Posted on 01/23/2016 7:55:50 AM PST by Kaslin
This seems like it may be a day late and a dollar short as the saying goes, but someone has decided to ask a question in Iowa this week which would normally border on blasphemy. Do Iowans really know much about the ethanol issue and, even more to the point, do they really care? Going by the conventional wisdom this seems like a preposterous prospect. Iowa is the domain of King Corn and it drives all things political out there, right? Well, the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) decided to take the question to the voters directly rather relying on the state GOP leaders and some of the answers may surprise you.
With the Iowa caucuses fewer than 10 days away, research commissioned by the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) and completed this week provides new insights into what 700 likely voters across the state know about corn ethanol mandates, how much they care about or are following them, and whether they’re likely to vote on the basis of a candidate’s position on the issue.
Their answer? Not much, not really, and not at all.
"For as long as anyone can remember, conventional political wisdom dictated that candidates had no choice but to support ever-expanding corn ethanol mandates to win in Iowa," said George David Banks, Executive Vice President of ACCF. "Unfortunately, they forgot to ask actual Iowans what they thought about it. As this polling makes clear, not only aren't folks in the nation's largest corn-producing state paying particularly close attention to the back-and-forth over the RFS, they're definitely not using it as some sort of litmus test in determining who to vote for. That might qualify as a revelation to the political class in Washington, but something tells me actual Iowans won't be too surprised to hear that."
Here are a few of the results that jumped out at me:
If true, that might have made a bit of a difference in the shape of the race this year, but coming out less than two weeks before the caucuses it’s difficult to see what changes at this point. And yet it may at least prove useful for the midterms, assuming anything else backs this up later on. The only real questions I have about these numbers are the same ones that crop up whenever we run into these issue polls as opposed to surveys about candidates and elected officials.
If you’re looking for data on which candidates are doing well it’s not nearly as difficult to manage. Do you plan to vote for [CANDIDATES 1 THROUGH 10 or UNDECIDED] in the upcoming election? Similarly you can poll voters about the people in office with a basic query of approve or disapprove. (Strongly or somewhat.) When you get into issue questions, however, a lot depends on the wording and the ebb and flow of the news cycle. Seeing that 94% of Iowans don’t have ethanol in their top three concerns might say something, but it doesn’t mean it’s not a concern, either. Only a third of respondents knew where the candidates stood on the subject, which might be even a bit more telling, but I immediately found myself wondering if that’s just because they assume that all of the candidates back the RFS. It’s been baked into the cake for so long that perhaps they just take it for granted at this point.
Again, one data point such as this isn’t likely to be a game changer. But by the same token, maybe we’re finally seeing the beginning of a new trend. That would shake up both state and national elections and come as a refreshing change.
What happened to butanol?
It was supposed to be much better than ethanol.
Do you mind telling me what business you are in?
Much of what you write is true, but explain the scientific article excerpt I posted. How is 400 gallons of ETOH per acre not a net energy gain. The paper proves it is indeed.
Two Cheers for Ethanol Subsidies Expiring - but Costly Mandate Remains
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/01/ethanol-subsidies-expiring-but-the-costly-mandate-remains
January 17, 2012
Two federal policies expired at the close of the year: the federal tax credit for blending ethanol into gasoline and a 54 cent-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol. A diverse group of fiscal watchdogs, environmentalists, and free-trade proponents all hailed this as a major victory. While the tax credit and tariff expirations are a good start, the real burden on consumers is that producers will continue to blend ethanol into gasoline - because they are federally required to do so.
As Roy Orbison would say:
ONYLYyyy.........the lonely.
Sheese, meant to say FARMERS!!!
Do you consider more toxic and more expensive, better?
just asking asking
Betcha ton of Iowans saw it for what it is - very obvious pandering.
In that context, federal income tax deductions are subsidies too. Do you take this form of welfare?
***************************************************************************
Ahh...so you are of the view that all my income belongs FIRST to the state and anything our benevelant government allows me to keep is a subsidy?
Refineries once used Pb in gas too. How did that work so much better? Should we still burn leaded gas so we can inhale the fumes in big cities?
******************************************************************************
So now you’ve advanced to using the old progressive argument that if we don’t MANDATE the use of ethanol, the heavy metal lead must become an additive to gasoline. Prohibition of (ACTUAL) poisonous products is a legitimate function of government mandating the use of something such as ethanol is not.
Try not to mix the two in an illogical manner.
Do you mind telling me what business you are in?
********************************************************
Of course I mind...it’s bad enough that the Obama regime operatives in the federal government know it...I don’t care to share private information with potential trolls on the internet.
I will tell you I’m not involved in any petroleum-related business.
The subsidy will be around for a long time just like all subsidies. That’s what reps do.....feed its constituents.
I didn’t read the whole article. But as a Texan I certainly don’t support oil subsidies, and while I’m all for a successful oil industry, I wouldn’t base my vote for a presidential candidate based on just that. So much attention goes to Iowa and it seems they hold the corn subsidy up as a bribe to the candidates.
Factoring in ALL the costs, and determining if the number of BTUs in the ethanol is greater than the number of BTUs used (as Diesel fuel and/or natural gas) in the planting, cultivation, and harvest, the transportation to the ethanol distillery, the actual input of energy required to brew, distill and collect the now 95% ethanol, then transporting the product to the refineries for combining into the retail product gasoline.
Now compare, on a cost basis, the energy required to convert a fraction of the natural gas (ethylene) to ethanol
C2H4 (ethylene) + H2O (water vapor) (in presence of a catalyst) -—> C2H5OH (ethanol)
Fast, being done on an industrial scale already, and MUCH less expensive than using corn or other grains to produce ethanol.
If the idea is to simply have ethanol mandated for motor fuel component.
Thanks. I do put my foot in it once in a while.
:)
The butanol lobby doesn’t have first in the nation election primaries.
I agree. Palin is out there to keep her name in the public eye. She is quite the self-promoter.
Actually, subsidies hurt recipients, too. There was a great piece on this topic at the website of the foundation for economic education (I think that was the name, can’t find the piece now).
Why do subsidies hurt recipients? Because it prevents them from seeing their mistakes. They continue to make bad decisions because there is no correction. It’s rather like what would happen if you couldn’t feel pain. Sounds great, but then you wouldn’t know when you touched a hot burner.
The free market is the only thing that works. Everything the government does to tinker with that hurts everyone.
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.