Posted on 01/23/2016 7:55:50 AM PST by Kaslin
This seems like it may be a day late and a dollar short as the saying goes, but someone has decided to ask a question in Iowa this week which would normally border on blasphemy. Do Iowans really know much about the ethanol issue and, even more to the point, do they really care? Going by the conventional wisdom this seems like a preposterous prospect. Iowa is the domain of King Corn and it drives all things political out there, right? Well, the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) decided to take the question to the voters directly rather relying on the state GOP leaders and some of the answers may surprise you.
With the Iowa caucuses fewer than 10 days away, research commissioned by the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) and completed this week provides new insights into what 700 likely voters across the state know about corn ethanol mandates, how much they care about or are following them, and whether they’re likely to vote on the basis of a candidate’s position on the issue.
Their answer? Not much, not really, and not at all.
"For as long as anyone can remember, conventional political wisdom dictated that candidates had no choice but to support ever-expanding corn ethanol mandates to win in Iowa," said George David Banks, Executive Vice President of ACCF. "Unfortunately, they forgot to ask actual Iowans what they thought about it. As this polling makes clear, not only aren't folks in the nation's largest corn-producing state paying particularly close attention to the back-and-forth over the RFS, they're definitely not using it as some sort of litmus test in determining who to vote for. That might qualify as a revelation to the political class in Washington, but something tells me actual Iowans won't be too surprised to hear that."
Here are a few of the results that jumped out at me:
If true, that might have made a bit of a difference in the shape of the race this year, but coming out less than two weeks before the caucuses it’s difficult to see what changes at this point. And yet it may at least prove useful for the midterms, assuming anything else backs this up later on. The only real questions I have about these numbers are the same ones that crop up whenever we run into these issue polls as opposed to surveys about candidates and elected officials.
If you’re looking for data on which candidates are doing well it’s not nearly as difficult to manage. Do you plan to vote for [CANDIDATES 1 THROUGH 10 or UNDECIDED] in the upcoming election? Similarly you can poll voters about the people in office with a basic query of approve or disapprove. (Strongly or somewhat.) When you get into issue questions, however, a lot depends on the wording and the ebb and flow of the news cycle. Seeing that 94% of Iowans don’t have ethanol in their top three concerns might say something, but it doesn’t mean it’s not a concern, either. Only a third of respondents knew where the candidates stood on the subject, which might be even a bit more telling, but I immediately found myself wondering if that’s just because they assume that all of the candidates back the RFS. It’s been baked into the cake for so long that perhaps they just take it for granted at this point.
Again, one data point such as this isn’t likely to be a game changer. But by the same token, maybe we’re finally seeing the beginning of a new trend. That would shake up both state and national elections and come as a refreshing change.
if hacks from the oil industry, including enemy countries that sell us oil, can print lies for public consumption, how can there ever be a free market based on facts? There is no free market since all of capitalism is crony capitalism in order to survive. You are talking of the ideal, which doesn’t exist. ETOH is simply one good piece of the portable energy pie and it is readily renewable. It represents captured sunlight and CO2.
If it is a good option, why is its use mandated? Why would the market not choose to use it on its own worth?
The original mandate instituted to get the massive infrastructure that was necessary off the ground and in place. I would like to see natural gas follow a similar mandate if we can ever hope to expand this piece of the energy pie infrastructure. The Feds are wasting about 70% of our taxes on welfare.
I would like our government to be limited to the constitution, and not be used to pick winners and losers in private industry.
T.Boone Pickens has done very well making money. He doesn’t need the feds to boost his Natural Gas Fueling company.
First you claim we have been using ETOh since the 70s, then you claim we needed the 2005 Mandate to get it off the ground.
Which is it?
In the 70s it was restricted to the Midwest because of limited production capacity. The goals for the entire country were cleaner energy and reduction in dependence on oil purchased from enemies killing Americans. What additives do you consider acceptable? Why not use something easily renewable made in America?
Which demonstrates by the rest of the country, it wasn't required as a lead replacement.
What additives do you consider acceptable?
It doesn't require additives. The gasoline itself through refinery process can have enough 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane and the like to not require additives.
I have no problem with ethanol used in the free market. I have a great problem with a government mandated ethanol because the people won't choose it on their own.
A Balanced Approach to Octane Replacement
http://www.unep.org/transport/pcfv/PDF/BalancedApproach(Lee-Chook).pdf
Lots of options exist
The market is profit motivated. Sometimes profit comes before what is good for people.
Not a bad link. ETOH looked pretty good by several measures. I didn’t see anything on the trimethyl pentane. Does it fall under alkylates? What business are you in?
I’m an electrical engineer, specialized in power systems. I do contact design engineering. Mostly for oil, gas, petrochemical, but even an occasional small project for wind, radar, military base, etc...
Lots of evil is done by an overbearing government, claimed for the good of the people.
Agreed. I am well aware that governments committed democide and killed in excess of 100 million people in the 20th century alone.
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.