Biofuels industry liable to lose their federal funding

posted at 2:01 pm on July 11, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

House Republicans are looking to eliminate government funding for the biofuels industry through the farm bill — and it feels so good. I am always pleased when any federally subsidized product, service, or industry is finally forced to face the music and compete in the free market based on its meritorious profitability rather than its political profitability.  …Granted, that doesn’t seem to happen often, due the ever-expanding size of our federal bureaucracy and the ensuing tendency to nurture bad policies, but it looks like the biofuels industry may at last find itself released back into the wild of unsubsidized competition.

Biomass and biofuels groups warn that the loss of $800 million in guaranteed federal support would stall progress in developing the fuel source and cause job losses in rural communities that can least afford it.

The industry claims interest groups such as fossil fuel producers and livestock owners have hijacked the process as the House Agriculture Committee begins a markup of the bill this week. …

House Republicans say the plans to choke off funding for biofuels and biomass projects reflect the basic fiscal reality that cuts have to come from somewhere. …

The funding goes toward a variety of loans and grants for bio-refineries and renewable-energy programs, as well as subsidies for dedicated energy crops.

Hmmm. If the loss of federal funding would stall biofuels’ progress, can we be sure that it’s a viable fuel source currently worth the costs? If, without government subsidies, the biofuels industry would bleed jobs, are those really productive jobs that add to economic growth, or are they unproductive jobs that detract from economic growth at taxpayer expense?

While the biofuels industry is of course going to play up the angle that they’re the victims of well-monied interests like big oil, they can really quit acting as if they don’t have powerful political influences of their own. Farming-heavy states and agribusinesses have demonstrated a remarkable penchant for endorsing both liberal and ‘conservative’ politicians who manage to find ample justification for supporting agriculture-related handouts. Even Grist had a post yesterday acknowledging that ethanol is “beloved by farmers,” but obviously, farmers don’t love ethanol itself — they love ethanol subsidies.

What’s most interesting about the debate over the RFS and, specifically, the increase from E10 to E15 is the light it shines on the political process. Midwestern corn-producing states (and their elected officials) are happy about the mandate. Including more ethanol means buying more of the corn from which ethanol is made. Oil producers (and their elected officials) don’t like the increase. More ethanol means less gasoline; less gasoline means less money.

The Grist article also points out that a lot of greenie groups don’t like ethanol, either — the analyses of the environmental benefits versus the costs are highly dubious at best. So, remind me, why are we providing the biofuels industry with all of this “free money,” again? I say it’s time to cut ‘em loose.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

How will our “Green” Water Navy stay operative?

OhEssYouCowboys on July 11, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Somehow I don’t feel this will go anyplace? Gotta keep those citizens in states happy even if it costs millions/billions of taxpayers money?

I would love for this to happen, but won’t hold my breath!
L

letget on July 11, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Good riddance.

Yes.

peski on July 11, 2012 at 2:07 PM

So, remind me, why are we providing the biofuels industry with all of this “free money,” again? I say it’s time to cut ‘em loose.

Purely political pandering and rewarding cronies, and punishing the petroleum industry.

Yup, time to cut. If the rewards in biofuel were there, private investors would pick up on it. So fare its not economically feasable as a less expensive substitute for petroleum products.

No food sources should EVER be used as a fuel product. Bad economics.

hawkeye54 on July 11, 2012 at 2:08 PM

I guess it was stupid of me to sell everything I own to buy that switchgrass-harvester the salesman told me would be all the rage.

Bishop on July 11, 2012 at 2:09 PM

As a person who is not employed by farming or the oil industry I can say without bias that it’s about damn time. I will assume my cousins and buddies in both are in agreement.

If not I’ll kick their asses.

DanMan on July 11, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Purely political pandering and rewarding cronies, and punishing the petroleum industry.

Yup, time to cut. If the rewards in biofuel were there, private investors would pick up on it. So fare its not economically feasable as a less expensive substitute for petroleum products.

No food sources should EVER be used as a fuel product. Bad economics.

hawkeye54 on July 11, 2012 at 2:08 PM

But when your goal is a Command economy and a series of Five Year Plans, and when economic failure is simply blamed on “wreckers,” instead of on incompetent Socialist theory … “bad economics” is irrelevant.

OhEssYouCowboys on July 11, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Nuts, many folks were hoping to pour some pig slop into their cars.

kenny on July 11, 2012 at 2:12 PM

I have invented a very green process. I use plants to collect solar energy. I condense them under pressure then allow the plant matter – rich in fuel energy collected from the sun – to decompose and thereby condense the solar energy into a compact form.

From this, I extract the solar energy and distill it into an even more compact form that can be easily transported and used to power almost any process in the world.

I call this process “petroleum refining.” What do you think? Will it catch on?

Wino on July 11, 2012 at 2:13 PM

killing the subsidies is all well and good but the real money is in the ethanol mandate. that should be the primary target. If government mandated market share doesn’t lead to corruption and cronyism what does?

bannor on July 11, 2012 at 2:15 PM

farmers don’t love ethanol itself

Well, a few of them probably do IYKWIM. On topic, I am cynically skeptical about anything really being eliminated, but if this gets through Congress and even Obama (?!) then I’ll let out a “Hallelujah Amen!!”

jwolf on July 11, 2012 at 2:17 PM

How about cutting all funding for those horrid, ineffective wind farms as well.

AmeriCuda on July 11, 2012 at 2:17 PM

On the Gist, there’s an interview with this lady who wrote a book about breasts:

What’s the take-home message from this book?

A. The human body is really more permeable than we thought, and breasts are just one obvious and visible and in some ways fun example, but all the organs in our bodies are sensitive to environmental change. And breasts in some ways are just a metaphor for environmental health in general. So I think if we can try to take care of our breasts we will also be taking care of our bodies and also be taking care of the planet, because we now know that those things are interconnected. We’re not going to be able to take care of our bodies unless we take care of our environment.

Is that not a gigantic lol? Breasts are a metaphor for the environment? Hah.

preallocated on July 11, 2012 at 2:19 PM

I’ll believe it when I see it. All politicians talk big, but fold as soon as the lobbyist get involved.

search4truth on July 11, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Can someone explain the economic “efficiency” of green bio-fuels that result in the US Navy paying $26 a gallon for green fuel?

Why not just go back to coal-fired ships and just shovel money?

GarandFan on July 11, 2012 at 2:19 PM

I am always pleased when any federally subsidized product, service, or industry is finally forced to face the music and compete in the free market based on its meritorious profitability rather than its political profitability.

Like the internet! Haha. Are you really this vapid? I know the people who blunder around in the dark and end up here are real mouth breathers, but they can’t be this stupid.

How could we be showered with all your pithy regurgitations if it wasn’t for a federally subsidized product?

Would you have the world be deprived of all the honey-covered gold that lies here?

Crass beasts.

tommyhawk on July 11, 2012 at 2:20 PM

If you were picking the absolute worst time to do this, now is the time, just before a national election.

RBMN on July 11, 2012 at 2:20 PM

So, will the Navy quit paying $26/gallon now?

Pitchfork the looters!

Schadenfreude on July 11, 2012 at 2:21 PM

I have invented a very green process. I use plants to collect solar energy. I condense them under pressure then allow the plant matter – rich in fuel energy collected from the sun – to decompose and thereby condense the solar energy into a compact form.

From this, I extract the solar energy and distill it into an even more compact form that can be easily transported and used to power almost any process in the world.

I call this process “petroleum refining.” What do you think? Will it catch on?

Wino on July 11, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Not bad, except that the whole process takes a couple of million years. Kind of a minor setback. ;-)

UltimateBob on July 11, 2012 at 2:21 PM

I call this process “petroleum refining.” What do you think? Will it catch on?

Wino on July 11, 2012 at 2:13 PM

You know, if you can perfect that, I might be able to convert it to mechanical energy using a system of cylinders and pistons connected to a rotating axle I call a “crank-shaft” — it’s pretty simple, if my drawings are correct …

Axe on July 11, 2012 at 2:21 PM

But when your goal is a Command economy and a series of Five Year Plans, and when economic failure is simply blamed on “wreckers,” instead of on incompetent Socialist theory … “bad economics” is irrelevant.

True. The theorists and leadership and their economic plans are always correct. The “wreckers” are those managers and workers who do not understand and blatantly fail in their mission. They must be shot or sent to gulags as punishment for their incompetence and replaced with those who will not tolerate economic failure or they they too will suffer the same fate as their predecessors!!

hawkeye54 on July 11, 2012 at 2:22 PM

In Iowa Romney pledged his support for ethanol subsidies so don’t get too giddy. As far as farmers themselves not liking ethanol–they probably don’t. I live in a rural county in Texas. We all use various small engines that ethanol eventually ruins. Chain saws, electric generators, ATVs, power pressure washers, mowers…you name it. Ethanol shortens the life of these expensive, but necessary tools.

cartooner on July 11, 2012 at 2:23 PM

The Navy should go back to Wind Power like the good old days.

kenny on July 11, 2012 at 2:23 PM

How ’bout getting rid of the ethanol mandate while we’re at it?

Mohonri on July 11, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Let’s not forget that the majority of vehicles on the road are NOT EQUIPPED to handle E15 ethanol blends because seals and hoses break down. Neither is a healthy chunk of the distribution system.

SDN on July 11, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Down the drain money sinks of biofuels, solar, and wind are justified for basically one reason alone: climate change. But that’s bs. First, arguably CO2 has nothing to do with climate scale temperatures, see algor called out for repeating the key ipcc deception about CO2, a must see and share 3 minute vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg
Second, there’s nothing wrong with the climate, it’s that simple. The hockey stick fabrication by leftist Berkeley graduate Michael Mann has been debunked; there is nothing unusual about current temperatures. Another study just released adds more evidence that the climate was warmer in Roman and medieval times than now: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/10/global_warming_undermined_by_study_of_climate_change/

anotherJoe on July 11, 2012 at 2:29 PM

From the git go, there has never, ever been but one positive point about ethanol —- the farmer has made a lot of money from raising corn. That is the only way it survived because Tom Harkin and others depended on the flow through from the farmers to live high. That’s not enough reason for any of the rest of the planet to support this boondoggle.

Pardonme on July 11, 2012 at 2:29 PM

In Iowa Romney pledged his support for ethanol subsidies so don’t get too giddy. As far as farmers themselves not liking ethanol–they probably don’t. I live in a rural county in Texas. We all use various small engines that ethanol eventually ruins. Chain saws, electric generators, ATVs, power pressure washers, mowers…you name it. Ethanol shortens the life of these expensive, but necessary tools.

Got a cousin in Iowa who’s big fan and supporter of ethonal…of course, he’s a farmer who grows corn and soy and benefits from the subsidy and simply ignores the damage done to equipment that runs on it.

hawkeye54 on July 11, 2012 at 2:31 PM

How about cutting all funding for those horrid, ineffective wind farms as well.

AmeriCuda on July 11, 2012 at 2:17 PM

There are still some birds alive…

… when they are all dead, then we can cut off the funding.

Seven Percent Solution on July 11, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Doesn’t matter if the bio-fuels industry goes belly up for lack of government subsidies. The EPA will just fine everyone for not using something that’s no longer available.

Oldnuke on July 11, 2012 at 2:32 PM

The industry claims interest groups such as fossil fuel producers and livestock owners have hijacked the process as the House Agriculture Committee begins a markup of the bill this week. …

If you people can’t compete in a free market then your product sucks a$$. Now, can we please kill the ethanol mandate as well?

NotCoach on July 11, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Pig farmers.

rdbrewer on July 11, 2012 at 2:32 PM

What are you talking about? Are you claiming that Hot Air is somehow subsidized by the federal government because of certain support that the internet receives from government agencies?

I can’t hear you! You have patriotically disavowed the federally subsidized internet! Thank you American!

tommyhawk on July 11, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Hawkeye54: No food sources should EVER be used as a fuel product. Bad economics.

I couldn’t agree more, my friend.

Unfortunately the Greenies care nothing about economics. Or good sense, for that matter.

I highly resent having to pay higher food prices because a questionable gasoline additive, that might do more harm than good, is mandated by the government. I know the politics, left wing politics, but the science eludes me.

rpjkw11 on July 11, 2012 at 2:32 PM

At $26.50 for a gallon,that the US Military got suckered into
utelization,I say good riddance!!!!

canopfor on July 11, 2012 at 2:33 PM

A. The human body is really more permeable than we thought, and breasts are just one obvious and visible and in some ways fun example, but all the organs in our bodies are sensitive to environmental change. And breasts in some ways are just a metaphor for environmental health in general. So I think if we can try to take care of our breasts we will also be taking care of our bodies and also be taking care of the planet, because we now know that those things are interconnected. We’re not going to be able to take care of our bodies unless we take care of our environment.

Can’t say much about the planet, but there would be some well-fed babies.

Steve Z on July 11, 2012 at 2:33 PM

This funding is chicken feed compared to the value of the mandate that ethanol be put in gasoline.

Uncledave on July 11, 2012 at 2:33 PM

I hope the ill informed Sen. Thune fans watch their “Conservative” hope on how he really rolls on this one.

trs on July 11, 2012 at 2:33 PM

The Navy should go back to Wind Power like the good old days.

kenny on July 11, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Damn straight there buddy. Wooden ships and iron men with the only women in sight being the ones standing on the pier waving.

Oldnuke on July 11, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Should be a felony (Capital Crime felony!) for forcing citizens to put ethanol into small engines.

Karmi on July 11, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Thank goodness.

The Rogue Tomato on July 11, 2012 at 2:35 PM

O/T – the feds spoke and the market dropped like a rocket.

Schadenfreude on July 11, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Damn straight there buddy. Wooden ships and iron men with the only women in sight being the ones standing on the pier waving.

Oldnuke on July 11, 2012 at 2:34 PM

:)

Schadenfreude on July 11, 2012 at 2:36 PM

There seems to be some confusion around here about these subsidies and the ethanol mandate. They are not the same thing. These subsidies dieing will not kill the ethanol mandate. Refineries will continue putting food into our gas tanks under the federal ethanol mandate.

NotCoach on July 11, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Watch the price of anything associated with corn (beef, chicken, etc.) start to DROP when this STUPID EXPERIMENT WITH ETHANOL goes away…

Khun Joe on July 11, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Refineries will continue putting food into our gas tanks under the federal ethanol mandate.

NotCoach on July 11, 2012 at 2:36 PM

If the subsidy goes away will anyone still produce ethanol?

Oldnuke on July 11, 2012 at 2:38 PM

C ya

cmsinaz on July 11, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Down the drain money sinks of biofuels, solar, and wind are justified for basically one reason alone: climate change. But that’s bs. First, arguably CO2 has nothing to do with climate scale temperatures, see algor called out for repeating the key ipcc deception about CO2, a must see and share 3 minute vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg
Second, there’s nothing wrong with the climate, it’s that simple. The hockey stick fabrication by leftist Berkeley graduate Michael Mann has been debunked; there is nothing unusual about current temperatures. Another study just released adds more evidence that the climate was warmer in Roman and medieval times than now: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/10/global_warming_undermined_by_study_of_climate_change/

anotherJoe on July 11, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Quite right. Rises in the partial pressure of atmospheric CO2 are a RESULT of temperature rise not a CAUSE. Atmospheric CO2 tends toward equilibrium with bicarbonate in the surface layers of the ocean. The oceans therefore have a buffering effect with atmosphere. When absorbed activity of CO2 in the ocean layers reach equilibrium constant, limestone rock is formed with time. Without CO2 absorption by the oceans, from the atmosphere, there would be no coral reefs.

kenny on July 11, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Don’t worry; the subsidies will simply be replaced by a tax on all farmers who don’t grow biofuels and the ethanol mandate will be increased even though outside Government Motors, nobody seems to recommend E15 gas in their engines. On second thought, that increased ethanol mandate is because nobody except Government Motors recommends E15.

Steve Eggleston on July 11, 2012 at 2:45 PM

If the subsidy goes away will anyone still produce ethanol?

Oldnuke on July 11, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Given the EPA is on the verge of fining the refiners millions of dollars for not using a product that doesn’t exist, it doesn’t matter whether anyone will still produce corn-a-hole.

Steve Eggleston on July 11, 2012 at 2:46 PM

1) Subsidize B so that an infrastructure for B builds out.

2) Make A illegal.

It never makes any sense until 2 happens. And it only works when B is supposed to replace A. Example:

1) Subsidize super light bulb B. It cannot otherwise compete with A. Conservatives laugh at the impossibility of B to ever replace A; no reasonable person would B when they could A.

2) Make A illegal. Conservatives look shocked. Now B is the cheapest, and we all use B.

… this f’d system can’t work for something that isn’t supposed to replace, because the cheaper one stays around. Without 2, it’s just another dole. (You would have to eventually ban fossil fuels for ethanol subsidies to ever stop.)

Axe on July 11, 2012 at 2:46 PM

OT

Via Drudge: UN arms treaty could put U.S. gun owners in foreign sights, say critics

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/11/un-arms-treaty-could-put-us-gun-owners-in-foreign-sights-say-critics/

Axe on July 11, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Technically the Supremacy Clause and the 14th amendment makes the UN Small Arms Treaty impossible to ratify in the United States.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

Now, whether congress will willingly and (one would assume) knowingly intentional violate both the supremacy clause and the 14th amendment in their indisputably unconstitutional attempt to subvert and overthrow the 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution yet remains to be seen.

As for myself, I would make the assertion quiet loudly that any member of congress that would sign the United Nations Small Arms Treaty is guilty of TREASON as defined by the 14th Amendment.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

SWalker on July 11, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Like the internet! Haha.

tommyhawk on July 11, 2012 at 2:20 PM

FYI: The Internet is NOT dependent upon federal subsidies for its existence: where in the world did you get that idea?

landlines on July 11, 2012 at 2:49 PM

So, remind me, why are we providing the biofuels industry with all of this “free money,” again?

That’s easy to answer.

As you said in the article, the biofuels and agribusiness themselves have large lobbies. Those lobbies contribute large amounts of money to the campaigns of the politicians who vote to channel that money to those businesses. That campaign money then goes to helping those politicians get re-elected in order to continue the aforementioned cycle.

It doesn’t have a damn thing to do with what is or isn’t good for the environment, it has everything to do with who has the biggest lobbying group that can channel the largest amount of that money back into their campaign funds so they can continue to live the good life on Capitol Hill.

gravityman on July 11, 2012 at 2:49 PM

…prepare for an Executive Order from JugEars!

KOOLAID2 on July 11, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Now, whether congress will willingly and (one would assume) knowingly intentional violate both the supremacy clause and the 14th amendment in their indisputably unconstitutional attempt to subvert and overthrow the 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution yet remains to be seen.

SWalker on July 11, 2012 at 2:47 PM

A few weeks ago, I’d laugh it off. :/ Maybe just still unnecessarily jumpy.

Axe on July 11, 2012 at 2:52 PM

FYI: The Internet is NOT dependent upon federal subsidies for its existence: where in the world did you get that idea?

landlines on July 11, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Maybe someone told him the government invented the internet, although that isn’t exactly correct either. The internet was the result of a DARPA project.

NotCoach on July 11, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Moot point. Lots of anecdotal reports out there that this year’s corn crop is severely hit by the heat waves / droughts.
Feed prices are going to go high enough to divert corn from ethanol production anyway. We’ll stop burning food for fuel, but for the wrong reasons. And mandated-ethanol fuel E85 and the like, those states’ hostages will see their fuel prices soar again as ethanol runs short.
The command-economy Looters have wrecked our systems.

rayra on July 11, 2012 at 2:52 PM

But… what about all the green energy jobs Obooba promised us?!

Akzed on July 11, 2012 at 2:58 PM

The corn crop is failing, there will not be enough corn to make ethanol and to eat. So they will fall all over themselves to save the “family” farmer by paying for the nonexistent corn.
Plus with the mandates requiring gas be blended with ethanol our per gallon price will shoot up because the ethanol will have to be imported. So much for energy independence.
We are so screwed.

elkchess on July 11, 2012 at 3:01 PM

There is always cheap Russian vodka.

kenny on July 11, 2012 at 3:03 PM

this f’d system can’t work for something that isn’t supposed to replace, because the cheaper one stays around. Without 2, it’s just another dole. (You would have to eventually ban fossil fuels for ethanol subsidies to ever stop.)

Axe on July 11, 2012 at 2:46 PM
Hence the EPA’s shove for E15. It would make just about every non-flex fuel vehicle, including my new 2012 Toyota Tacoma, unusable.

Steve Eggleston on July 11, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Biofuels industry liable to lose their federal funding
posted at 2:01 pm on July 11, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

House Republicans are looking to eliminate government funding for the biofuels industry through the farm bill — and it feels so good. I am always pleased when any federally subsidized product, service, or industry is finally forced to face the music

Face the music, you say? Feels So Good

ITguy on July 11, 2012 at 3:10 PM

There is always cheap Russian vodka.

kenny on July 11, 2012 at 3:03 PM

This will be readily available, when we’re all standing in queues for luxuries like bread, cheese, milk and healthcare.

It’ll make the waiting a lot easier. In fact, some will just give up, go home and go to sleep.

The perfect day in Utopia.

OhEssYouCowboys on July 11, 2012 at 3:11 PM

The corn crop is failing, there will not be enough corn to make ethanol and to eat. So they will fall all over themselves to save the “family” farmer by paying for the nonexistent corn.
Plus with the mandates requiring gas be blended with ethanol our per gallon price will shoot up because the ethanol will have to be imported. So much for energy independence.
We are so screwed.

elkchess on July 11, 2012 at 3:01 PM

That is a feature of the EcoNuts’ nation, not a bug. Prediction – if the weather doesn’t improve and Teh SCOAMF stick around another term, there will be corn rationing next year.

Steve Eggleston on July 11, 2012 at 3:11 PM

Hey Republicans! Give It All You Got!

ITguy on July 11, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Before everybody goes off willy-nilly cheering a supposed end to the corn-a-hole subsidies, let’s ask The Only Member of Congress Who Matters – Dingy Harry Reid. If memory serves, he loves him some corn-a-hole subsidies.

Steve Eggleston on July 11, 2012 at 3:15 PM

There is always cheap Russian vodka.

kenny on July 11, 2012 at 3:03 PM

This will be readily available, when we’re all standing in queues for luxuries like bread, cheese, milk and healthcare.

It’ll make the waiting a lot easier. In fact, some will just give up, go home and go to sleep.

The perfect day in Utopia.

OhEssYouCowboys on July 11, 2012 at 3:11 PM

Some for the car and some for the palate. Man’s perfect liquid.

kenny on July 11, 2012 at 3:19 PM

How will our “Green” Water Navy stay operative?

OhEssYouCowboys on July 11, 2012 at 2:04 PM

They’re burning chicken fat anyway!

Has anyone in Congress given thought to the EPA mandates on ethanol?
If they stop funding and these producers fail, there are still EPA mandates in place regarding adding ethanol to our gasoline. Could end up in a real disaster, but then again, everything coming out of Congress is a real disaster!

Boats48 on July 11, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Democrats are living in a Land of Make Believe.

ITguy on July 11, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Just repaired two outboard marine motors this week… both damaged by excessive ethanol in the gas.

Germany has refused to adopt national ethanol standards and still limits ethanol in their fuels to 5%. Damn those Germans are smart…

HopeHeFails on July 11, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Germany has refused to adopt national ethanol standards and still limits ethanol in their fuels to 5%. Damn those Germans are smart…

HopeHeFails on July 11, 2012 at 3:28 PM

That is because they drink the rest.

kenny on July 11, 2012 at 3:31 PM

How will our “Green” Water Navy stay operative?

OhEssYouCowboys on July 11, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Ya hadda ask….ya just hadda ask.

timberline on July 11, 2012 at 3:45 PM

3 cheers for an end to gasoline polluted with ethanol. Worse mileage, bad on catalytic converters, and stupid on the face of it.

CorporatePiggy on July 11, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Watch the price of anything associated with corn (beef, chicken, etc.) start to DROP when this STUPID EXPERIMENT WITH ETHANOL goes away…

Khun Joe on July 11, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Yes, but if the ethanol mandate remains in place, and ethanol production is no longer subsidized by the Feds, then the price at the pump will skyrocket.

We need to get rid of the ethanol mandate as well as the subsidies.

UltimateBob on July 11, 2012 at 3:51 PM

That is because they drink the rest.

kenny on July 11, 2012 at 3:31 PM

And what exactly is wrong with having more alcohol in one’s beer than in one’s gas tank?

Steve Eggleston on July 11, 2012 at 3:54 PM

And what exactly is wrong with having more alcohol in one’s beer than in one’s gas tank?

Steve Eggleston on July 11, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Of course, they are at liberty to put the alcohol anywhere they wish.

kenny on July 11, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Burning ethanol produces FOUR TIMES the carcinogens that burning gasoline does. FOUR TIMES! Different carcinogens, but still carcinogens. So in a blend, you are producing more carcinogens than either Ethanol by itself or gasoline by itself.

Plus, it takes more ethanol to go the same distance the same volume of gasoline will take you, so you have to burn more of it.

States that require ethanol in their “blends” are killing their population faster than if they left well enough alone.

For the Dimocrats to claim they are the “party of science” and then require ethanol blends in their state’s gas pumps is absurd. It doesn’t reduce the use of gasoline very much, produces more carcinogens, reduces gas mileage and increases the price of gas.

PastorJon on July 11, 2012 at 4:06 PM

You’re a kook who failed to make even a tiny point.

Claiming that internet businesses are subsidized is like claiming that publicly traded companies are subsidized simply because the federal government funds the SEC. It’s like claiming that nuclear power generators are subsidized simply because the federal government funds the NRC. It’s like claiming that factories are subsidized simply because the federal government funds the EPA.

I don’t normally bother, but pay attention dummy. The gumbermint paid for the development of the internet. Private industries and governmental agencies worked together to create the infrastructure that provides it and manages it. Monopolies are rampant. Nothing about it is even remotely free market.

My point had nothing to do with regulation you simpleton. The whole reason it exists is because of subsidies.

tommyhawk on July 11, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Of course, they are at liberty to put the alcohol anywhere they wish.

kenny on July 11, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Unlike us.

Steve Eggleston on July 11, 2012 at 4:12 PM

If the subsidy goes away will anyone still produce ethanol?

Oldnuke on July 11, 2012 at 2:38 PM

We are still stuck with a few percent of alcohol as a Summer oxygenate. I don’t think there’s an alternative yet.

slickwillie2001 on July 11, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Its about time that the Enviro Industry’s vast leftwing biofuels conspiracy is finally getting its legs cut out from underneath. And by “legs” I mean we consumers who are FORCED by the Fedl Gummint to buy this E10 and E15 crap that is literally destroying car engines.

E10 and E15 is even worse on two-stroke engines (lawnmowers, weedwhackers, outboard engines, etc). It causes horrific corrosion problems, eats fuel lines to the point that it actually MELTS them from the inside, with the resulting goo going straight into your engine’s carburetor or injectors. Nice, huh?

The worst part about the biofuels scam is that the original promoters of it, Algore Inc and other Enviro Industry scam artists, have since come out saying it was a big mistake, that it’s a net increase in fuel consumption to create biofuel. Something on the order of 20% more.

Wanna see another Enviro Industry scam? Do a search on “Catch Shares” – ignore the Enviro Industry sites and read the links from RFA Recreational Fishing Alliance or BGFJ Big Game Fishing Journal.

CatchAll on July 11, 2012 at 4:28 PM

here’s a novel solution– let’s get rid of the increasingly irrelevant Iowa caucus as the first in the nation

So much of this ethanol BS is due to the fact that every Pres candidate for either party is forced to kiss the ring of the Iowa corn lobby every 4 years

A vote by a senator against corn welfare is a death sentence for any future Pres campaign

thurman on July 11, 2012 at 4:31 PM

tommyhawk on July 11, 2012 at 4:11 PM

One governmental agency attached to the Department of Defense worked with private industry and universities to create the predecessor to the internet. And DARPA is unlike any other government agency in that they can ignore just about all bureaucratic BS when it comes to hiring and internal structure. But DARPA did not create or pay for the internet as we know it. Private industry met that demand. Demand for a product that was desired, not a product that cannot survive without government subsidies.

DoD and DARPA have given us many wonderful things that we use today, such as GPS and the internet, but they did not subsidize private corporations or mandate private production of these things for public consumption. I think you need to start paying attention yourself dummy if you are so oblivious to the glaring differences between artificially propping up a market, and technical innovation for national security purposes that migrate naturally through a free market into the public domain.

NotCoach on July 11, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Technically the Supremacy Clause and the 14th amendment makes the UN Small Arms Treaty impossible to ratify in the United States.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t have to be ratified to have an effect on us. It will stifle any form of import/export of firearms and ammo, restricting us to only US available items. While this might sound desirable, restricting supply will increase prices of available firearms and ammo here.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

As for myself, I would make the assertion quiet loudly that any member of congress that would sign the United Nations Small Arms Treaty is guilty of TREASON as defined by the 14th Amendment.

…and should receive the DEATH PENALTY not a paltry jail term.

SWalker on July 11, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Thank GOD there’s another person on here who is quoting the Constitution. I thought I was the only one doing that! :)

dominigan on July 11, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Again, go home, think real hard, and develop an argument which actually has a chance of justifying biofuel subsidies.

Well apparently you think I was justifying biofuels. I was talking about the hliarious contention:

I am always pleased when any federally subsidized product, service, or industry is finally forced to face the music and compete in the free market based on its meritorious profitability rather than its political profitability.

There are countless things that fail this test. Subsidized loans, bailouts, pharma research, insured federal loans, your artificially depressed juco education, and your children’s fraudulently free market charter school.

You and some mook seem to be confusing content with access and the internet with the web. The internet, and those who profit from it, do so through a utility. Please point out all the free market pressures on broadband isps.

Now I feel dirty.

tommyhawk on July 11, 2012 at 5:20 PM

I’m against subsidy but I’m also against changing policies suddenly and frequently.

Every time a subsidy is added it skews the free market dynamics. The crony businesses deserve what happens to them, but the secondary and tertiary businesses that are supplying the crony business get jerked around and this effects real people.

All subsidies should be eliminated but there needs to be a wind down plan, just as when winding down a bankrupt company or when doing phased layoffs.

This economy suffers massively from Congressional can’t-make-their-mind-up-ism. We need stability of the rules – whatever they are.

Ultimately this will be best for the biofuels industry because it’ll weed out all those players that aren’t in it for the long term and are just trying to scarf up the “free” government money.

Not-a-Marxist on July 11, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Chain saws, electric generators, ATVs, power pressure washers, mowers…you name it. Ethanol shortens the life of these expensive, but necessary tools.

cartooner on July 11, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Amen to that! I had to replace and rebuild most of the rubber pieces in the fuel systems of all my small engines about 3 years ago. I get high test now which doesn’t have it here.

TugboatPhil on July 11, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Chain saws, electric generators, ATVs, power pressure washers, mowers…you name it. Ethanol shortens the life of these expensive, but necessary tools.

cartooner on July 11, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Amen to that! I had to replace and rebuild most of the rubber pieces in the fuel systems of all my small engines about 3 years ago. I get high test now which doesn’t have it here.

TugboatPhil on July 11, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Go to Lowes and look for ‘Trufuel’. They have it for 4 and 2 cycle in a couple of mixes. Basically overpriced but pure gasoline.

slickwillie2001 on July 11, 2012 at 6:17 PM

House Republicans are looking to eliminate government funding for the biofuels industry through the farm bil

DAMN STRAIGHT! About time, and all the other Hoorah words. What a crock of bullChit this program is.

TX-96 on July 11, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Here in Iowa the farmers have been busy plowing under every possible square foot for more corn. I would LOVE to see us stop the subsidy insanity! If Ethanol is that great – let it compete on its own. No mandates! Right now every state and local vehicle uses the 10% Ethanol blend and the new vehicles they’ve been buying are all E85.

Free Indeed on July 11, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Comment pages: 1 2