecan subsidy!
I am very leary of ANY presidential politician who jumps on the energy bandwagon. I don't see a whole lot regarding energy in Article II of the Constitution. They should focus on how they would perform their Constitutional duties, and leave the other stuff alone.
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.