Obama is wrong about ethanol subsidies

[Hippo_Tron]

Disclaimer: I am enthusiastically voting for Barack Obama and November and volunteering for his campaign

Corn-based ethanol is not an efficient source of energy and our subsidies are nothing more than corporate welfare for corn-growing states. Furthermore it is driving up the prices of food prices not just here in the United States but all over the world.

Using switch-grass would be wonderful but I haven't heard much from Obama or anybody else on that actually happening. As long as there is government subsidized incentive to grow corn, farmers will continue to do that.

Oh and at this point I would praise John McCain for being right about this issue, except that he's changed his position about 8 times, so I don't believe a damn thing he has to say.

[FrenchieCat]

1. Would have been nice if you had opened it up for debate

rather than making a proclamation that Obama is wrong.

It's not that you may be right, it is that with the Talking heads providing us with their "expert" proclamations as to "what is" all of the time, you using the same tactic in definite pronouncement becomes as big of a turn off.

Had you said......Why I believe that Obama stance on Ethanol is not viable.....would have been more inviting.

Just sayin'.

[Hippo_Tron]

3. I was taught in English class not to start your essay with "I believe that"

Because it weakens your argument right from the get-go. This is certainly open for debate. I wouldn't have posted otherwise.

[JoFerret]

40. I liked the way you expressed your point of view.

thank you.

[hokies4ever]

41. You're wrong about Obama being wrong

Debate closed. Nothing to see here, move along people. :rofl:

[Occam Bandage]

13. That's silly, Frenchie.

[JoFerret]

39. The poster had an opinion

You are free to disagree.

[polichick]

2. I heard on NPR "Science Friday" that they're beginning to use more...

...of the non-edible parts of corn for ethanol.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

17. This is even less efficient.

The non-edible parts of the corn include the husks, stalks and leaves which are much bulkier than the grain making for even less efficient transport and are also harder to process which would make the cost ratio more out of whack.

[anonymous171]

4. Ethanol is just another drug the corporations are trying to get America hooked on instead of oil

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Really? So there should be more subsidies for corn?

Because in the town hall meeting I attended, the senator from Illinois said there should be less, and with more subsidies for smaller crops so that consumers could buy locally.

[Hippo_Tron]

7. Here's an article about Obama's stance on ethanol

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us/politics/23ethanol.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

And I agree that there should be less subsidies for big corporations whether they are producing for food or for fuel. Small farms I can live with subsidizing because they only make up a tiny percent of the market share and are good for local communities.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

9. It is so unfortunate that small biz owners don't realize the GOP agenda is not good for them

So many of the ones I know vote R because of taxes and regulation. There are so many other issues that impact small local businesses and the Repigs are on the wrong side of all of them.

[OwnedByFerrets]

6. One word: HEMP!

[jillan]

8. Well - Illinois is the 2nd (?) largest corn producing state.

Think about that.

Hopefully people like Richardson and Gore will set him straight.

[Hippo_Tron]

10. And Iowa holds the nations first presidential nominating contest

And every four years candidates go to Iowa and pledge to continue subsidizing ethanol.

Obama is a politician and I certainly understand that.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

11. Yeah, ethanol from corn is worthless at best. Well, at least we might get Iowa LOL

[Occam Bandage]

12. You are correct. Obama is wrong on this issue. He would not be, if Iowa did not vote first.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. Yup, precisely why I don't want Michigan going first ever

Pandering to corn producers on Ethanol is a waste of money but not detrimental. Pandering to Detroit on emissions standards would be disastrous to the health of our planet.

[Romulox]

29. You really haven't thought this through, have you?

Subsidies to ethanol are designed precisely to give the impression that reductions in consumption are not necessary. Here's a hint for you: most of America's fuel consumption doesn't take place in Detroit. :eyes:

[Hippo_Tron]

32. No, but those gas guzzling SUV's that Detroit produces make up a huge part of it

And while your argument about ethanol subsidies may have some truth to it, I don't see it as the make or break factor in Americans' unwillingness to reduce consumption.

[Romulox]

34. LOL. The drivers of those gas guzzling SUVs haven't a thing to do with it!

Thank goodness you've found your scapegoat!

The planet will be so much better off when all the oblivious assholes in LA and Jersey are driving their Nissan Pathfinders and Toyota Land Cruisers full of good old, taxpayer subsidized, net-energy-loss, Iowa grown ethanol!

[Hippo_Tron]

35. You're assuming we're going to actually be driving cars that run on corn-based ethanol

I don't think that will ever happen. I think we're just subsidizing farmers in Iowa to grow corn for ethanol that won't ever be used.

The only way that companies will have the incentive to build engines that run on ethanol is if we build infrastructure to convert switch-grass or if we start importing sugar cane.

[Romulox]

36. Where have you been? Ethanol blends have been widely available on the market for 30+ years

You seem confused.

:hi:

edit: According to the Iowa corn shills, every car sold in America can run on 10% ethanol.

:hi:

http://www.iowacorn.org/ethanol/ethanol_3a.html

[Hippo_Tron]

37. Yes I'm aware of ethanol blends

But you're talking about cars that run on substantially more ethanol than they are running on now. I don't see that happening if corn is our only source of ethanol.

[Romulox]

38. never mind.

No matter. This thread seems (quite inexplicably) to have become an apologia to over-consumption.

[NYC_SKP]

45. Right now GM and Ford are losing jobs precisely because of the past

policies against stricter fuel economy standards.

Strategic campaigning in Michigan would include promoting new fleets of high fuel economy vehicles to the working class and to the auto industry.

The auto industry might not like what they hear, but what have they done for the voters lately?

The workers, the recently laid off workers around the country, want to hear some truth spoken to the industry.


And ethanol, big mistake, need to end agribusiness subsidies while continuing to support small and family farms.

[PM7nj]

27. Or if he wasn't an Illinois Senator...

[ChipperbackDemocrat]

14. Where I agree and disagree

I agree on using my efficient means to produce ethanol. One thing we need to look at is nations like Brazil who are doing this on the large scale through cellulosic ethanol. Using the waste products, etc to make the fuel instead of food to make the fuel.

However, having grown up on a corn-produing state, I disagree with this statement our subsidies are nothing more than corporate welfare for corn-growing states.

First the "corporate welfare" is actually going into the pockets of the people that are really jacking up the food prices. Your ConAgras, Cargills, ADMs etc. Believe me, these people are not nearly as interested in producing E85 or soybiodiesel. To them, they can't make a dollar doing it because the real profit is in speculation and market control for those guys. To them, food is a means of profit and control. Why do you think they are trying like hell to squeeze cooperatives, combines and family farms out of the equation. Local distribution is something they cannot control and would have a harder time competing against if their ability to bring the goods was pinched, as it is right now in some ways. That why they are trying to maintain control, speculate like mad and working towards greater consolidation of production and distribution.

Secondly, most of the government incentives more often than not are for the farmer not to farm. Its been that way for decades, or least in the era of deregulation, thanks in part to the intense lobbying of the giant agribusiness concerns. They want the mass scale as much as possible. They want petrofarming as much as possible. Because they along the with big chemical companies, the big banks and the speculator can have the control. If they have the control, they can set the price. If they set the price, you are paying more. It is the same prinicple as oil. Its a question of who's hand is on the spigot.

For myself, I want to see Ethanol used. Its cleaner for the environment and every mechanic I've ever had said its better for your car, even E10 unleaded makes a difference. But I also feel all candidates needs to look at the greater energy picture and part of that picture is the simple fact We Americans have to drive less. We Americans have to consume less. We Americans have to downsize some of our lives and in many cases ourselves. Supersized life just ain't sustainable anymore.

Off the topic by something I'd like to see: Universal Health Care, paid for by a national "snack tax" on high-fat, high fructose corn syrup, low nutritional value foods and drinks and all the fat-filled fast food out there.

[Youphemism]

15. Obama got his start by taking Iowa, and he wants Ohio and other corn states in the GE...

This has little to do with energy policy. I agree that burning corn for gas is the height of arrogance. We don't have food to burn, it isn't practical. But some of the areas that grow corn are the hardest hit by the economy -- and it's not just those farms, big or small, but the people who work them, the tractors they buy, the fertilizer, truckers, etc.

Obama's stance is a practical one for the election, but he's not dumb enough to think that burning corn is any kind of solution. He's smart enough to know the states he wins in the GE.

While I'm not with him on this position any more than you are, I do understand that practical reality and I also believe that those subsidies might turn out to provide unexpected help... There is currently a world food shortage. If and when it gets worse, the corn planted with subsidies for fuel use might be repurposed to help mitigate the dwindling food supply.

Aside from all the talk of renewable energy, conservation, improved efficiency -- which are very important, but can only be exploited to account for less than 25% of our *current* energy usage -- there is the fact that at least for the next few decades we have only two cheap sources of energy: fossil fuels and nuclear. Fossil fuels are getting expensive, and don't burn cleanly.

No matter what they say, I think both candidates will be forced into nuclear energy development in their first term... And even with that, and every possible alternative energy and conservation program in place, I think we may start seeing people in some countries freezing and starving because of high energy costs.

I think most people don't understand what a *real* energy shortage means.

Corn is a very minor issue in the overall energy policy conundrum to be faced by the next President.

[ChipperbackDemocrat]

16. I don't have a problem with nuclear energy

I think both candidates will be forced into nuclear energy development in their first term.

And that wouldn't be a bad thing. The #1 issue I have with nuclear energy in this country is that we've let the Westinghouses and GEs develop it with little or no regulation or oversight. In short, When you let the greedy handle your lights, most folks will get left in the dark or glow in the dark.

We need to take a page from countries like Japan and France. Heavy regulatory oversight over every phase from concept to production to generation to waste disposal.

But before you can even do that, you have to deal with the primary issue, How the hell you unhardwire the greed from the political process?

[flpoljunkie]

18. He said recently that IL was a corn producing state, and he would be president of the United States

Also, that he was concerned that using corn for ethanol was driving up the the price of food. I am not concerned about Obama and ethanol.

[Major Hogwash]

20. Actually I disagree that Obama is wrong - I like ethanol.

We don't have any switch-grass farmers in Idaho.

But, there are a lot of corn and wheat farmers here that have grown crops for over 30 years to sell to make ethanol.
In fact, they used to get a tax incentive from the state to grow it just for that reason.
Some farmland doesn't produce very good corn for human consumption, but it is good enough to make ethanol with. And when the market was really low, the choice of selling it to make ethanol was a good deal for the farmers here.

The state tax incentive for raising ethanol crops was put into place here by the Democratic governor, Cecil Andrus, in the late 70s.
But, that tax incentive was later taken away by the Republican governor, Dirk Kempthorne.

Dirk Kempthorne is now serving as the Secretary of the Interior, so you know they were scraping the bottom of the barrel when they nominated that asshole for the job.

I don't know where you are from, but they have been selling ethanol based gasoline here in Idaho for at least 50 years.

[Hippo_Tron]

24. If Idaho's state government wants to create incentives for ethanol that's fine by me

But ethanol subsidies are bad national policy and Obama is running for President of the United States not Governor of Idaho.

[Zodiak]

26. That is what I was wondering, as well

Is this sweet corn or feed corn?

If it is feed corn, it should not be affecting any food prices except perhaps the price of whatever is fed on that grain.

If it is sweet corn, then yes, it is human food.

So if ethanol is made on feed corn, then its impact on human food should be minimal but yes, it is the least efficient way to do it.

[Major Hogwash]

42. It is sweet corn because people don't pay to buy feed corn to eat.

It's not very good sweet corn, however.
But what affects the price of it on the market the most is that it comes in after the market is already saturated with corn that has already been harvested from the midwest, like in Iowa or Illinois.

The author of the OP doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.
We've used ethanol based gasoline here for several decades.

The fact is that 5 gallons of ethanol based gasoline amounts to only 4 gallons of regular gasoline.
And any engineer will tell you that stretching out the amount of gas that we use is good for the economy.
Any real engineer, that is.
By adding 20% of the amount of the ethanol to those 4 gallons of gasoline yields 5 gallons of ethanol based gas.

It's a win-win situation and that's why the governor here put those tax incentives to work for the small farmers in Idaho in the late 70s.
It was a good idea then, but the Republicans didn't like it, so they removed the tax incentives as soon as they could once they got into office, about 10 years later.
It's even environmetally sound, so I don't know why there's any grief over this idea.

[Romulox]

30. Ethanol entails a *net energy loss*. It produces no net fuel. Just FYI. nt

[eridani]

21. Cellulosic ethanol is the way to go

I am in fact doing support work on a switchgrass project, and it is a feasible ethanol source.

[MrSlayer]

22. Ethanol is a ridiculous way to go if we're looking for alternative fuels..

We already had an electric car that worked brilliantly and we had an internal combustion engine that got 90 MPG, both were squashed by the auto and oil industries. Ethanol is too inefficiant to be worth the price of food supplies for us and for our livestock. Either drill for our own oil or bring back that electric car. It's long past time we get off that foreign oil tit. I disagree with Obama on this issue.

[cbc5g]

23. HEMP

[Quixote1818]

25. Not if he wants to win Iowa and other midwest states. nt

[Perky]

28. It;s the Iowa electoral votes, stupid.

It really is that simple.

[madrchsod]

31. the use of corn is just the first step in the use of plants

to make fuel. at the present time the price of corn will make it a very expensive commodity to use as fuel. the price of soy beans has made that source to expensive for any long term investment to use as a fuel.

there are other plants and other sources that will be used in the future to make fuel.

[Gabi Hayes]

33. we don't have enough arable land for anything but hearty weeds, if you get my drift

[Rosey]

43. Why would switch grass be better?

Thanks.

[Occam Bandage]

44. Switchgrass looks like it's going to have a positive net energy balance. That is to say,

we might get more energy by burning a gallon of switchgrass ethanol than it takes to make it. Corn ethanol, on the other hand, takes more energy to produce than you get by burning it--that is to say, every gallon we make is a net drain on our total energy supply.