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

Skip to comments.

Why This Conservative Supports the Corn Ethanol Program
http://streetlevel.blogtownhall.com ^ | August 16th, 2008 | Darvin Dowdy

Posted on 09/04/2008 8:45:54 PM PDT by Darvin Dowdy

I have some serious disagreements with President Bush. As a Texan, I have a right to be critical. I voted for the man 4 times. I’ve felt that the gent fell into a trap at some point. In essence he morphed into a typical, liberal Globalist, placing too high a value on world opinion. Constantly pandering, trying to win global approval. A bleeding heart for the so-called “emerging nations”. That being said I must give him credit for something that he has done for our Nation. Something that he is probably totally unaware that he did. His decision that “could” greatly benefit the living standard of present and future generations here in the U.S. One, he refused to support the Kyoto Protocol which held the U.S. to much higher emissions standards than that of other nations. But most of all he deserves credit for a prime component of his alternative plan being the Corn Ethanol Program. When President Bush leaves office next January, he’ll be leaving us a golden opportunity. That is if we have a thread of common sense left amongst us and will reach out and seize it. If not we can’t indulge in that most popular of activities - “blame Bush”. That lost opportunity will rest upon our own shoulders.

The U.S. was harshly criticized for not signing off on Kyoto and for our alleged excessive greenhouse gas emissions. So our President, wanting to get along, met our accusers more than half way with his alternative plan which included requiring our vehicles to burn a mixture of gasoline and ethanol, a biofuel that can be produced from living plants. It just so happens that the number one crop in the U.S. happens to be corn which is also very suitable for making ethanol . Corn is what we grow the best. Not palm oil! And we make the best Corn Mash Whiskey, too. Which is, in essence, what we’re going to use to power our vehicles down the road now, at least partially. Meaning the price of whiskey will go up, too. Another sacrifice! So we have all the technology and know-how in place, you see? And corn ethanol is much less expensive to produce than other cellulosic ethanol’s produced from various weeds. Nor has the technology for that been perfected. So if we have to do this, then corn is the way to go. Corn ethanol, that’s our way of doing something for the global environment as the rest of the world has been harping on us to do. This should be the end of the story, right? Now maybe the world will shut their complaining, whining pie holes, correct? Wrong.

You see, the ethanol program has had some, shall we say, unexpected consequences. Yes, the price of corn has almost tripled just in the last few years. From around $2. per bushel, now up to around $6. per bushel. Why? Because of the demand brought on by the ethanol program. Ha! Our farmers, after decades of being in the red, are now solidly in the black. And did you know that, according to the Farm Bureau, only 1% of U.S. farms are corporate owned, by the way? Add to that the increased demand for corn exports. A somewhat rosy picture for our family farms as the U.S. is, by far, the largest exporter of corn in the world. And the U.S. Farmer is not the only beneficiary. How about the American taxpayer? Due to farmers opting out of government subsidies because its more profitable to grow, we taxpayers will also benefit. And grain exports help our nagging trade deficit that seems to never end: ( link )

So there you have it. Look what the ethanol program has done for the U.S.! Just in this short time. This is a boon for the U.S. agri-economy, short and long term. Now do you understand why there is so much resistance to those wanting to end it? And there is also resistance to the ethanol program, itself. Much of that resistance is coming from outside the U.S. Many of these same petulant international org’s that were yapping at our heel’s over excessive greenhouse gas emissions are on our case, again, because of high grain prices. They claim we’re starving the poor of the world. Do not be fooled by this insidious propaganda. The real reason for the complaints? The world knows that they dealt the cards and they’ve dealt themselves a pair of deuces and given the U.S. a full house. They don’t like paying higher prices for the food that they must have. Many nations can’t grow the food that they need and they hate the fact that they are dependent on the U.S. They know they’ve done this to themselves which really puts a scowl on their face. Yes, you guessed it, the same nations that continuously vote against us in the UN. And most of all the world hates, with a passion, to see the U.S. prosper. They are envious and want to see us in a continual economic downturn. And to have to be beholden to us for their food, its almost too much for them to bear. Especially having to pay such a premium price for it. And they’ll never admit to the fact that they and their continuous nagging at the U.S. over greenhouse gas emissions is the reason for the premium grain/food prices. They’ll continue to blame the U.S. and call us greedy. We must ignore them and grow as much grain as we can. We must research and invest in sophisticated, long term grain storage facilities. At first the world will balk but they’ll find a way to pay our price. We should not budge on our price and we should make no apologies as we’re “simply doing our part, as the world requested, for the global environment”.

It is projected that by 2012-13 the world population will reach 7 billion. Fact: these folks will have to eat. These same maligned higher grain prices will, in fact, lure the American entrepreneur back to the land. Getting on with the task of filling the horn of plenty. The increased production of food will be sorely needed in the decades to come. And like big oil of today, BIG FOOD will be villainized. You can bet on it. Its already starting to happen. Get over it. The worlds belly is full due, in large part, to the hard work of the U.S. farmer.

We also have an obligation to our future generations here in the U.S. to hand off to them a vigorous, vibrant and thriving economy so that they can continue the same, or better, level of lifestyle than what we have enjoyed. We owe them that much. They are our children and grandchildren, for God’s sake! Do we want them to suffer in some 3rd world level economy? A super-heated agri-business sector will be a major piece of that legacy pie chart in insuring a prosperous future for them.

Whether President Bush is aware of what he has done or not, isn’t important. But he’s left us a treasure chest full of gold and jewels. If we couple this agriculture boon with the $700 billion dollars that would be funneled back into our “own” economy from domestic oil drilling, well we could see economic prosperity such as has never been seen before in our Nations history. You see, there is plenty of room for outlandish optimism for our Nation. That is if the politicians that “we” elect don’t blow it. Darvin Dowdy [visit my site to see this essay complete w/all the essential hyperlinks: http://streetlevel.blogtownhall.com]


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: energy; ethanol; ethanolbiofuelcorn
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last

1 posted on 09/04/2008 8:45:55 PM PDT by Darvin Dowdy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Darvin Dowdy

No thanks. I prefer free markets, not corporate welfare.


2 posted on 09/04/2008 8:49:17 PM PDT by ari-freedom (You better think think about what you're trying to do to me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darvin Dowdy

In before the zot?


3 posted on 09/04/2008 8:52:10 PM PDT by Califreak (Rome is burning and nobody cares)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darvin Dowdy

Sorry, I must respectfully disagree. The ends do not justify the means. Increasing agri-business is great, but we don’t need to do it in the most wasteful way possible.


4 posted on 09/04/2008 8:52:42 PM PDT by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darvin Dowdy

Sorry, Darvin, but ethanol production is an idiotic dead-end designed to enrich the agri special interests. Ethanol is a scam of gigantic proportions, and the people that promote it are smart enough to know it. That, sir, is the definition of “GRIFTER”.


5 posted on 09/04/2008 8:53:04 PM PDT by thelastvirgil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darvin Dowdy

Dear, dear Darvin, let us NOT count the ways you are a fool, lest we have to hog every byte in Cyberdom.

Corn, at Best, is a huge waste of resources!


6 posted on 09/04/2008 8:55:54 PM PDT by FastCoyote (I am intolerant of the intolerable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darvin Dowdy

BTTT -for later refute of all this bullsh!t@


7 posted on 09/04/2008 8:56:08 PM PDT by aShepard (Loose lips Sink ships)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darvin Dowdy
Burning food for energy is akin to replacing food with oil.

Shots of Pennzoil on me!!

8 posted on 09/04/2008 8:56:47 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darvin Dowdy

“the number one crop in the U.S. happens to be corn which is also very suitable for making ethanol”

This is the point where I stopped reading this BS


9 posted on 09/04/2008 8:57:18 PM PDT by Figment ("A communist is someone who reads Marx.An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx" R Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darvin Dowdy

Ethanol is corrosive, and costs you 1/3 of your power, torque, and fuel economy.

It also costs a ton more to produce than its artificially-subsidized price, so you’re really paying 6 or 8 bucks for every gallon of it forced into your tank (and actually more, since people don’t pay taxes uniformly and if you’re on this forum you probably work for a living and thus shoulder the burden).

Farmers are already incredibly subsidized, so it’s absurd to throw even more money at them. If the product were legitimate, it would stand on its own two feet in the free market where people vote with their pocketbook.

Drop the subsidies, and drop the asinine laws mandating ethanol in the gas we have to put in cars not designed for it. Let distributors who want to sell E85 in the mid-grade slot to anyone willing to pay its true cost.


10 posted on 09/04/2008 8:58:34 PM PDT by BobbyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darvin Dowdy

What a joke. Burning our food for fuel , and as I’ve read, no economic benefits from it. No thanks.


11 posted on 09/04/2008 8:58:52 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (Bob Taft has soiled the family name for the next century.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darvin Dowdy
This is load of crap.

"You see, the ethanol program has had some, shall we say, unexpected consequences. Yes, the price of corn has almost tripled just in the last few years. From around $2. per bushel, now up to around $6. per bushel. Why? Because of the demand brought on by the ethanol program. Ha! Our farmers, after decades of being in the red, are now solidly in the black."

That's your sales pitch? Meanwhile, worldwide, virtually all food items have risen significantly in price. I'm glad for the farmers, but for all the good it's doing anyone else, I'd rather just toss the farmers a pile of money. It'd be cheaper.

And did you know that, according to the Farm Bureau, only 1% of U.S. farms are corporate owned, by the way?

This is one of those deliberately tweaked statistics that is so clumsily stated that's it's laughable. Yeah, cool, dude, how many acres of corn growing land are corporate-owned versus privately owned? And why should anyone care? I'm not impressed or unimpressed by the use of the owrd "corporate" which is just a variation in the form of ownership.

Add to that the increased demand for corn exports. A somewhat rosy picture for our family farms as the U.S. is, by far, the largest exporter of corn in the world. And the U.S. Farmer is not the only beneficiary. How about the American taxpayer? Due to farmers opting out of government subsidies because its more profitable to grow, we taxpayers will also benefit. And grain exports help our nagging trade deficit that seems to never end:

Oh yeah, ADM and ConAgra are in this to reduce our trade deficit. Sure. Got it.

So there you have it. Look what the ethanol program has done for the U.S.! Just in this short time. This is a boon for the U.S. agri-economy, short and long term. Now do you understand why there is so much resistance to those wanting to end it?

We all love sound bites here, especialy when they are addressed to a sixth grade intelligence level.

And there is also resistance to the ethanol program, itself. Much of that resistance is coming from outside the U.S.

And much of that resistance is from inside the US, where higher food costs are squeezing consumers. There's also dirty rotten resentment of the subsidies taxpayers have to pay for this inefficicent fuel, having nothing to do with greenhouse gases which most people don't give a crap about.

Hey, if I drop a quarter in will you give the same speech again?

12 posted on 09/04/2008 9:07:47 PM PDT by Attention Surplus Disorder (Congrasites = Congressional parasites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darvin Dowdy

I don’t have anything against ethanol as a fuel, but it’s not worth it when the result is a net energy loss mixed with an increase in food prices.

Any gains seen thus far are an illusion from bad math skills or wishful thinking.

Wake me up when we do it correctly. Corn is the wrong choice for starters.


13 posted on 09/04/2008 9:13:26 PM PDT by Outland (Liberalism is a mental disorder. Socialism is a deep psychosis. Communism is brain cancer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darvin Dowdy

Ethanol was tried as an additive to gasoline in the 1970’s when I was living in North Dakota and was a miserable failure. Extremely poor performance and damage to engines doomed it then. The quality may have improved in terms of performance and newer engines are able to burn it today. However, the costs of producing that ethanol is prohibitive, and the costs of corn as a food product will take away any agri-business benefits. Sorry, but you can’t be more wrong on this issue.


14 posted on 09/04/2008 9:13:26 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Dad of a U.S. Army Infantry Soldier, and enthusiastic supporter of McCain/Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darvin Dowdy
Meaning the price of whiskey will go up, too. Another sacrifice!

Take that stuff out of the ethynol fuel that prevents people from drinking it. Then we can drink moonshine straight from the pump for $4 a gallon!

Actually we can produce fuel from coal for about 50 cents a gallon now. Of course we would need flex fuel vehicles to use them. I generally agree with free markets, but I would support one government mandate, that all cars have chips that allow them to switch between fuels. It only costs about $100 and would allow us to use other fuels in the event of an oil disruption. That makes it a matter of national secuirity, the only legitimate justification.

BTW I recently heard that Henry Ford designed the Model T to run on alcohol with the idea that fuel would be created locally, and the oil companies helped push for prohibition to eleminate the possiblity. Don't know if it's true or not, but I would like to find out if there's anything to it.

15 posted on 09/04/2008 9:15:03 PM PDT by Hugin (Mecca delenda est!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Outland

“I don’t have anything against ethanol as a fuel, but it’s not worth it when the result is a net energy loss”

Sounds like you do have something against ethanol as a fuel: it’s inefficient.


16 posted on 09/04/2008 9:16:29 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Darvin Dowdy
Burning food for fuel is a stupid idea. Ethanol is for drinking, not fuel!
17 posted on 09/04/2008 9:18:04 PM PDT by Beagle8U (FreeRepublic -- One stop shopping ....... Its the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darvin Dowdy

With a few hundred years of oil in California, eliminate the subsidies for ethanol and we won’t have to put up with the garbage!

There is no global warming!


18 posted on 09/04/2008 9:22:11 PM PDT by dalereed (both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darvin Dowdy
Well it's great that farmers are in the black (and I really mean that), but turning "food", you know stuff people need to live, into fuel is - forgive me - stupid.

If you want to look for alternatives, and no reason we shouldn't, I'm quite intrigued with the prospects of algae.

19 posted on 09/04/2008 9:31:16 PM PDT by AFreeBird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darvin Dowdy

Hey, I’m all for the Corn Ethanol program. That is at least if we can store the lightning in charcol lined wooden barrels of course.
Shame to waste such good stuff on a car......


20 posted on 09/04/2008 9:34:15 PM PDT by Doc91678 (Doc91678)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 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