Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ethanol's Failed Promise (Unintended Consequences/Reality Bites Alert!)
The Washington Post ^ | April 22, 2008 | Lester Brown and Jonathan Lewis

Posted on 04/22/2008 9:04:11 AM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner

The willingness to try, fail and try again is the essence of scientific progress. The same sometimes holds true for public policy. It is in this spirit that today, Earth Day, we call upon Congress to revisit recently enacted federal mandates requiring the diversion of foodstuffs for production of biofuels. These "food-to-fuel" mandates were meant to move America toward energy independence and mitigate global climate change. But the evidence irrefutably demonstrates that this policy is not delivering on either goal. In fact, it is causing environmental harm and contributing to a growing global food crisis.

Food-to-fuel mandates were created for the right reasons. The hope of using American-grown crops to fuel our cars seemed like a win-win-win scenario: Our farmers would enjoy the benefit of crop-price stability. Our national security would be enhanced by having a new domestic energy source. Our environment would be protected by a cleaner fuel. But the likelihood of these outcomes was never seriously tested, and new evidence has shown that the justifications for these mandates were inaccurate.

(snip)

Taking these together -- the environmental damage, the human pain of food price inflation, the failure to reduce our dependence on oil -- it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that food-to-fuel mandates have failed. Congress took a big chance on biofuels that, unfortunately, has not worked out. Now, in the spirit of progress, let us learn the appropriate lessons from this setback, and let us act quickly to mitigate the damage and set upon a new course that holds greater promise for meeting the challenges ahead.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: biofuel; ethanol; food; shortage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 next last
To: Virginia Ridgerunner

Lots of luck. Congress did it to buy the farm vote (i.e., the factory farm vote).

Undoing this mess may be harder than you moonbat jerks think.


21 posted on 04/22/2008 9:21:20 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

Follow the $$$$. Whose states or backers stood to make a killing with ethanol subsidies?


22 posted on 04/22/2008 9:22:46 AM PDT by Hoffer Rand (0'bambi: the audacity of hype)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner

Reduce CO2, which will make plants weaker and slower growing, and switch to bio-fuels. Great plan!


23 posted on 04/22/2008 9:23:25 AM PDT by TigersEye (Berlin 1936. Beijing 2008. Moscow 1980 Olympic Games for murdering regimes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HoosierHawk
Corn prices were already starting to rise due to supply and demand before the government made it worse. Bush talked about cellulosic ethanol because he knew there wasn't enough corn but instead of letting the technology catch up he signed it anyway.
24 posted on 04/22/2008 9:24:52 AM PDT by tobyhill (The media lies so much the truth is the exception)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NVDave
....ban them completely. Watch as food prices continue to go up and up and up. As long as diesel fuel, fertilizer, steel, copper, etc go up in price, food will go up in price. Bet the farm on it.

Got it in one. I, for one, do NOT believe that the use of corn to make ethanol has reduced the total quantity of food available one bit, and that the price rise has far more to do with the rise in the price of oil than "burning food for fuel".

25 posted on 04/22/2008 9:25:43 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel-NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner
"Now, in the spirit of progress, let us learn the appropriate lessons from this setback, ..."

Why is it that liberals cannot see the LOGICAL outcome before it actually takes place?

26 posted on 04/22/2008 9:30:07 AM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nikos1121

And President Bush signed it, which is fabulous. Campaign issue? You bet. Republicans can use it? Only if they run screaming from the President, which is a shame.

This is another one of those issues the President took a pass on that just flabbergast me. Man’s got a Yale MBA. The facts on Ethanol haven’t changed since the 1970’s, and it was a bad idea then too.

Those ignoring the past, and all of that I suppose.


27 posted on 04/22/2008 9:32:25 AM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mygirlsmom

You are correct. But “Un-doing” anything the government does is always a collosal chore and likely never happens, regardless of the intentions of libs or conservatives.


28 posted on 04/22/2008 9:32:40 AM PDT by subterfuge (Homophobic and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner

The main idea seems to have been cleaner air for the californicators. Pollution caused by cars however seems to be something like a 95-5 proposition these days with 5% of the cars causing 95% of the pollution and the difference between the East coast and California is that on the east coast old cars are generally driven by students and immigrants while in Ca more often than not it’s millionaires driving some old piece of garbage with a Holley carburator because he thinks it’s cool. **** em! California air is simply not my problem and I resent having ethanol in my gasoline because of it. Let the californicators take the old garbage off the road.


29 posted on 04/22/2008 9:33:24 AM PDT by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner
Taking these together -- the environmental damage, the human pain of food price inflation, the failure to reduce our dependence on oil -- it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that food-to-fuel mandates have failed. Congress took a big chance on biofuels that, unfortunately, has not worked out. Now, in the spirit of progress, let us learn the appropriate lessons from this setback, and let us act quickly to mitigate the damage and set upon a new course that holds greater promise for meeting the challenges ahead.

If congress had the sense of a flea this ethanol boondoggle would end tomorrow. But I expect the vote buying to continue full bore.

What is really sick about this is biodiesel will work, but congress is poisoning the well for the oil companies.

30 posted on 04/22/2008 9:34:27 AM PDT by org.whodat (What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
"Reduce CO2, which will make plants weaker and slower growing, and switch to bio-fuels. Great plan!"

Ding, Ding, Ding... We have the winning post of the day! Perfect insight into the logic-less liberal mind.

31 posted on 04/22/2008 9:35:24 AM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

Last night, I was having dinner with my still-farming buddies. We sold the farm last fall when phosphorous was running $400+/ton.

This month, P is now running $1000/ton. And continuing to go up.

Diesel was $3.28/gal for offroad a month ago. Now it is nearly $4.

People better get their heads out of their rectums if they want to nail down the TRUE cause of the increase in food prices and the decrease in availability: the price of diesel fuel. If I had ONE wand to wave over this current economy, it would be to jam the price of diesel back down to $2/gal.


32 posted on 04/22/2008 9:36:43 AM PDT by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: avacado

A make a practice of high lighting liberal Tom-foolery. Thank you for your recognition of my efforts. ;^)


33 posted on 04/22/2008 9:38:41 AM PDT by TigersEye (Berlin 1936. Beijing 2008. Moscow 1980 Olympic Games for murdering regimes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner

Libs will never realize how stupid they really are. They just keep trying to fail.


34 posted on 04/22/2008 9:39:21 AM PDT by ImJustAnotherOkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

Yep, I’m fully on board with biodiesel, which can be produced from many things other than food, such as algae.


35 posted on 04/22/2008 9:39:33 AM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner ("We must not forget that there is a war on and our troops are in the thick of it!"--Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner
Who said the consequences were unintended?

The libs always pass laws and regulations with an eye to how many voters they will deliver to the party. I think the food crisis the greens have created was considered. They determined that anybody forced into trouble would be able to seek help from any of the hundreds of government programs designed to place ever more Americans onto the teat of government.

36 posted on 04/22/2008 9:42:10 AM PDT by Sgt_Schultze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gorzaloon

I understand too, that it actually costs more to make than to refine gasoline...


37 posted on 04/22/2008 9:43:43 AM PDT by nikos1121 (Thank you, Jimmy Carter for all you've done to make the world a safer place.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

I mean’t to say that it uses more energy to make than what we’re saving.


38 posted on 04/22/2008 9:44:17 AM PDT by nikos1121 (Thank you, Jimmy Carter for all you've done to make the world a safer place.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nikos1121

They should “eat their Greens”..


39 posted on 04/22/2008 9:45:00 AM PDT by sheik yerbouty ( Make America and the world a jihad free zone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946

Wait a minute! Before you denigrate “old” cars let me point out a study done in Canada in the mid-eighties after emission control mandated automobiles had been around for a few years. What they found was that emission controlled vehicles were polluting more than the “old” 50s and 60s cars. The reason? Older cars were more likely to be tuned up on a regular basis. Why? Old cars were easy to tune up, anyone could do it with simple tools, and parts were a few dollars. Emission control vehicles were difficult or impossible to tune unless you were a mechanic and the cost was very high comparatively.


40 posted on 04/22/2008 9:50:09 AM PDT by TigersEye (Berlin 1936. Beijing 2008. Moscow 1980 Olympic Games for murdering regimes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson