Posted on 05/10/2015 2:58:11 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Well this is certainly disappointing. With all of the newly emerging candidates running around the early primary and caucus states talking to anyone who will listen it gets difficult to keep track of them all. But there’s one bit of news out of Iowa from earlier this week which is definitely worth a quick rewind and a better look. Newly announced presidential contender Ben Carson was out talking to the Cornhuskers and the inevitable subjects of ethanol, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and subsidies for King Corn came up. The answer from the esteemed neurosurgeon was dismaying even compared to some of the other pandering we’ve seen previously.
He started out on a fairly good note:
Carson, in his first speech in the state as a candidate, was asked by a voter about the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), the federal mandate that fuel refiners blend a certain volume of ethanol and biodiesel into their gasoline and diesel supplies.
“I don’t particularly like the idea of government subsidies for anything because it interferes with the natural free market,” Carson said, according to The Des Moines Register.
Not bad. Subsidies in general are detrimental. If he’d only stopped there. But sadly, he didn’t.
“Therefore, I would probably be in favor of taking that $4 billion a year we spend on oil subsidies and using that in new fueling stations” for 30 percent ethanol blends, he added.
How much wrong can you package into just one sentence? First of all… thirty percent blends? We’re fighting like mad to hold the line against E-15 as it is. I don’t even need to go back over all the reasons why yet again in this article. But let’s move on to the other half of that pitch.
He’s suggesting cutting subsidies for domestic energy companies in the oil and gas industry. Not for everyone, mind you. Just them. And then reallocating that money away from fossil fuels and into ethanol processing. Just five seconds before that Carson had been claiming that he didn’t want anyone interfering with the free market, but now he’s saying to cherry pick one specific set of companies in the energy sector, remove a subsidy from them, and then redirect it to benefit the ethanol industry? It’s difficult to imagine a more egregious example of the government picking winners and losers, with the winners just happening to be in the first caucus state.
Second, calling out the “subsidies for Big Oil” is the language of the Left, and as usual it’s complete horse hockey. As anyone who follows this topic knows, the subsidies received by oil and gas companies are not specific to them. They are precisely the same as subsidies given to almost anyone who sells anything, including Apple and Microsoft among so many others. In fact, you couldn’t just cancel the subsidies to the fossil fuel segment of the energy industry without rewriting the rules entirely just to exclude them. That’s a left wing, anti-energy talking point and Carson should be embarrassed to be saying it in front of an ostensibly conservative crowd.
If you want to have a discussion about removing all subsidies across the board, then fine. We’re all ears. Carly Fiorina has proposed the same thing and it’s a worthy topic of debate. But when you start talking about just picking the pockets of oil and gas developers and using it to pay for ethanol, you may as well be running for the Democrat nomination. Poor showing, Dr. Carson.
Ethanol is an extravagance and an ornament, corn-based ethanol is the more expensive way to produce the product, and most wasteful of valuable resources, like farmland and fertilizer and Diesel fuel.
Ethanol has been determined to be of only limited benefit to internal-combustion engines, with a tendency to absorb water from the atmosphere while in storage, resulting in rusting and corrosion of the fuel lines and components of the fuel supply system. The substance does not transport well, as it may only be shipped relatively short distances, except in specially designed tanker vehicles. Once formulated into motor fuel, it has a problem with separation from the gasoline.
And its energy content per volume or weight of fuel is MUCH lower than that of gasoline alone.
Grow your own fuel right on the farm? Inefficient, cumbersome and it actually costs MORE than most market substitutes.
Ethanol, like battery-powered primary vehicles, is a dead end.
Unless ethanol may be used DIRECTLY in a fuel cell, converting effeciently into electrical power while producing CO2 and water vapor. But there is not yet a fuel cell that can convert carbon to carbon dioxide that produces an electrical current from reaction with oxygen alone.
Otherwise we could use fine coal dust or petroleum coke to produce power without using huge power plants to combust the carbon, generate heat energy, and drive a steam plant.
Which is a kind of long way around.
Lets stop ethanol entirely. Ethanol gas is worse than pure gas.
I thought medical doctors all had to take at least one course in organic chemistry. Any one who has passed that class should understand why adding ethanol to gasoline is not a good idea. Dr. Carson is not dumb, so he must be pandering to get votes.
Ben,
1) Guns - Strike 1.
2) Minimum Wage - Strike 2.
3) Ethanol - Strike 3.
and...........you’re out’a here!
No kidding! His thing about the SCOTUS this morning on FNS was pretty progressive sounding. Maybe something about small government, individual responsibility, liberty and freedom that goes against the grain of Ol’ African Culture with even the best and I do think Carson is their best.
...and he appears to just be throwing stuff out there to see what will stick. He’s not ready for anything above state politics, if that.
Arson just can’t say anything right.
I agree. I’ve never given him any consideration since I learned his position on Gun Control. Even though he has wiggled around trying to modify his Second Amendment position, he is a cooked goose with me.
Yes, that is much of why.....
Ethanol bad, Butanol good
“Therefore, I would probably be in favor of taking that $4 billion a year we spend on oil subsidies and using that in new fueling stations”
Would Mr. Carson please give us an example of the subsidies we in the oil business are receiving????
Ted Cruz. Accept No Substitutes.
No surprise here...except at how it looks like Ben has finally ‘come out’...
God bless his heart but give us Cruz for our candidate.
Oil companies receive no subsidies.
Dump this ethanol crappola,
It is destroying our motors and driving up the cost of food.
” “Therefore, I would probably be in favor of taking that $4 billion a year we spend on oil subsidies and using that in new fueling stations” for 30 percent ethanol blends, he added. “
I’m almost to the point of feeling sorry for this obtuse clown. Go back to medicine, fella : )
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.