Posted on 01/21/2016 2:17:48 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
One of the most destructive environmental subsidies in the United States has found an enthusiastic supporter in Donald Trump.
"The EPA should ensure that biofuel ... blend levels match the statutory level set by Congress," he said yesterday in Iowa, adding that he was "there with you 100 percent" on continuing federal support for ethanol. "You're going to get a really fair shake from me."
The ethanol lobby has rigorously courted Trump since April, arranging to speak at least weekly, including at least three in-person meetings, in addition to an ethanol-plant tour, the Wall Street Journal reports.
Trump's support for ethanol may win him votes in Iowa, but federal support for ethanol is a bum deal for Americans.
Under the 2007 Independence and Security Act, Congress mandated that the United States use 36 billion gallons of biofuels, including corn ethanol and cellulosic biofuel, by 2022.
And the federal government not only requires the use of ethanol; it also subsides it. Tax credits between 1978 and 2012 cost the Treasury as much as $40 billion. Moreover, numerous other federal programs, spanning multiple agencies, allot billions of dollars to ethanol in the form of grants, loan guarantees, tax credits, and other subsidies.
Taxpayers suffer in other ways, too. Vehicles can drive fewer miles per gallon using ethanol blends than they would with pure gasoline. So Americans end up spending an extra $10 billion per year for fuel, the Institute for Energy Research estimates.
Ethanol also guzzles 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop, and the resulting scarcity drives up the price of food. This year alone, the Congressional Budget Office estimated, American consumers will spend $3.5 billion more on groceries because of the ethanol mandate.
Rising prices of corn feed have even put some small feedlots and ranches out of business. And as grocery prices increase, so does federal spending on programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
In a further hallmark of terrible policy, it's probably not even possible for Americans to meet the ambitious ethanol goals Congress and the bureaucrats at the EPA have envisioned.
Ethanol-intensive fuel blends can wreak havoc on car, lawnmower, and boat engines. In fact, many vehicle manufacturers will no longer offer warranties when ethanol comprises 10 percent or more of fuel; engine erosion simply becomes too common.
So, we can't really increase the total amount of ethanol mixed into our gasoline much more, but - especially as vehicles become more fuel efficient - Americans aren't consuming enough gasoline to meet the Renewable Fuel Standards with a 10 percent ethanol blend. The EPA acknowledged this inconvenient mismatch last spring, setting three-year ethanol-use requirements at 3.75 billion gallons below the legal minimums.
Ethanol's green benefit is also far from certain, explaining why even many within the environmentalist Left question - or outright oppose - the federal government's support.
It takes about 29 percent more energy to refine a gallon of ethanol than gasoline, and that process is often fueled by dirty sources like coal. Factor in the emissions generated during this production process, and ethanol sometimes comes in less green than old-fashioned gasoline. On top of that, burning ethanol also emits higher quantities of the chemical compounds that produce smog.
Then again, perhaps it's not surprising that Trump likes federal support of ethanol. After all, the real-estate mogul's business model has historically hinged on using tax abatements and other subsidies to make his building projects profitable.
(An example: As we reported in August, Trump Tower - which features a Gucci store Trump claimed was "worth more money than Romney" - has received a $163.775 million tax break from the city of New York.)
Many of Trump's constituents have rejected the so-called Republican establishment because of its corrupt preferential treatment for Wall Street and Big Business. But Trump's support for ethanol belies his populist Main Street rhetoric. In reality, he's just another rich, East Coast politician who would prop up special interests at the expense of the taxpayer.
-Jillian Kay Melchior writes for National Review as a Thomas L. Rhodes Fellow for the Franklin Center. She is also a senior fellow at the Independent Women's Forum and the Tony Blankley Fellow at the Steamboat Institute.
We don't need ethanol subsidies to screw OPEC.
Because gasoline explodes when ignited it will develop higher pressure and hotter temperatures at that moment.
Gasoline with 10% alcohol burns more slowly through more of the power stroke. This makes it more like a diesel.
Because of the above alcohol engines can run higher compression ratios and earlier ignition with out preignition problems.
Because of the facts above gasoline engines are only about 24% efficient of the energy available.
Alcohol engines can be up to 36% efficient of available energy.
This does not mean that alcohol will give the same performance in a given engine, but it does mean that an engine designed to run on alcohol will give respectable performance.
Where I live 85 octane fuel with 10% alcohol with a total octane rating of 87 is priced 20 cents lower than low lead 87 octane.
89 octane low lead is 60 cent higher.
I also believe that the alcohol industry can get along without government mandates and a five year phase out on mandates would be just fine starting now.
We need to do the same with all government supported programs, and I will tell you, you will not like it because it will affect some programs you like.
Wait a minute, cowboy. Ethanol subsidies support the globalist, scum-sucking corporate entities you allegedly oppose.
Government mandate to burn our food in a way that destroys small engines, damages regular engines, weakens fuel economy with delivering a lower BTU product at the pump and costs more to produce than the worth is extracted when used.
I see you do what I do. Get excited while typing and have my spelling and grammar go a little sideways...
The more screwed up my spelling and grammar are the more excited I am...
Don’t speak reason on this thread! Be gone!
But it’s good for his election chances and probably his wallet. And really, isn’t that far more important than American taxpayers?
This IS Trump's position - the position of a Big Government, crony capitalism liberal.
So we’ve got loads of resources going into completely unnecessary farming? It’s as if we taxpayers were somehow funding thosands of buggy whip factories in Iowa?
If that’s really the case a) I guess we really can afford to grow all the crops we need for food organically, and b) it’s time we allowed the invisible hand of the free economy to shift our resources into more productive areas.
So I'll put aside my belief system and ignore all that history......he can get the Independent vote!
The Conservative movement is no longer a movement. It's been corrupted by the 'win at any cost' crowd.
I hate to see you doing this. You're the best researcher on FR, have been since I cyber-met you 16 years ago. But it's time to let go. Trump is a force of nature, the imperfect hero of the caliber we so admire in history and literature. If he can't get it done, no one else can or will. In four years, after the other contenders develop their views and ability to take charge and lead, one of them will emerge. Both political parties can regroup and get their priorities straight. Only someone real strong who attracts a lot of attention, across the political spectrum, can get that started.
No, but there’s a good chance you will be soon.
I will never, ever allow someone on FR to demagogue the “small farmer” issue. Ever.
It’s all about his bottom line, which depends on who he’s currying favor from.
Check out the top lines of this chart of recent Trump donations.
In discussing ethanol from corn, we need to consider the factors of supply, demand and cost of production. I think Trump has examined the economy of corn and how the introduction of the ethanol economy makes that product bring the maximum benefit to both the consumer and the producer.
We have seen how the cost of corn production is driven by oil prices, fertilizer, seed etc. which in the past has driven up corn prices. Today the price of corn, if it were primarily used for food, would be lower then the cost of production because there is no market for all of the corn U.S. growers are capable of producing. Because of technology, U.S. corn production has gone from and average of 35-50 bushels per acre to close to 200 average today. With the increased costs of production, the profitability of raising corn quickly reaches a threshold where crop failures can create a disastrous results. To increase demand and raise prices so that corn producers can operate in the safety margin of profitability, U.S. growers have been paid by government not to grow corn.
One needs to understand supply/demand economics to see the value ethanol production has on corn’s price and the profitability to raise it. Corn prices will rise if there are markets for it. If not, corn prices will go down and with it, cause corn production to go down until the market price comes to a point that it is profitable to raise it. In fact, this encourages producers to grow less corn to drive profits as high as possible. When this happens, and if food production is the only use of corn, you will not like what happens. Ethanol production for fuel is like a buffer on the demand side of the equation. When demand is low from the food production side, the production for fuel will increases the demand which increases the price and makes the production profitable. This is the demand side of the equations.
Now on the supply side, when more corn is produced, it should drop the price for the consumer. That is not good for the producer because it reduces the profitability to produce corn. However, with the use of corn for ethanol, corn is made profitable to produce, no matter how much is produced. That is because the price of ethanol is determined by the fuel market, not the food market. It is a win win situation for the producers and the consumer because the overall effect is it keeps the price to the consumer as low as possible while maximizing the profitability to raise it.
Read my total comment. What I said is solving the problem isn’t going to happen if the problems of globalism and the impact on the US economy aren’t solved.
Then you’re not in favor of ethanol subsidies. Fine with me. Sorry.
Pray tell, what is the strategy to change what we already have?
Does Cruz, the rigid and expert Constitutionalist write an executive order or something? Does he usurp the legislative branch and write his own spending bill?
Does he veto an entire omnibus legislation since he has no line item veto and become the target of the MSM government shutdown chorus? Is there a Stop Ethanol button on the big desk in the oval office?
Or is this a crystal clear perfect example of an empty campaign promise that they all spout but which makes no difference in the end?
Congratulations on everyone ( including Levin ) who are easily distracted while the country is at stake. The question is who can successfully pick up the twelve swing states that remain on the table. That is the only consideration left as to picking the nominee. The luxury of boutique issues and doctrinaire litmus tests ended decades ago when the playing field was still relatively level.
P.S. Diverting food crops to Ethanol added into fuels is plain stupid, just like countless other leftist idiocracies. It took me all of three seconds to state that fact. It doesn't require any discussion in the campaign unless you really want to lose this thing.
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.