Posted on 01/21/2016 2:17:48 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
One of the most destructive environmental subsidies in the United States has found an enthusiastic supporter in Donald Trump.
"The EPA should ensure that biofuel ... blend levels match the statutory level set by Congress," he said yesterday in Iowa, adding that he was "there with you 100 percent" on continuing federal support for ethanol. "You're going to get a really fair shake from me."
The ethanol lobby has rigorously courted Trump since April, arranging to speak at least weekly, including at least three in-person meetings, in addition to an ethanol-plant tour, the Wall Street Journal reports.
Trump's support for ethanol may win him votes in Iowa, but federal support for ethanol is a bum deal for Americans.
Under the 2007 Independence and Security Act, Congress mandated that the United States use 36 billion gallons of biofuels, including corn ethanol and cellulosic biofuel, by 2022.
And the federal government not only requires the use of ethanol; it also subsides it. Tax credits between 1978 and 2012 cost the Treasury as much as $40 billion. Moreover, numerous other federal programs, spanning multiple agencies, allot billions of dollars to ethanol in the form of grants, loan guarantees, tax credits, and other subsidies.
Taxpayers suffer in other ways, too. Vehicles can drive fewer miles per gallon using ethanol blends than they would with pure gasoline. So Americans end up spending an extra $10 billion per year for fuel, the Institute for Energy Research estimates.
Ethanol also guzzles 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop, and the resulting scarcity drives up the price of food. This year alone, the Congressional Budget Office estimated, American consumers will spend $3.5 billion more on groceries because of the ethanol mandate.
Rising prices of corn feed have even put some small feedlots and ranches out of business. And as grocery prices increase, so does federal spending on programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
In a further hallmark of terrible policy, it's probably not even possible for Americans to meet the ambitious ethanol goals Congress and the bureaucrats at the EPA have envisioned.
Ethanol-intensive fuel blends can wreak havoc on car, lawnmower, and boat engines. In fact, many vehicle manufacturers will no longer offer warranties when ethanol comprises 10 percent or more of fuel; engine erosion simply becomes too common.
So, we can't really increase the total amount of ethanol mixed into our gasoline much more, but - especially as vehicles become more fuel efficient - Americans aren't consuming enough gasoline to meet the Renewable Fuel Standards with a 10 percent ethanol blend. The EPA acknowledged this inconvenient mismatch last spring, setting three-year ethanol-use requirements at 3.75 billion gallons below the legal minimums.
Ethanol's green benefit is also far from certain, explaining why even many within the environmentalist Left question - or outright oppose - the federal government's support.
It takes about 29 percent more energy to refine a gallon of ethanol than gasoline, and that process is often fueled by dirty sources like coal. Factor in the emissions generated during this production process, and ethanol sometimes comes in less green than old-fashioned gasoline. On top of that, burning ethanol also emits higher quantities of the chemical compounds that produce smog.
Then again, perhaps it's not surprising that Trump likes federal support of ethanol. After all, the real-estate mogul's business model has historically hinged on using tax abatements and other subsidies to make his building projects profitable.
(An example: As we reported in August, Trump Tower - which features a Gucci store Trump claimed was "worth more money than Romney" - has received a $163.775 million tax break from the city of New York.)
Many of Trump's constituents have rejected the so-called Republican establishment because of its corrupt preferential treatment for Wall Street and Big Business. But Trump's support for ethanol belies his populist Main Street rhetoric. In reality, he's just another rich, East Coast politician who would prop up special interests at the expense of the taxpayer.
-Jillian Kay Melchior writes for National Review as a Thomas L. Rhodes Fellow for the Franklin Center. She is also a senior fellow at the Independent Women's Forum and the Tony Blankley Fellow at the Steamboat Institute.
You people are “maroons”. Distort The “markes”
Plenty of folks got jobs fracking for oil. I know a number of folks who just moved to where the oil jobs were to get the money. That is how America was developed as we moved west and to other areas in search of a better life. You need to get a basic education to include spelling. At present Texas has the best economy in the nation. I lived in Nebraska when the Army sent me to college for two years. Those Nebraska and Iowa folks have corn. Nebraska is big in cattle also with insurance companies like United and Mutual of Omaha plus Physicians. Omaha also had the Union Pacific HQ. Iowa is big in hog farming as I knew a man who sold those confinement buildings with auto feeders all over the western half of the state. Iowa is a bit more diversified to the east, but; their econ is not as good as Texas. All handout programs should end as this nation used to be 100% capitalism except for the damn FED and Washington DC bankers as Andrew Jackson had run ins with the bankers.
Throwing US agriculture into a deflationary spiral won't help any starving people. It will create more. You don't know what you're talking about and your ideas are dangerous.
I like Trump but I must say that from a realistic stand point ETHANOL IS STUPID!!!
Agree.
What do mean, “he has to give him a chance??? “. A chance to do what? F**k the country up? Again.. if Trump were conservative — which he most certainly is not — he would’ve manned up and expressed a deep trepidation for Obama’s agenda.
Are you going to use that same rationale for Trump’s effusive praise of Hillary in 2012?
No paid GOPe operative here is ever going to cop to it. But from the evidence of postings you’re my number one candidate for one.
“Injecting politics into the food supply like this is dangerous.”
That’s rich... It is all about politics and forcing people to buy things without a choice by force of government.
So whomever has the best lobbyist for their particular product wins the crony jackpot... Wow!
First off please identify the Constitution programs you speak of that are mandated.
Although I must admit I was thinking of non-Constitution mandates.
Yes. he tailors his BS to please.
The attacks on U.S. Agriculture are endless. The food producers must be punished. 50 million on food stamps, free meals to school kids, and over 50% of federal budget sucked up by the parasites, but hey, to this liberal writer, going after less than 0.01% of the budget is more important.
*had to give...
Sorry, pal—I grew up on a farm and come from the farm industry. None of the sorry old scare stories from the Depression apply in our modern era.
Once again, crops of all types around the world are provided for to the market on a steady basis, though, yes, there are some fluctuations in pricing.
Crony agricultural capitalism (most of all involving ethanol) should be eliminated.
You’re a real Alinsky tool.
200,000 miles is not unusual for modern gasoline engines. engines have never lasted longer. The suspension and bodies tend to go out well before the motors. ethanol is not ruining engines.
For those who want to put ethanol in their gas tanks: knock yourselves (and your engines) out. Just don’t force the rest of us to do so, and to pay for the “benefit”.
That would be nice cheapest gallon of whole milk I can find here is $4 a gallon.
Oh, yeah—that’s me.
Buy your fuel from Iowa,
or al-Queda and al-Exxon
take your pick””
Iowa is clearly the enemy.
Most Americans prefer a stable economy and a stable food supply. If you don’t like it, you should consider moving to Africa.
What???
First, we get very little oil from the middle east.
Second, if something makes economic sense you don’t have to force people to buy it. They will because it saves them money.
Third, the rest of the world will continue to use cheap oil whether we do or not. Using more expensive fuel only lowers our standard of living while the rest of the world continues on using cheap oil.
What the hell planet do you live on?
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.