ethanol subsidies survive

[Azazello1313]

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) forced a vote on eliminating an excise tax credit for ethanol. Something like this should be a no-brainer. Tax subsidies for ethanol are economically wasteful and environmentally destructive. Yet the vote failed, 59–40. This could have been a tough vote for Republicans, as some conservatives consider the repeal of tax credits tantamount to tax increases, but most Republicans did the right thing. Only a handful of farm state GOP Senators (and, inexplicably, Ohio’s Rob Portman) voted to preserve this pork. Senate Democrats, on the other hand, largely lined up with the corn lobby, against American consumers, taxpayers and environmental concerns. Senate majority leader Harry Reid actively whipped against the measure because of alleged procedural problems.

it kinda makes you lose any scintilla of faith you may have had left in these bassturds getting the fiscal house in order when you can't even get more than 40 votes in favor of eliminating such absolutely moronic spending as corn ethanol subsidies.

[Azazello1313]

big corn eats GOP

[The Irish Doggy]

Yeah, corn-related subsidies in general are a killer on many levels.

[bpwallace49]

What it has done is raise food prices. As demand for corn goes up, so does its price, along with the price of every other food that relies on corn. The Congressional Budget Office calculated that up to 15% of the rise in food prices from 2007-2008 was due to the increased use of ethanol.

 

If there's a silver lining, it's that the momentum is clearly on the side of at least chucking the tax subsidy. It has growing bipartisan support — Coburn's bill is co-sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. — and the backing of a wide range of groups, from free marketers to farmers to environmentalists.

 

Hopefully, more Republicans will come to realize that they only undercut their "get government off our backs" message by kowtowing to the ethanol lobby.

 

 

I never got why this was a "good idea" when it was passed in 2005 and still dont. This just shows for all the bickering over the small issues, the parties are indistinguishable when it comes to bowing down to whatever industry will support them.

[The Irish Doggy]

I never got why this was a "good idea" when it was passed in 2005 and still dont. This just shows for all the bickering over the small issues, the parties are indistinguishable when it comes to bowing down to whatever industry will support them.

 

It was sold as a "green" initiative to the public, but really it was a money grab made possible by the farm lobby IMO.

Edited June 15, 2011 by The Irish Doggy

[bpwallace49]

It was sold as a "green" initiative to the public, but really it was a money grab made possible by the farm lobby IMO.

 

It was also sold as a way to get off that nasty terrorist oil and keep prices down.

 

How did that work out?

 

What a disaster . . .

[Azazello1313]

It was sold as a "green" initiative to the public, but really it was a money grab

 

which describes about 90% of what is sold to us as "energy policy".

[SEC=UGA]

Jackasses.

[Ursa Majoris]

which describes about 90% of what is sold to us as "energy policy".

Fixed

[Square]

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) forced a vote on eliminating an excise tax credit for ethanol.

This guy is actually pretty awesome. It's too bad he doesn't get more press. Every time I hear something about him it seems like he is one of the few sane people in Washington.

[yo mama]

Ethanol is actually good. But corn-based ethanol is vastly inferior to the sugarcane ethanol produced in Brazil. Most new cars there are being produced to run on *both* gas and ethanol, which gives consumers the purchasing power to buy what is available and makes the most economic sense. (You can literally fill one tank with gasoline and ethanol the next without have to convert anything. They just build that flexibility into the new cars, many of which are being manufactured for the Brazilian market by US car makers). That protects consumers from price fluctuations in gasoline prices and is better for the environment. But the US has put a large tariff on Brazilian ethanol in an effort to protect domestic corn growers, despite their inferior ethanol product.

 

Think about it: we could all be paying about a buck a gallon less for our fuel if Brazilian ethanol could be imported without market barriers. Maybe we wouldn't be "energy independent." But at least we wouldn't be dependent on middle eastern oil.

[SEC=UGA]

Ethanol is actually good. But corn-based ethanol is vastly inferior to the sugarcane ethanol produced in Brazil. Most new cars there are being produced to run on *both* gas and ethanol, which gives consumers the purchasing power to buy what is available and makes the most economic sense. (You can literally fill one tank with gasoline and ethanol the next without have to convert anything. They just build that flexibility into the new cars, many of which are being manufactured for the Brazilian market by US car makers). That protects consumers from price fluctuations in gasoline prices and is better for the environment. But the US has put a large tariff on Brazilian ethanol in an effort to protect domestic corn growers, despite their inferior ethanol product.

 

Think about it: we could all be paying about a buck a gallon less for our fuel if Brazilian ethanol could be imported without market barriers. Maybe we wouldn't be "energy independent." But at least we wouldn't be dependent on middle eastern oil.

 

How is ethanol better for the environment?

[yo mama]

How is ethanol better for the environment?

It burns cleaner than fossil fuels; fewer bad emissions. Plus, it has greater energy balance (i.e., one unit of hydrocarbons will make more units of ethanol power than gasoline power). Well, sugarcane based ethanol, anyways, which has like 4 times better energy balance than corn-based ethanol.

 

And its renewable.

Edited June 15, 2011 by yo mama

[Azazello1313]

It burns cleaner than fossil fuels; fewer bad emissions.

 

it burns cleaner than gasoline (if you discount the energy it takes to make the ethanol). I'm not sure it burns cleaner than other fossil fuels (like natural gas).

[SEC=UGA]

It burns cleaner than fossil fuels; fewer bad emissions. Plus, it has greater energy balance (i.e., one unit of hydrocarbons will make more units of ethanol power than gasoline power). Well, sugarcane based ethanol, anyways, which has like 4 times better energy balance than corn-based ethanol.

 

And its renewable.

 

I'm not in as much of the "know" about sugar cane ethanol, but have read numerous articles that corn ethanol takes more energy to produce than it gives out.

 

Also, I believe that the US govt. does not subsidize cane ethanol thereby rendering that resource as an insignificant provider of ethanol for the US.

 

I think what many people fail to calculate into the equation for ethanol is it's detrimental impacts on many levels. First, you could start out with ethanol production and subsidies leading to an increase in the price of consumer/feed corn products. As many farmers begin to switch their crops for ethanol production they are lowering their production of corn that is used for foods and livestock feed, essentially driving up the price of these products that use corn.

 

Ethanol production is environmentally harmful. In order to produce enough ethanol to have a significant impact on fossil fuel consumption, millions of acres of forest and other lands would have to be cleared for farming. You then have to water these crops, with water being a very finite resource as well. This would lead to damming of tributaries which could further screw up the ecology of our rivers and streams.

 

You would also have a massive increase in the amount of fertilizers that would be used to nourish the crops. Most fertilizers today are made from petrochemicals, well, you see where that one is going. Further, with regard to the fertilizers, they would most certainly end up in lakes, rivers and creeks, this could also deteriorate the ecology of these waterways.

 

From the clearing of these lands for ethanol crop production you also destroy natural, native, environments upon which numerous flora and fauna are dependent. The clearing can also lead to top soil erosion and in times of drought you could create a second dust bowl event.

 

Without subsidies, to the tune of roughly $.55 per gallon, ethanol is not cheaper than gasoline.

Edited June 16, 2011 by SEC=UGA

[Yukon Cornelius]

I'm not in as much of the "know" about sugar cane ethanol, but have read numerous articles that corn ethanol takes more energy to produce than it gives out.

 

Also, I believe that the US govt. does not subsidize cane ethanol thereby rendering that resource as an insignificant provider of ethanol for the US.

 

I think what many people fail to calculate into the equation for ethanol is it's detrimental impacts on many levels. First, you could start out with ethanol production and subsidies leading to an increase in the price of consumer/feed corn products. As many farmers begin to switch their crops for ethanol production they are lowering their production of corn that is used for foods and livestock feed, essentially driving up the price of these products that use corn.

 

Ethanol production is environmentally harmful. In order to produce enough ethanol to have a significant impact on fossil fuel consumption, millions of acres of forest and other lands would have to be cleared for farming. You then have to water these crops, with water being a very finite resource as well. This would lead to damming of tributaries which could further screw up the ecology of our rivers and streams.

 

You would also have a massive increase in the amount of fertilizers that would be used to nourish the crops. Most fertilizers today are made from petrochemicals, well, you see where that one is going. Further, with regard to the fertilizers, they would most certainly end up in lakes, rivers and creeks, this could also deteriorate the ecology of these waterways.

 

From the clearing of these lands for ethanol crop production you also destroy natural, native, environments upon which numerous flora and fauna are dependent. The clearing can also lead to top soil erosion and in times of drought you could create a second dust bowl event.

 

Without subsidies, to the tune of roughly $.55 per gallon, ethanol is not cheaper than gasoline.

it is good to see someone who realizes that mother earth is in danger .

[SEC=UGA]

it is good to see someone who realizes that mother earth is in danger .

 

I'm pulling for hydrogen power, myself. We need a Manhattan project to make it a reality. Then we don't have to worry about all this strip mining and land clearing just so we can get to and from work.

[Ursa Majoris]

I'm pulling for hydrogen power, myself. We need a Manhattan project to make it a reality. Then we don't have to worry about all this strip mining and land clearing just so we can get to and from work.

First, we kill all the vested interests...........

 

(Apologies to Shakespeare)

[TimC]

No one that owns a Vette will let ethanol touch his V-8. That stuff is nasty.

 

The Great Ethanol Scam

[SEC=UGA]

First, we kill all the vested interests...........

 

(Apologies to Shakespeare)

 

I'm not above calling for an overthrow of the US government. My great, great, great, grandpappy did it, he lost his eye, ear, the right side of his nose, three fingers, a tow, and a quarter sized piece of bone from his skull to those dirty Union maggots; but to this day says it was worth it.

[Clubfoothead]

The idea that those opposed to ethanol subsidies are so based on anything other than being bought out by the opposing lobby is a freaking joke. There's no principled stand being made here, these are the same people who think BP is capable of self regulation and who want to eliminate the EPA. Now they are going to defend the environment when it comes to ethanol? You wish I were as stupid as you think I am.

 

I used to think I was opposed to ethanol subsidies. Given the parade of enemies of America opposed to ethanol subsidies, I was clearly wrong. A great huddler once said go sell your crazy somewhere else. He nailed this one.

 

Please.

[Azazello1313]

The idea that those opposed to ethanol subsidies are so based on anything other than being bought out by the opposing lobby is a freaking joke. There's no principled stand being made here, these are the same people who think BP is capable of self regulation and who want to eliminate the EPA. Now they are going to defend the environment when it comes to ethanol? You wish I were as stupid as you think I am.

 

I used to think I was opposed to ethanol subsidies. Given the parade of enemies of America opposed to ethanol subsidies, I was clearly wrong. A great huddler once said go sell your crazy somewhere else. He nailed this one.

 

Please.

 

if you can be tricked into supporting a stupid, unsupportable position out of simple dislike for a narrow swath of the people who recognize it as such, well then you're a lot stupider than I ever thought.

[TimC]

Are farmers still poor and having their farms stolen by large companies....or is that why John Cougar Mellencamp doesn't have any new records anymore? Subsidiaries for all companies lead us down a slippery slope. Farms are a great example of this.

[Ursa Majoris]

Are farmers still poor and having their farms stolen by large companies....or is that why John Cougar Mellencamp doesn't have any new records anymore? Subsidiaries for all companies lead us down a slippery slope. Farms are a great example of this.

This. Instead of isolating ethanol, all farm subsidies should be completely scrapped. Most go to mega-agriculture conglomerates anyway. They have long since outlived their usefulness.

[yo mama]

First, we kill all the vested interests...........

 

(Apologies to Shakespeare)

(Gratitude from the lawyers)