General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDemocrats and Republicans agree on need for more Ethanol.
OK, truth in posting time before I begin. I am not a big fan of Ethanol. I am not outraged about it, but I do shake my head at it. I am relieved that I won't be here in a hundred years when they are teaching schoolchildren about this era because I don't want to see children asking the obvious question. "Wait, they turned food into gasoline while people were starving?" That is pretty much the biggest complaint, we can get into BTU's if you want, but that takes us into scientific debate that few of us are able to pull off well.
Now, the point of the post. Both Republican and Democratic Governors have written the EPA to request in the strongest possible terms that the EPA keep those requirements for Ethanol going up. http://www.midwestproducer.com/news/regional/governors-group-urges-administration-to-reconsider-proposed-reductions-to-rfs/article_c4deabea-715b-11e3-b03d-001a4bcf887a.html
In a joint letter to the president, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton, Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman, North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple and South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard argue in defense of the ethanol standard. The letter stresses the importance of ethanol as it diversifies America's energy portfolio, gives consumers choices at the pump, supports economic development in rural communities and reduces harmful emissions across the nation.
OK, besides the obvious laugh point of finally finding big Government regulations that Republicans like, what do we have? We have Governors who are demanding that the rest of the nation keep supporting their states by upping the amount of ethanol we all use. One of the dreaded side effects is that the price for a bushel of corn could drop by 19 cents. That they warn would make the value of the corn less than the cost to produce.
OK, I know there really are some family owned farms and that is a big concern. But most farms are mega farms that are owned by mega corporations, and those guys get tons of subsidies as it is because they have lawyers out the wazoo who search every line of every legislation to find more free money for their bosses. Then they take some of that money, and lobby congress to give them more money in the farm aid bills.
But let's talk about this insistence for more Ethanol use. Part of why the EPA relaxed the rule was that gasoline use was not increasing at the rate estimated when the rules were first written. In fact, gasoline use is declining. In other words, more of us are using more fuel efficient cars to get about. More Hybrids, and more smaller cars. Look on the road, you still see plenty of the big gas guzzlers, but even they are using variable cylinder engines. In other words, they use some, but not all of their cylinders to maintain speed, taking the others offline through some sort of engineering witchcraft. This saves fuel, and it's being done on many cars. I just read an article in which it was offered on the new Audi A-8 full sized extended length executive car's 12 cylinder engine. So if you purchase the 12 cylinder engine you can relax knowing that while you're headed down the interstate, cruising along, that your enormous engine is far more fuel efficient than it would otherwise be.
Sorry, got off on a tangent there. Back on topic. Seriously for a moment, more people are looking at, and using more fuel efficient car, and more people are not driving as often. We're combining trips because we don't have unlimited money like the Audi buyer above. We no longer make one trip to the pharmacy, and then later turn around and head to the grocery store. We combine the trips into one bigger shop with all of the destinations right together.
So what is the problem? Well, we are overproducing ethanol. In fact, we're increasing our production of ethanol, and those states that grow the corn, and have ethanol production in it demand that we use even more. At this rate, instead of having 10% of our gasoline made up of our food, we're going to have 10% of gasoline in our gas. I wondered if those Governors are praying that we all run out and buy huge gas guzzling cars again.
If the Ethanol industry has it's way, we're going to have to buy ethanol for electric cars, not that it will do anything, the car will probably be mandated to boil it off at a certain rate.
As I said, I'm not a big fan of the industry. I understand how it became so powerful, Iowa is the first Presidential stop on the road to the nomination, and no one can win in that state if they oppose Ethanol. But the rest of us don't live in Iowa, and I think it's past time we took control of our economy back from that Podunk state and this idea that we are serving the world by burning up our food in our gas tanks, especially since it isn't helping the Carbon Dioxide production. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ethanol-not-cut-emissions
I am not saying that there is no place for biofuels. I'm just saying that the idea that we have to bump the standards up for a program that isn't working because those states are tied to that industry doesn't make sense. What's next? Mandatory movie nights to make sure that the film industry in California gets the support that it needs? Mandatory orange juice consumption because Florida needs our support?
I like science, and I want to help the planet, don't get me wrong. But I think we should take a long hard look at what we're doing and ask ourselves if this is the way we want to go. Personally, I say feed the people. Stop turning the corn into gasoline, and give the corn to those people all over the world who are starving to death desperate for a bite to eat. But that's me.
hunter
(38,264 posts)Drinking the stuff has a long, long human history,
Drew Richards
(1,558 posts)Gov is required to purchase 20%production and distribute to schools at a loss and purchase additional yearly surplus to maintain oj growers price so that brazil oj doesn't take over all us consumption....
Or at least thats what I remember from various articles from the 70s and 80s.
Kaleva
(36,147 posts)A false statement.
A quick google search brought me to a site which states that in 2004, there were 53,200 farms in Michigan with an average size of 190 acres. Granted, there are a number of large farms in this state that would fit your description of "mega" but for every one of those, there has to be many more small farms with very limited production, gross income, and number of animals.
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)because they're bigger.
In my area, there are corn fields at small farms, but they go to feed the farmer's own cows, and NOT to produce ethanol. Those are the big factory farms.
Oh, and almost ALL the corn used is GMO and comes from Monsanto.
Kaleva
(36,147 posts)then the larger farms account for a majority of total production and gross revenue but one cannot say most farms are mega farms and are owned by mega corporations.
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)bobclark86
(1,415 posts)What's not to love?
enough
(13,237 posts)a snip from that article>
California regulators, trying to assess the true environmental cost of corn ethanol, are poised to declare that the biofuel cannot help the state reduce global warming. As they see it, corn is no better and might be worse than petroleum when total greenhouse gas emissions are considered.
Such a declaration, to be considered later this week by the California Air Resources Board, would be a considerable blow to the corn-ethanol industry in the United States. If passed, the measure could serve as a model as other states and the federal government tackle carbon emissions. But California's regulators say they have no choice.
The state must assess the full climate change impact of corn ethanol under a California law requiring a sharp cut in carbon emissions from transportation fuels. The board must encourage the use of cleaner alternatives like electricity, hydrogen and cellulosic ethanol, said board spokesman Dimitri Stanich.
The proposal would work like this: If increased production of corn-based ethanol in the U.S. raises corn prices and accelerates the conversion of rainforests and conservations lands to farmland worldwide, greenhouse emissions and loss of the carbon sink associated with such deforestation and disruption must be counted towards the biofuel's total emissions. "Losing a carbon sink would defeat the purpose of this regulation to reduce greenhouse emissions," Stanich said.
snip> more
Cleita
(75,480 posts)down the oil extraction being used for gas and the abuses that accompany the production and transportation of said oil products.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)adaptations. I don't understand why gas stations don't have at least one ethanol pump. I would have to drive a couple of hundred miles it seems to find an ethanol pump in my area.