Filed under: Capitalism, Economy, Energy, Law, National Security, Taxes | Tags: Ethanol is a Boondoggle, Failing Basic Math, No Food for Fuel!
In his State of the Union speech in January, President Obama said “We can break our dependence on oil with biofuels.” Corn ethanol is not one of your 21st Century innovations. Henry Ford built his first automobile, the quadricycle, to run on pure ethanol. It’s been around for a very long time.
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 was passed by Congress to “reduce our nation’s dependence on imported petroleum by requiring certain fleets to acquire alternative fuel vehicles which are capable of operating on nonpetroleum fuels.” Several Acts in the meantime ratcheted it up and in 1995, the EPA began requiring the use of reformulated gasoline year round in metropolitan areas subject to smog. September 2006, the Renewable Fuel Standard Program was signed, designed to double the use of ethanol and biodiesel by 2012.
Billions in subsidies for corn ethanol haven’t cut our oil imports. This year 40 percent of the nations corn crop will be consumed for ethanol production. The quantity of grain — 4.9 billion bushels — is more than twice as much as all the corn produced in Brazil and more than six times as much as is grown in India. More corn than the output of the European Union, Mexico, Argentina and India combined. Ethanol producers claim that their sector has a negligible effect on grain prices, but soaring food prices have led to the violent protests across northern Africa. There have been food riots in many developing countries. Rising prices for corn always lead to rising prices for wheat as well. The idea that 40% of our corn crop has no effect of food prices is absurd. !
A Rand Corp. study in 2008 warned that diverting corn to ethanol production was bad economics and a security threat. The OECD projects that global grain prices are likely to be as much as 40 percent higher by 2020 — a disaster for areas where people live on only one or two dollars a day, or less. Bill Clinton said “We have to become energy independent, but we don’t want to do it at the expense of food riots,” to an agricultural conference on Thursday.
The chaos in Libya and unrest in the other oil-producing states has led some analysts to predict unprecedented oil-price spikes. So right now is a really terrible time for the Obama administration to be discouraging the domestic production of oil and natural gas. Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is on hold in spite of the Obama administration being held in contempt of court, and court orders to start drilling within 30 days. The Eastern Gulf, Atlantic , Pacific and Alaskan coasts have all been put out of reach for 7 years.
So the Obama administration wants to stop “subsidizing yesterday’s energy” so that the government can appear to be boosting revenues and cutting back on wasteful expenditures. The taxpayer’s bill for all “subsidies” is around $4.4 billion. Studies show that eliminating these deductions could result in an increased cost to consumers of $11.5 billion per year in the form of higher natural gas prices.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that the cost to taxpayers for using corn ethanol to reduce gasoline consumption by one gallon is $1.78. This year the corn ethanol sector will turn out about 13.8 billion gallons of ethanol — the energy equivalent of about 9.4 billion gallons of gas. According to the CBO’s numbers, the cost of the ethanol boondoggle will be about $ 16.2 billion — in exchange for cutting $4.4 billion . According to energy expert Robert Bryce:
So annual ethanol subsidies are nearly four times as great as those provided for oil and gas, even though domestic drilling provides about 36 times as much energy to the U.S. economy. Per unit of energy produced, the tax preferences given to corn ethanol are 130 times as great as those given to oil and gas.
Do you suppose that this is the reason why President Obama has never released any of his school records? Did he flunk basic arithmetic? The evidence that someone in the White House is mathematically illiterate is piling up.
18 Comments so far
Leave a comment
The first RFS was passed by Congress in 2005, doubled in 2007, not 2006.
“W” and his Ag and Energy Secretaries were just as enthusiastic for biofuels as is the current administration. Of course, Obama and Vilsack should at least be operating with benefit of hindsight.
But, ultimately, blame the Senate and its disproportionate number of farm-state senators. Whether Dem or Rep, they all worship at the alter of King Corn.
Comment by Subsidy Eye February 27, 2011 @ 6:29 pmMy source says the Renewable Fuels Standard Program was signed September, 2006. Secretary Chu is a theoretical physicist, rather than someone versed in the practicalities of energy markets. Salazar is a lawyer.
I don’t think there’s anyone to tell Obama that his treasured idea of a 21st Century green world isn’t going to work, or who would dare to. We are told that Obama’s ideas are set in concrete, and that he doesn’t tolerate dissent. But when there’s a lot of information out there, for example, on the ethanol boondoggle, I expect someone to look into it — not just chat with ethanol producers.
Someone convinced Bush that switchgrass biofuel was promising. The statement that “we are addicted to oil” and “dependent on foreign oil” unfortunately dominate.
Comment by The Elephant's Child February 27, 2011 @ 7:08 pmDon’t know what you mean by “signed”, but current RFS dates from Act of Congress passed in Dec 2007. I follow this issue closely.
Chu has almost nothing to do with ethanol policy. He is a long-time critic of corn ethanol, in fact. But why do you blame the Administration (headed by a former corn-state senator) more than the Senate, and most particularly Grassley (R-Iowa)?
Comment by Subsidy Eye February 27, 2011 @ 7:29 pmSince the majority of the corn grown is fed to
livestock , and human beings were not designed
to eat hamburgers , steaks , and beef stew the
demand on corn for fuel can be solved by having
people adopt a vegetarian diet.
This argument also blows out of the water the
gulf oxygen starvation (dead zones) canard that
is used as “proof” that ethanol is “bad”.
http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/cropmajor.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EH2zjaXfCM
And BTW everyone does not “need” to drive
a gas hog pickup or S.U.V to work.
Comment by Ron spins February 27, 2011 @ 7:31 pm
What do you mean people weren’t designed to ear hamburgers, steaks and stew? Humans are omnivorous. Are you a vegetarian?
Comment by The Elephant's Child February 27, 2011 @ 8:01 pmAccording to the History of Ethanol I found (first link), the first RFS was signed September 2006. Signed means when the president signs it into law. Chu is Secretary of Energy–it’s his job. I don’t know how you get past ideas that are stuck in governmental minds.”Dependent on Foreign Oil” is nonsense. Oil is a global commodity. When we have just celebrated the Green revolution in food, increasing world food supplies and saving many from starvation, putting food crops into our fuel tanks is incredibly stupid. The reigning idea now is “renewable” fuels as opposed to fuels that would come out of the ground if the government weren’t so fixated on “renewable.” It’s claptrap, of course, but so is the other current word “sustainable.” Congressmen who depend on farm support can be defeated by other congressmen who understand that it’s a bad idea.
Comment by The Elephant's Child February 27, 2011 @ 8:23 pmElephant: whatever RFS was “signed” into law in Sept 2006 was then doubled at end of 2007. THAT is the one that now applies.
You need to do some arithmetic and look at the numbers of farm-state senators there are and how they keep voting for ethanol. Focus your ire on Grassley and scare the bejesus out of the other corn acolytes. Please! The ethanol subsidy and tariff are coming up for renewal again this year, and everything will depend on the votes in the Senate.
Comment by Subsidy Eye February 27, 2011 @ 8:49 pmSenators don’t want to hear from anyone not in their state. Congressmen don’t want to hear from anyone not in their district. They have arranged their websites just for that. If you are from Iowa, you can make yourself heard. If you’re not, tough luck. I try to use my small voice on a small blog to inform. The Sainted Rachel Carson announced that DDT was dangerous. Millions of children have died because William Ruckleshaus, when he was in charge of the EPA banned DDT. A well meant mistake based on faulty information that still has not been rescinded, and in Africa and the far east people are not allowed to spray their huts — the most effective way to eliminate malaria.
Comment by The Elephant's Child February 27, 2011 @ 9:40 pmEC
Your teeth were made to eat fruit , nuts , grains
etc …you do not have sharp teeth like a dog
or a cat (which are carnivores , but fed like
omnivores) also you do not have claws , your
hands were made for picking fruits and vegetables
grains , nuts etc.
Your digestive tract is far too long for meat
eating (a carnivore has a very short tract)
Humans are omnivorous because of the flood.
http://www.israelite.info/thebiblestoryfiles/bible-health.html
I was a vegetarian.
At Daytona they started using E-15
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2011/02/17/519531.html
Comment by Ron spins February 27, 2011 @ 9:56 pm
You keep changing the subject. Carson did NOT advocate the elimination of all uses of DDT, and saw it’s merit in controlling Mosquitos around homes. What she was against was it’s use as a broad spectrum incsecticide on crops. Indeed, we can thank it’s restricted use for the fact that it is still effective. Otherwise mosses would have long ago developed resistance to it. You say you revere science: well, then, apply it.
But back to ethanol. What you are saying, in effect is: “I dare not criticize Senators in my own party, so I will try to shift the blame onto a plausible scapegoat, like Chu.” Now, I think that Chu was a dumb choice for heading the DOE, but please be spefic about what he could be doing to end the corn-ethanol madness that would not go against the will of Congress.
Comment by Subsidy Eye February 27, 2011 @ 9:56 pmAnd, by the way: patent protection for DDT expired long ago. Any country that wants to manufacture it and spray peoples’ homes is free to do so.
Comment by Subsidy Eye February 27, 2011 @ 10:02 pmIt is not being used in Africa and east Asia where it is most needed. The problem was never patent protection. I think the WHO banned it in concert with the EPA. Carson thought it was going to kill all the birds, if I remember correctly. She had cancer at the time and probably was blaming that on poisons. I believe some countries won’t let it be used , probably because they believe that the Americans are trying to kill them. Roger Bate heads up a group trying to get DDT spraying to poor rural Africans. I can’t remember the name of the organization, but it’s a major one. It’s not easy.
No I am not saying that I dare not criticize Senators in my own party. I’m happy to criticize. Have you ever tried to write Senators from another state? I have! Midwest Congressional offices don’t want to hear from anyone not from their state, and they make it impossible to contact them. I don’t know much about Grassley. I only know that most corn state congressmen go for what their state’s farmers want. I think Chu was a dreadful pick for Energy, but Obama is VERY impressed with his Nobel. If Chu is opposed to ethanol, does he tell Obama so? Holdren is a nut. Vilsack was a governor of Iowa. I was simply using an example with DDT that came to mind, not changing the subject.
Comment by The Elephant's Child February 28, 2011 @ 12:33 amYour teeth may have been made to eat fruits grains and nuts, but mine were made to enjoy a good steak. Humans have always been omnivorous. It is very difficult for them to get enough protein from a vegetarian diet. And I don’t need claws, I have my neighborhood grocery store. And if push comes to shove, I have my .22 and a fishing pole. I deny your proposition entirely. Did you follow the links in my piece?
Comment by The Elephant's Child February 28, 2011 @ 12:41 amEC
My teeth are the same as your teeth ask any dentist.
I will bring a live cow over to your Elephant
pad in Seattle and we will see how omnivorous
(or carnivorous)you are.Good luck with that.
It’s not difficult at all to get enough protein
from a vegetarian diet (example Sunflower seeds).
I object and have been objecting to the ethanol
hit pieces linking ethanol to increased food
prices (it’s really tied to the price of crude).
This same ethanol argument is raging elsewhere
I just happen to be more on the ethanol is good
side of the argument.
I looked at your links I will not “follow” them
the WSJ articles you supply are most of the times
stubs (for non subscribers) I then go look at
the full article.
Before in reply’s here I have detailed ad nauseum why the food prices skyrocket (many
reasons) but it always comes back to corn.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/25/us-usda-forum-ethanol-idUSTRE71O03V20110225
Good Luck with your Steak
Comment by Ron spins February 28, 2011 @ 10:37 am
I laughed at that one from Slaughter at the time. Sorry about the WSJ links, I can’t tell which ones will work, and what’s behind the paywall. Some aren’t. The WHO and many knowledgeable sources say the rise in the price of grains is largely due to ethanol. Food prices are climbing in this country, but it’s probably not the cost of corn. I think the ethanol push is a scam, terribly costly to people, and unbelievably stupid. Only a very small percentage of cars are flex-fuel, people won’t buy them. We’ll just have to agree to disagree. The rise in food prices was at the very least, a cause of the riots in Tunisia and Egypt. Assad and King Abdullah of Jordan have been buying up vast quantities of grain to be sure their people aren’t hungry.
Comment by The Elephant's Child February 28, 2011 @ 6:46 pmI draw the line at raw meat. I don’t even do Sushi. The articles that I see on ethanol and rising food costs are comparing population needs and grain production figures. How big are the crops this year, how much is in storage and how much do countries that do not produce enough grain need. Has nothing to do with the cost of transportation. When the amount of corn produced is not enough, the price goes up.
Comment by The Elephant's Child February 28, 2011 @ 10:14 pmNow it’s the Nitrogen footprint
Comment by Ron spins March 7, 2011 @ 9:12 pmhttp://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/meet_nitrogenits_the_new_carbo.html
Yep! If people lose interest in CO2, they will have a substitute waiting in the wings. I think the IPCC is going to start saving species. Lots of opportunity for fund raising with pictures of cute baby animals. Americans are terminally susceptible to baby animals. You’v noticed that the polar bear push has petered out. When solid evidence begins to turn up, they shift their focus. Almost makes you sorry for the poor misguided souls who are true believers and just want to save the planet. Almost, but not really.
Comment by The Elephant's Child March 7, 2011 @ 11:52 pm