Posted on 12/19/2017 8:58:28 AM PST by george76
For the first time in years, there is an emerging consensus that the biggest racket in national politics deserves to end.
Earlier this month, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and 10 other Republican senators held a luncheon summit at the White House with President Trump with the goal of drastically reforming the Renewable Fuel Standard, the federal mandate that annually funnels $13.5 billion from the wallets of American fuel and food consumers into the coffers of agribusiness giants.
Before the national nightmare of Obamacare, there was the RFS, the most sweeping and intrusive federal intervention in the American economy undertaken in modern history. Enacted under President George W. Bush in 2005 and expanded in 2007, the RFS requires that biofuels, mainly ethanol, be increasingly mixed with gasoline in greater proportions each year until 2022.
Every November, the EPA is required to announce that it is mandating even higher levels of ethanol in our fuel supply. Recently, the Trump Administration and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt bravely defied cronyism by freezing the current RFS levels for 2018 — a first step in relieving Americans of this Washington-built burden.
What was the thinking behind this monumental government directive, this freakish experiment in state-planning that arbitrarily picked winners and losers? Its proponents — namely Big Corn and hard-line environmentalists
...
Burning ethanol adds more hydrocarbons to the atmosphere than burning gasoline and, in turn, creates more air pollution. Meanwhile, fertilization from increased corn acreage is driving nitrogen and phosphorus runoff into lakes and streams. Blends excessively high in ethanol are destroying engines and fuel systems while the forced diversion of corn into the fuel markets is raising the cost of food.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Folks,
Ethanol has a role, it has it’s pros and cons.
The problem is the one size fits all of centralized government or socialism as we know it. The problem is not ethanol............................
Ethanol would be an acceptable fuel in the absence of petroleum. Nitpicking gasoline and diesel is easy too. Fuel ethanol is simply not necessary and is too expensive in today’s conditions.
What is the but content per {unit of measure} and the corresponding cost to produce?
.
No gel could possibly come from any alcohol.
.
I should get a subsidy for all the fuel lines in weedeaters, chain saws, blowers, etc. that I have had to replace.
... the forced diversion of corn into the fuel markets is raising the cost of food. animal
^
|
|
Me; too.
Where can I buy a wood gas generator?
I disagree, only because Ted Cruz who was unapologetically opposed to ethanol subsidies still won the GOP nomination in Iowa.
Don't underestimate the power of Iowans to think for themselves.
I’d guess ending ethanol subsidies would affect the farm economy much like ending federal guaranteed student loan programs would affect academia.
By all means, do it! But, phase it out over a number of years to allow investors time to reallocate resources.
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.