TOTALLY GEEKED!

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: The Big Lie that is Ethanol


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
The Big Lie that is Ethanol
Permalink  
 


The Big Lie that is Ethanol

Trump supports, Cruz decries federal mandate that costs taxpayers, consumers billions of dollars

 

Every four years, almost every presidential hopeful pledges fidelity to ethanol in the politically crucial state of Iowa. But critics contend government policy distorts the free market and adds costs to fuel and food.

Ethanol has become a key dividing line in the increasingly bitter fight between billionaire Donald Trump and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in the run-up to the Feb. 1 Iowa caucuses. Trump supports the ethanol mandate — and even suggested this week increasing support — while Cruz has defied conventional practice by proposing a phase-out of requirements that fuel contain ethanol.

ADVERTISING
 

To ethanol opponents, the corn lobby and Iowa’s status as the kickoff of the presidential election, are sources of never-ending frustration.

“This is one of the largest continuing robberies in American history,” said Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. “It costs more than traditional fuel, and it’s worse for the environment than traditional fuel. It’s a terrible, terrible deal.”

Many environmentalists, who once backed ethanol as a green fuel, now agree. The Environmental Working Group contends that ethanol causes more environmental problems than it solves. Some studies indicate the production of ethanol uses almost as much or more energy than it creates. And there’s increasing evidence the gasoline additive is not good for car engines, and greatly shortens the lifespan of small, two-stroke engines, like those found in lawn mowers and chainsaws.

 
 
 
 
 
Iowa Governor Tells Voters to Reject Ted Cruz
Inform
 
 
 
30307632.jpg?t=1453227660

Emily Cassidy, a research analyst for the advocacy group, said since Congress mandated ethanol in the nation’s fuel supply in 2007, skyrocketing prices for corn have prompted farmers to plow over millions of acres of grasslands to grow more. This both increases carbon emissions and contaminates water, she said.

"It’s really bad in the short term, and it’s not even proven to be good in the long term," she said.

A spokesman for the American Coalition for Ethanol did not respond to inquiries from LifeZette. But industry backers argue that ethanol contributes to American energy independence and creates thousands of jobs. The association also contends the industry has sparked innovations in farming and biotechnology.

To Bryce, such arguments are hogwash. He said that since 2005, ethanol has added about $104 billion to the cost of gasoline. A study last year by the University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture estimated the corn ethanol industry has received $50 billion in taxpayer and market subsidies since 2005. Combined with the fuel increases, that puts the total 10-year cost at about $150 billion.

392px-Ethanol_production_and_imports_in_the_USBryce said all of the ethanol production facilities in the country have increased the fuel supply by the equivalent of 600,000 barrels per day. The increase in domestic oil production is six times greater than that, he said.

"This has never been about foreign oil," he said. "It’s always been about farm subsidies."

The ethanol mandate passed by Congress in 2007 has created an enormous demand for corn and other crops used in biofuels. According to the Congressional Budget Office, about 40 percent of the corn crop now goes to fuel. In addition to raising fuel costs, studies indicate the policy also made food more expensive. A 2013 study by the consulting firm FarmEcon LLC indicates the cost of food as a percentage of after-tax income, after steadily declining since 1950, has been rising again since 2006.

Increasing Food Costs in the U.S.
Food costs rise above trend since ethanol use skyrocketed
2006+  $82
2007+$139
2008+$126
2009+$250
2010+$264
2011+$423
2012+$514
 
Source: FarmEcon

The study estimated the ethanol mandate has contributed to an increase since 2005 in the annual food bill for the average family of four of $2,055 beyond the long-term trend. Tom Super, a spokesman for the American Chicken Council, said the situation likely has worsened since the study came out in 2013.

"Four out of every 10 rows of corn is now going into our gas tanks instead of food or animal feed," he said. "The tab keeps getting run up under this broken law."

Super said the policy not only raises the price of corn on the cob but "anything that eats corn and anything that has corn as an ingredient, which is a lot."

A 2014 report by the Congressional Budget Office indicates that meeting the demands of the 2007 law would increase the cost of diesel fuel in 2017 between 30 and 51 cents per gallon and the price of E10 fuel — gasoline mixed with 10 percent ethanol — by 13 to 26 cents per gallon. At the same time, the report forecast "only limited potential" for reducing carbon emissions.

Bryce and Super argued that the politics of ethanol would be far different if Iowa were not first on the presidential calendar. All of the major candidates except for Cruz and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul favor keeping the ethanol mandate.

 

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/the-big-lie-that-is-ethanol/



__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/

FNW


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 18703
Date:
Permalink  
 

Ethanol is just a way to give money to the farmers. It is bad for the environment, and bad for the machines. The result? Food shortages.

__________________

#it's5o'clocksomewhere



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

There is something fundamentally wrong about using food for fuel. That's absurd. We have gas, coal, oil , and on and on. Develop nuclear power, etc. Don't use food sources as fuel!

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Frozen Sucks!

Status: Offline
Posts: 24384
Date:
Permalink  
 

I find it frustrating that these environmentalist scientists who once championed the use of ethanol didn't think it all the way. The impacts mentioned in the article were all brought to the forefront in opposition of the regulation and the tree huggers still got their way all in the name of political correctness.

__________________

Sometimes you're the windshield, and sometimes you're the bug.

Frozen is the bestest movie ever, NOT!



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

A skewed and ridiculous article.

As per usual, it is less than half the truth.

The TRUTH is that while 40% of the corn may be going to ethanol plants, that isn't the end of the story. AFTER processing for ethanol, SEVENTY percent of that corn is still available to use as cattle feed and is sold and shipped to feedlots for that purpose in the form of distillers grains.

So, actually, only about 12% of the corn crop is actually taken for ethanol.

Subsidies for agriculture are a VERY SMALL portion of the federal budget. The budget for the USDA includes about $11 billion dollars in subsides for farmers--and nearly EIGHTY billion in the form of food stamps.

Plus, you can't unwind the clock. You now have BILLIONS in infrastructure built. THOUSANDS of jobs depend on that industry.

Nothing happens in a vacuum.

__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

I find it frustrating that these environmentalist scientists who once championed the use of ethanol didn't think it all the way. The impacts mentioned in the article were all brought to the forefront in opposition of the regulation and the tree huggers still got their way all in the name of political correctness.


 That's how it works, don't you know?  Whoever pays the most money - those are the studies that get paid attention to.  Other people who disagree are labeled crazies, tree huggers, conspiracy theorists, etc. 



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 4882
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:

A skewed and ridiculous article.

As per usual, it is less than half the truth.

The TRUTH is that while 40% of the corn may be going to ethanol plants, that isn't the end of the story. AFTER processing for ethanol, SEVENTY percent of that corn is still available to use as cattle feed and is sold and shipped to feedlots for that purpose in the form of distillers grains.

So, actually, only about 12% of the corn crop is actually taken for ethanol.

Subsidies for agriculture are a VERY SMALL portion of the federal budget. The budget for the USDA includes about $11 billion dollars in subsides for farmers--and nearly EIGHTY billion in the form of food stamps.

Plus, you can't unwind the clock. You now have BILLIONS in infrastructure built. THOUSANDS of jobs depend on that industry.

Nothing happens in a vacuum.


 Not to mention, it isn't the same corn that humans eat. It's inedible.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

weltschmerz wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

A skewed and ridiculous article.

As per usual, it is less than half the truth.

The TRUTH is that while 40% of the corn may be going to ethanol plants, that isn't the end of the story. AFTER processing for ethanol, SEVENTY percent of that corn is still available to use as cattle feed and is sold and shipped to feedlots for that purpose in the form of distillers grains.

So, actually, only about 12% of the corn crop is actually taken for ethanol.

Subsidies for agriculture are a VERY SMALL portion of the federal budget. The budget for the USDA includes about $11 billion dollars in subsides for farmers--and nearly EIGHTY billion in the form of food stamps.

Plus, you can't unwind the clock. You now have BILLIONS in infrastructure built. THOUSANDS of jobs depend on that industry.

Nothing happens in a vacuum.


 Not to mention, it isn't the same corn that humans eat. It's inedible.


It's edible--but not in the form you might think.  It is used to make hundreds of products--but chiefly high fructose corn syrup found in soda. 

It's also used in things like corn chips and taco shells.   



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Status: Offline
Posts: 24026
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:

A skewed and ridiculous article.

As per usual, it is less than half the truth.

The TRUTH is that while 40% of the corn may be going to ethanol plants, that isn't the end of the story. AFTER processing for ethanol, SEVENTY percent of that corn is still available to use as cattle feed and is sold and shipped to feedlots for that purpose in the form of distillers grains.

So, actually, only about 12% of the corn crop is actually taken for ethanol.

Subsidies for agriculture are a VERY SMALL portion of the federal budget. The budget for the USDA includes about $11 billion dollars in subsides for farmers--and nearly EIGHTY billion in the form of food stamps.

Plus, you can't unwind the clock. You now have BILLIONS in infrastructure built. THOUSANDS of jobs depend on that industry.

Nothing happens in a vacuum.


 Well, as I was told about the gas industry the other day-too damn bad.  They SHOULD suffer since the government isn't "doing the right thing".



__________________


“You may shoot me with your words, you may cut me with your eyes, you may kill me with your hatefulness, but still, like air, I'll rise!”
Maya Angelou



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

A skewed and ridiculous article.

As per usual, it is less than half the truth.

The TRUTH is that while 40% of the corn may be going to ethanol plants, that isn't the end of the story. AFTER processing for ethanol, SEVENTY percent of that corn is still available to use as cattle feed and is sold and shipped to feedlots for that purpose in the form of distillers grains.

So, actually, only about 12% of the corn crop is actually taken for ethanol.

Subsidies for agriculture are a VERY SMALL portion of the federal budget. The budget for the USDA includes about $11 billion dollars in subsides for farmers--and nearly EIGHTY billion in the form of food stamps.

Plus, you can't unwind the clock. You now have BILLIONS in infrastructure built. THOUSANDS of jobs depend on that industry.

Nothing happens in a vacuum.


 Well, as I was told about the gas industry the other day-too damn bad.  They SHOULD suffer since the government isn't "doing the right thing".


Big talk as long as it's not your job in jeopardy.  

 



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

I think the government isn't "doing the right thing" in regards to medical care.

I think we should get rid of ACA, Medicaid, and medicare. We should also get the government out of the business of regulating the industry--including pharmeceuticals.

Think that wouldn't have an impact on the medical profession and medical care in this nation?

 

Oh, and that would save us WAY more money than what ethanol costs.



-- Edited by huskerbb on Saturday 23rd of January 2016 03:18:54 PM

__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Status: Offline
Posts: 24026
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

A skewed and ridiculous article.

As per usual, it is less than half the truth.

The TRUTH is that while 40% of the corn may be going to ethanol plants, that isn't the end of the story. AFTER processing for ethanol, SEVENTY percent of that corn is still available to use as cattle feed and is sold and shipped to feedlots for that purpose in the form of distillers grains.

So, actually, only about 12% of the corn crop is actually taken for ethanol.

Subsidies for agriculture are a VERY SMALL portion of the federal budget. The budget for the USDA includes about $11 billion dollars in subsides for farmers--and nearly EIGHTY billion in the form of food stamps.

Plus, you can't unwind the clock. You now have BILLIONS in infrastructure built. THOUSANDS of jobs depend on that industry.

Nothing happens in a vacuum.


 Well, as I was told about the gas industry the other day-too damn bad.  They SHOULD suffer since the government isn't "doing the right thing".


Big talk as long as it's not your job in jeopardy.  

 


 And that was EXACTLY my point.  It's easy to say oh screw them.  They are part of the problem.  But it's not the same when it's YOUR job on the line.



__________________


“You may shoot me with your words, you may cut me with your eyes, you may kill me with your hatefulness, but still, like air, I'll rise!”
Maya Angelou



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

A skewed and ridiculous article.

As per usual, it is less than half the truth.

The TRUTH is that while 40% of the corn may be going to ethanol plants, that isn't the end of the story. AFTER processing for ethanol, SEVENTY percent of that corn is still available to use as cattle feed and is sold and shipped to feedlots for that purpose in the form of distillers grains.

So, actually, only about 12% of the corn crop is actually taken for ethanol.

Subsidies for agriculture are a VERY SMALL portion of the federal budget. The budget for the USDA includes about $11 billion dollars in subsides for farmers--and nearly EIGHTY billion in the form of food stamps.

Plus, you can't unwind the clock. You now have BILLIONS in infrastructure built. THOUSANDS of jobs depend on that industry.

Nothing happens in a vacuum.


 Well, as I was told about the gas industry the other day-too damn bad.  They SHOULD suffer since the government isn't "doing the right thing".


Big talk as long as it's not your job in jeopardy.  

 


 And that was EXACTLY my point.  It's easy to say oh screw them.  They are part of the problem.  But it's not the same when it's YOUR job on the line.


Oh.  Sorry, I didn't catch that.  My bad.   



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Frozen Sucks!

Status: Offline
Posts: 24384
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

A skewed and ridiculous article.

As per usual, it is less than half the truth.

The TRUTH is that while 40% of the corn may be going to ethanol plants, that isn't the end of the story. AFTER processing for ethanol, SEVENTY percent of that corn is still available to use as cattle feed and is sold and shipped to feedlots for that purpose in the form of distillers grains.

So, actually, only about 12% of the corn crop is actually taken for ethanol.

Subsidies for agriculture are a VERY SMALL portion of the federal budget. The budget for the USDA includes about $11 billion dollars in subsides for farmers--and nearly EIGHTY billion in the form of food stamps.

Plus, you can't unwind the clock. You now have BILLIONS in infrastructure built. THOUSANDS of jobs depend on that industry.

Nothing happens in a vacuum.


 Not to mention, it isn't the same corn that humans eat. It's inedible.


It's edible--but not in the form you might think.  It is used to make hundreds of products--but chiefly high fructose corn syrup found in soda. 

It's also used in things like corn chips and taco shells.   


 But Husker, more fields are being used to make the corn that goes into ethanol, decreasing the amount of fields available for growing food for humans.



__________________

Sometimes you're the windshield, and sometimes you're the bug.

Frozen is the bestest movie ever, NOT!



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Most of the corn is going to feed animals.

Yes, SOME percentage is going to ethanol, but it's not nearly the amount the article makes it out to be.

__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

A skewed and ridiculous article.

As per usual, it is less than half the truth.

The TRUTH is that while 40% of the corn may be going to ethanol plants, that isn't the end of the story. AFTER processing for ethanol, SEVENTY percent of that corn is still available to use as cattle feed and is sold and shipped to feedlots for that purpose in the form of distillers grains.

So, actually, only about 12% of the corn crop is actually taken for ethanol.

Subsidies for agriculture are a VERY SMALL portion of the federal budget. The budget for the USDA includes about $11 billion dollars in subsides for farmers--and nearly EIGHTY billion in the form of food stamps.

Plus, you can't unwind the clock. You now have BILLIONS in infrastructure built. THOUSANDS of jobs depend on that industry.

Nothing happens in a vacuum.


 Well, as I was told about the gas industry the other day-too damn bad.  They SHOULD suffer since the government isn't "doing the right thing".


Big talk as long as it's not your job in jeopardy.  

 


 And that was EXACTLY my point.  It's easy to say oh screw them.  They are part of the problem.  But it's not the same when it's YOUR job on the line.


 Do you know how many jobs were loss because of higher and higher gas costs?  Do you even care?  Do you know the struggle that people on fixed income have had because of dealing with EVERYTHING increasing in price because of how high gas costs have gone?  Oil companies made record profits while those higher gas prices affected just about every other industry and THOSE people's jobs.  But, yeah - I get that you think those that affect you are more important.  As does everyone.



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Status: Offline
Posts: 24026
Date:
Permalink  
 

I don't think anyone is more important than anyone else. But what you are saying is that the workers, who have no fault in this, deserve to pay because the big oil companies ripped people off. No, I don't think the over inflation of oil prices was good. But it went on unregulated. THAT is where I lay the blame. They did what they could get away with and now the people on the bottom are suffering. I promise you that none of the people on the top are suffering right now. They've worked out other deals. When people get greedy innocent people suffer. If you don't care, you don't care. Not my problem.

__________________


“You may shoot me with your words, you may cut me with your eyes, you may kill me with your hatefulness, but still, like air, I'll rise!”
Maya Angelou



Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Status: Offline
Posts: 24026
Date:
Permalink  
 

It's kind of like saying a CEO of a huge business is embezzling money. He's stealing money from other companies all around him. Is he wrong? Yes. Should he suffer? Absolutely. He needs to go to jail. But the fall out is that when his company closes down there are now people without jobs. And it is not THEIR fault their boss did wrong things.

__________________


“You may shoot me with your words, you may cut me with your eyes, you may kill me with your hatefulness, but still, like air, I'll rise!”
Maya Angelou



Frozen Sucks!

Status: Offline
Posts: 24384
Date:
Permalink  
 

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:

I don't think anyone is more important than anyone else. But what you are saying is that the workers, who have no fault in this, deserve to pay because the big oil companies ripped people off. No, I don't think the over inflation of oil prices was good. But it went on unregulated. THAT is where I lay the blame. They did what they could get away with and now the people on the bottom are suffering. I promise you that none of the people on the top are suffering right now. They've worked out other deals. When people get greedy innocent people suffer. If you don't care, you don't care. Not my problem.


 What the heck are you talking about.  It is economics.  When a company has to comply with a ton of regulations in production of their product plus offer benefits, etc to their employees at the cost this country has, that is a huge cost.  During times as we are in now, those oil companies are losing billions just so they don't have to shut refineries completely down, they deserve to make large profits when they can just so they can make it through these times.  Oh and by the way, keeps us NOT depending on OPEC.  Do you even have a clue as to what that means to our security?



__________________

Sometimes you're the windshield, and sometimes you're the bug.

Frozen is the bestest movie ever, NOT!



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 4882
Date:
Permalink  
 

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:

I don't think anyone is more important than anyone else. But what you are saying is that the workers, who have no fault in this, deserve to pay because the big oil companies ripped people off. No, I don't think the over inflation of oil prices was good. But it went on unregulated. THAT is where I lay the blame. They did what they could get away with and now the people on the bottom are suffering. I promise you that none of the people on the top are suffering right now. They've worked out other deals. When people get greedy innocent people suffer. If you don't care, you don't care. Not my problem.


 What the heck are you talking about.  It is economics.  When a company has to comply with a ton of regulations in production of their product plus offer benefits, etc to their employees at the cost this country has, that is a huge cost.  During times as we are in now, those oil companies are losing billions just so they don't have to shut refineries completely down, they deserve to make large profits when they can just so they can make it through these times.  Oh and by the way, keeps us NOT depending on OPEC.  Do you even have a clue as to what that means to our security?


You only get 35% of your oil from OPEC. 



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Which is a significant amount.

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Keystone pipeline. Oh yeah thanks Obama.

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 4882
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

Keystone pipeline. Oh yeah thanks Obama.


 You're still getting most of your oil from Canada. Pipeline or no pipeline.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

So why not build it?

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:

I don't think anyone is more important than anyone else. But what you are saying is that the workers, who have no fault in this, deserve to pay because the big oil companies ripped people off. No, I don't think the over inflation of oil prices was good. But it went on unregulated. THAT is where I lay the blame. They did what they could get away with and now the people on the bottom are suffering. I promise you that none of the people on the top are suffering right now. They've worked out other deals. When people get greedy innocent people suffer. If you don't care, you don't care. Not my problem.


 I did not say they "deserve to pay".  I said the gas prices were artificially inflated, oil companies were making record profits and it was a bubble that was bound to burst.  I said they should have EXPECTED it.  And I objected to the hope and desire that gas prices would go back up so that the oil industry could continue to profit on the backs of the other industries.



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1345
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

A skewed and ridiculous article.

As per usual, it is less than half the truth.

The TRUTH is that while 40% of the corn may be going to ethanol plants, that isn't the end of the story. AFTER processing for ethanol, SEVENTY percent of that corn is still available to use as cattle feed and is sold and shipped to feedlots for that purpose in the form of distillers grains.

So, actually, only about 12% of the corn crop is actually taken for ethanol.

Subsidies for agriculture are a VERY SMALL portion of the federal budget. The budget for the USDA includes about $11 billion dollars in subsides for farmers--and nearly EIGHTY billion in the form of food stamps.

Plus, you can't unwind the clock. You now have BILLIONS in infrastructure built. THOUSANDS of jobs depend on that industry.

Nothing happens in a vacuum.


 Well, as I was told about the gas industry the other day-too damn bad.  They SHOULD suffer since the government isn't "doing the right thing".


Big talk as long as it's not your job in jeopardy.  

 


 my FIL farms and ranches...

and my husband works in a surface coal mines...so both affect my family....but like NJN said on another thread that was not a big deal



__________________

~~Four Wheels Move the Body~~  ~~ Two Wheels Move the Soul~~ 

Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard