Replies

"..who lobbies for protection of the American sugar industry? It's not American ethanol producers or corn farmers.."

Ah, yeah. What you wrote is kind of a political truism.

Already there is a 54 cent/gallon tarriff on imported ethanol. Let me guess, was it the candy manufactures that lobbied for this? Was it the daily, urban auto commuter that did?
I
don't
think
so.

I'll take a guess. Farmers, ethanol producers, ADM.

Only and idiot would import low value feedstock for ethanol. They'd convert to higher value ethanol, and import that, which as I have stated, domestic subsidized greed heads that tell me ethanol is lower cost, has higher efficiencies than petroleum fuels....and that's why consumers have to be forced to buy it...but, not from cheaper imported ethanol sources.

At best ethanol is a stunt. Right now it is a pork-barrel, or I should say a ethanol barrel scam, ripping off the driving public, raising the cost of living and manufacturing and making the country less effective. It is a perfect storm of green delusion, greenback greed and political hackdom. As in Soviet socialism the only thing that makes this whole racket work is government force. Just as the socialist depend upon government force, that should give you a market signal as to the acceptance of the good or service by a free willing buyer. Lastly I am led to believe that cain is near eight times more productive than corn. I suspect that growing cain like plants for third world countries is very attractive. So, I don't see the US ever being able to produce ethanol as cheap as Brazil and Africa. So that means that the domestic producers, just like the domestic sugar producers will expect the American citizen to pay more, to be taxed more, for their ethanol scheme. End use fuel users will find themselves in the same squeeze as domestic producers. We saw this when President Bush kept the steel quotas up for a few loser mills. Steel end users complained that they couldn't make refrigerators, autos, ships with high steel costs. Just as these industries suffered so shall anyone that uses higher cost domestic ethanol fuels.

Now you are changing the subject once again tariffs on ethanol. Leisler, I'm not much for arguing for the sake of arguing. I'll tell you what I know and what I think, but that's going to be about it. I don't have time to play games.

I'm not disputing that there is a $.54 per gallon tariff on ethanol imported from most countries (countries in North America and I think Central America have a different deal because of trade agreements and I don't know that there is any tariff or at least it is lower for them). I'm not a big fan of the tariff. It should at least be lowered some if not phased out entirely.

Just so we understand each other, I do not think ethanol is ever going to replace gasoline. It won't even come anywhere close unless we figure out a way to produce a whole lot more per acre of land than we (or any other country) can with corn, cane, or any other existing sugary or starchy feedstock currently used for commercial ethanol production. An average acre of Brazilian sugarcane is not going to be enough feedstock to supply enough fuel for one average American driver to drive for a year. An acre of Brazilian cane is not even twice as productive for ethanol production as an acre corn grown in this country. We already produce more ethanol with corn than Brazil does with cane, so even if we did away with all the tariffs and imported every bit they could sell us, or even took every bit they make and left them none, it would only amount to a tiny portion of the fuel we need to run our cars and light trucks. Brazil is a massive country with millions and millions of acres of prime sugar cane growing lands. No other country in this hemisphere or maybe even in the entire world could even come close to producing as much sugarcane as they can, so I doubt we'd replace gasoline even if all nations that can grow sugarcane jumped on the ethanol bandwagon and we imported their excess. For ethanol, or any other biofuel concoction to replace all the liquid petroleum fuels we use in our vehicles, or even a major portion of this fuel, we're going to have a new feedstock from which we can produce enough fuel for several drivers per acre. Otherwise there will just never be enough farmland to supply world fuel needs. Maybe something like cellulosic ethanol or biodiesel from algae will fit the bill someday, but as of yet those technologies are nowhere near ready for use in large scale commercial fuel production.

Should we be working on alternative fuels? I think so. Our fuel supply is a matter of national security. It's a bad idea to have all of our eggs in one basket with oil. Should the government spend any money on developing fuels? Again, in my opinion our fuel supply is a matter of national security, so I am not opposed to some of my tax money going to developing alternative fuels, just as I am not opposed to our government spending money on defense technology. Should we be subsidizing the heck out of these industries and causing them to grow into massive government funded industries that could not survive without government money, far bigger than they are now? Hell no. In my opinion we're going way overboard with all the subsidies and mandates and impossible goals for the future. Does all if this scare the heck out of me? Not really, because it's not really going anywhere. Not even President Bush can set mandates that extend decades past his tenure as president. I hear all the hype, but reality has a way of creeping in and spoiling all the fun. People are obviously already starting to complain about high corn prices. We'll grow more corn and that will probably bring prices back down for a while, but sooner or later prices will climb and ethanol and everything else will get too expensive and it will no longer make political sense to push for more ethanol mandates and subsidies. There will be a pullback on these things and growth in the ethanol industry will stop. It will fall back into being a small niche industry people don't think about much anymore. Some good will come out of all this though. Americans farmers will make some money for a while and all the money that's pouring into alternative fuels will likely lead to some important technological advances. The general public will become more aware of energy issues and perhaps be less opposed to things like nuclear energy, coal liquefaction, drilling for more of our own oil reserves in what are now protected areas, etc. It's not all bad.