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

Skip to comments.

Fuel or folly? Ethanol and the law of unintended consequences
SFGATE ^ | Wednesday, April 2, 2008 | Cinnamon Stillwell

Posted on 04/05/2008 8:46:00 AM PDT by Dan Evans

In the pantheon of well-intentioned governmental policies gone awry, massive ethanol biofuel production may go down as one of the biggest blunders in history. An unholy alliance of environmentalists, agribusiness, biofuel corporations and politicians has been touting ethanol as the cure to all our environmental ills, when in fact it may be doing more harm than good. An array of unintended consequences is wreaking havoc on the economy, food production and, perhaps most ironically, the environment.

In the United States, ethanol is the primary focus and, as a result, corn growers and ethanol producers are subsidized heavily by the government

But it turns out that the use of food for fuel is wrought with difficulties. Corn, or some derivative thereof, is a common ingredient in a variety of packaged food products. So it's only natural that, as it becomes a rarer commodity due to the conflicting demands of biofuel production, the prices of those products will go up. The prices of food products containing barley and wheat are also on the rise as farmers switch to growing subsidized corn crops. During a time of economic instability, the last thing Americans need is higher prices at the grocery store, but that's exactly what they're getting.

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


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: biofuels; energy; ethanol
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 next last
To: Dan Evans

My very own daughter (who I am very proud of), when informed of this article, replied, “The answer is Nuclear Energy.” Smart girl.


21 posted on 04/05/2008 10:30:42 AM PDT by Aloysius88 (I used to be the different drummer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
First, the raw commodity price of food averages about 20% of the retail cost. 80% of what we spend at the grocery is attributable to processing, packaging, transportation, marketing, etc. The news media will not report this; it will, instead, blame the entire rise of food prices on biofuels. But that doesn't make it so.

Secondly, there is rapidly increasing demand for food from India, China, and other economic bright spots around the world. One of the first things formerly poor people do as they work their way up the ladder is start eating better. Increased international demand is a huge cost driver. But the media will not usually report that either. It's easier to bash biofuels.

Third, ethanol last year met virtually the entire increase in U.S. gasoline demand. One current estimate is that gasoline prices would be 15% higher without ethanol. Conclusion: the average consumer is probably saving more at the gas pump than he is paying in higher food costs. But -- you guessed it -- the media won't report that either. Both food and fuel are rising, so the geniuses of the Fourth Estate will report it as a double crisis rather than observing that BTUs and calories are fungible and that there is an offset for consumers, who by and large are buying both.

22 posted on 04/05/2008 10:37:20 AM PDT by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sunnyflorida
Man, I agree. The things we liked about GW McCain is weak on and the things we did not like about GW, McCain is a disaster on. At least GW was not a socialist like McCain.

Sadly, W has gone over to the dark side regarding Glo-Bull Warming.

He could have vetoed the mandated increase in Ethanol usage, CFL Light Bulbs, ect., but caved to who, what and why, God only knows.

23 posted on 04/05/2008 10:43:08 AM PDT by Conservative Vermont Vet ((One of ONLY 37 Conservatives in the People's Republic of Vermont. Socialists and Progressives All))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: All

I was watching a special report on cnn of all places making the same complaints about ethonal. they even said it takes more energy to produce ethonal too.


24 posted on 04/05/2008 10:53:17 AM PDT by Liberty2007 (We are busy winning hearts and minds while our islamfascist enemy is busy cutting throats and necks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: sphinx

“First, the raw commodity price of food averages about 20% of the retail cost.”

Maybe, maybe. But this is for all food including highly processed food. And even that a doubling of raw food commodities would be raise food prices at 3x, or so, the general rate of inflation.

Put on your thinking cap and quit defending the greedy subsidizing loving farm lobby and realize that the marginal increase in demand plus the special subsidies for ethanol are INCREASING the cost of both energy and food.


25 posted on 04/05/2008 10:54:05 AM PDT by Sunnyflorida (Drill in the Gulf of Mexico/Anwar & we can join OPEC!!! || Write in Thomas Sowell for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sphinx
One current estimate is that gasoline prices would be 15% higher without ethanol.

So would our gas mileage, so quit defending this stupid boondoggle.

26 posted on 04/05/2008 10:59:06 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
Let's hope that such “news” makes it to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, or respectively into their brains.
Fabricating laws to use staggering amounts of ethanol by 2020 and then leave for winter break is mind boggling.
There is environmental damage in the form of fertilizer run offs into the Mississippi and Gulf creating dead zones the size of Connecticut and Delaware together as Investor's Business Daily states.
It takes 4000 gallons of fresh water per acre per day to replace evaporation in a corn field.
Each acre requires about 130 pounds of nitrogen and 55 pounds of phosphorous, there is energy for plowing, harvesting, then refining the crop, which takes 1 million gallons per refinery per day.
In the final stage this product has to be hauled by truck or rail as it is corrosive and can not be piped, but then gives drivers 20-30% less mileage.
Ethanol production is subsidized to the tune of $7 billions per year.
Crops are not raised for food, therefore drive up food prices yes, world wide.
Democrat politicians, to capture voters in farm states, went with ethanol while making food scarce, therefore causing 25% food price increases, reducing purchasing power, reflecting in stagnation along with those feared job lay off's.
A huge wealth transfer to farm states, to garner their votes. Happy motoring.
P.S. Don't hope for a correction from Pelosi or Reid.
However... your vote has consequences.
27 posted on 04/05/2008 11:12:54 AM PDT by hermgem (Will Olmr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sunnyflorida
Corn ethanol consumes 1,700 gallons of water to irrigate one gallon worth of fuel. Add on another 3-5 gallons of clean processing water to process the ethanol and voila! Forget about the food supply - we are burning the water supply...AND the food supply.

Then transport this fuel to get less than a gallon of gas...we're making a difference now...

28 posted on 04/05/2008 11:51:09 AM PDT by gdaddy (Typical White Person)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp; Sunnyflorida
Have you ever been fissed off?

Nahh, ah hain't been, butt drankin' ahlla dis hyar EEeeeeethanol has made me need ta step outside and take a long FISS.

29 posted on 04/05/2008 11:54:49 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER (One by one, in small groups or in whole armies, we don't care how we do it, but we're gonna getcha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

Ann Rand... ;^)


30 posted on 04/05/2008 11:58:22 AM PDT by El Laton Caliente (NRA Member & www.Gunsnet.net Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sphinx

Here is a challenge to the biofuel supporters of the world. If your product is so great, take a no subsidies pledge at least in 3 to 5 years. You produce a great product and the world will beat a path to your door. No takers. You guys want subsidies and mandates in perpetuity. The ethanol boosters are just like other welfare seekers trying to justify their perpetual benefits and inability to survive without mandates and subsidies.

No matter the small actual demand for corn-based ethanol and the multitude of problems, the ethanol backers never give up. If all else fails, they will simply shout “1/2 the military budget is a subsidy to big oit!”


31 posted on 04/05/2008 11:59:34 AM PDT by businessprofessor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sphinx
"One current estimate is that gasoline prices would be 15% higher without ethanol

Is that factoring WITH or WITHOUT "our" billions and billions of tax subsidies?

If this is such a good deal, why can't it stand on its own merits and let the free market decide?

Of course we all know the answer to that one.

And how about the sharp increase in all food products which will ONLY continue to rise as this biggest boondoggle in my 64 years is mandated to continue.

32 posted on 04/05/2008 12:05:08 PM PDT by Conservative Vermont Vet ((One of ONLY 37 Conservatives in the People's Republic of Vermont. Socialists and Progressives All))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette

...mass starvation...
~~~~~~~~~~

It’ll never happen here. America’s ethanol splurge may cause mass starvation somewhere in the world in a round about way, but americans will always find a way to feed themselves. But should we feel responsible for parts of the world that rely on our ag products to survive? Their food supply is their own responsibiblity not ours. If we want to experiment with ethanol and burn our own food for fuel, that’s our business. It may or may not be good business, but it is our business.


33 posted on 04/05/2008 12:11:06 PM PDT by mamelukesabre (Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sphinx

Folks here don’t want to have you tell them those facts. It just confuses and often times enrages them.


34 posted on 04/05/2008 12:39:21 PM PDT by Balding_Eagle (If America falls, darkness will cover the face of the earth for a thousand years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER

Wull, that theyar gives drainin yer “radiator” a whole new meanin!!!


35 posted on 04/05/2008 2:14:16 PM PDT by SierraWasp (Out of the dung of adversity, spring the seeds of opportunity! America will always be exceptional!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: sphinx
Third, ethanol last year met virtually the entire increase in U.S. gasoline demand. One current estimate is that gasoline prices would be 15% higher without ethanol.

If that's true, then why does the government have to force the public to buy the crap?

If ethanol were really saving us money, there would be no need for government mandates and subsidies; we would use it of our own free will.

But obviously three is such a "need," and hence the absurdity of your argument becomes apparent.

36 posted on 04/05/2008 3:14:35 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Vermont Vet
Corn ethanol is viable right now without subsidy. The subsidy should, in principle, be phased out. The question is when. The big wait-and-see factor is cellulosic ethanol, which multiplies the potential resource base several, perhaps many, times over. If you approach this from a national security/energy security perspective, this is a big, big deal.

The Billion Ton Study estimated that the existing resource base, with cost-competitive cellulosic ethanol, could supply 30% of our gasoline usage. That -- to repeat -- is the existing resource base, mainly current farm and forest waste. It doesn't include dedicated energy crops, genetically modified feedstocks, or the commercialization of exotic feedstocks

It's all too fluid to put a number on. However, the first commercial scale cellulosic ethanol demonstration plants are being built right now and if they hit their projected price targets, the world of energy will change big time, and fast. There are no guarantees but cellulosic ethanol in conjunction with plug-in hybrids could conceivably be a path to energy independence. That doesn't seem to matter to some people around here. It does to me.

37 posted on 04/05/2008 3:23:53 PM PDT by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Comment #38 Removed by Moderator

To: sphinx
The subsidy should, in principle, be phased out.

That's what they say about every subsidy. In reality it takes a huge political battle to get rid of a subsidized industry once started.

39 posted on 04/05/2008 6:31:44 PM PDT by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: hubel458
It is the CEO complex where the middlemen want same multiples of profit times the raw material price no matter what-—GREED

Ridiculous. The selling price is determined by supply and demand.

40 posted on 04/05/2008 6:34:55 PM PDT by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 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