Via the Corner;
Eating up just a tenth of the corn crop as recently as 2004, ethanol was turbocharged by legislation in 2005 and 2007 that set specific requirements for its use in gasoline, mandating steep rises from year to year. Yet another government bureaucracy was born to enforce the quotas.
To ease the pain, Congress threw in a 45-cents-a-gallon subsidy ($6 billion a year); to add another layer of protection, it imposed a tariff on imported ethanol of 54 cents a gallon. That successfully shut off cheap imports, produced more efficiently from sugar cane, principally from Brazil.
Here is perhaps the most incredible part: Because of the subsidy, ethanol became cheaper than gasoline, and so we sent 397 million gallons of ethanol overseas last year. America is simultaneously importing costly foreign oil and subsidizing the export of its equivalent.
Government at its best!
*facepalm*
SORRY I'm rather old and stupid [kicker out of grade 3 at 11 ] grow more corn for ethanol use less oil. Oil costs less but gov. pays difference. Not so much corn for food and farmers grow more corn {big money]so grow less wheat barley oats and potatoes. Cost of fuel goes up. Cost of food goes up. How is this good? Now we pay more tax. This is good right?
45 cents a gallon ethanol subsidy is paid to gasoline BLENDERS, not producers of ethanol. As such, it is being paid for both Brazilian sugar cane import and US produced corn ethanol, blended into locally sold gasoline. Not a single cent of fuel ethanol subsidy is leaving US.
Only complete idiot could compare ethanol and gasoline prices on volumetric basis.
Funny thing, fuel ethanol is equally evil for both cheerleaded liberals and conservatives. Means that both are the same illiterate morons.
AL, you got a source for that? I was a bit skeptical of the article, but didn't find any info that contradicted it. If you could provide a link to a credible source, I'd greatly appreciate it.
Its like watching Granny, in the Looney Tune cartoos, throw pcks of 100's in the fireplace for heat.
or this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X17wfLXaREE
AL,I beleive there is a 55 cent a gallon tarrif that effectively keeps out cheeper sugar cane based ethanol from the US market.Here in Eastern Ontario the bush is getting lopped off to grow corn on land that would have been better left with the Indians.The ethanol industry is central planning at its finest and political pandering at its most blatant.
Does government ever do anything without unintended and unwanted consequences?
1.
“…Currently, blenders receive a US$0.45 tax credit for each gallon of ethanol that is blended with gasoline, regardless of the feedstock…”
Wikipedia article, first hit when you google “corn ethanol wiki us”
2.
Any subsidy, by definition, is aimed to promote LOCAL production of goods, being it corn ethanol, tar sand oil, movies, or dairy and poultry.
3.
Fuel ethanol is produced not from corn. It is produced from corn starch.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the -Democrats- have majorities in both houses then?
Can you say "sabotage"?
al thats a no answer kinda answer.
Give a link to a study or article moron.
Last year I bought a 50 lb bag of wheat,
$7.45.
This year 10 lbs less,
40 pound bag cost $15.35.
Just wanted to thank the ethanol producers for driving up/doubling the cost of all food prices,
meat, bread, produce, milk, etc.
Hell,
its even costing twice as much to feed my free Bambi unicorn.
Further to my "sabotage" argument: www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/15/us-usa-ethanol-incentives-idUSTRE6BE4XY20101215
That's the US Senate (Dem majority) voting to extend subsidies this year, 2011.
"The bill will be welcomed by the struggling ethanol industry and by American farmers who supply the corn to produce the fuel that is blended into automotive gasoline.
The extension was part of a larger bill extending the Bush-era expiring personal tax cuts. The bill sailed through the Senate in a 81 to 19 vote and now goes to the House of Representatives where Democrats are still angry with President Barack Obama for making a deal with Republicans on the tax cuts."
So, AlReuters pretending this is a Republican thing while Dems all vote for it.
Forbes article here, suggesting that dumping 40% of the corn crop in the ocean would be less harmful to the economy and the environment than the current subsidy regime.
blogs.forbes.com/henrymiller/2011/06/07/ethanol-subsidies-dumping-corn-in-the-ocean-would-be-a-better-idea/
Bottom line my friends, burning food in a world where people still starve is -evil-.
Please note I am NOT saying the Republicans have clean hands here, I'm only saying the DemocRats have a majority. Got that trolls? -Majority-.
With food prices this high I find it hard to believe that food producers are struggling.
There certainly is no need for Iowa corn production to go to making fuel.
One way the US could lower its unemployment, increas revenue and cut fuel imports is to let expoloration and production of Oil go ahead in th egulf, in shale oil etc.
Regulate for safety, and standards to prevent "dirtying the nest" but go nuts. The US needs th emoney from permits and taxes, the population needs the jobs and the country needs the energy.
Dont subsidize it, it doesnt need it.
And BTW to Al at 7:18, from the AlReuters article:
"The 45-cent-a-gallon tax credit and the 54-cent tariff were to expire on December 31. A one-year extension means Congress will face the contentious biofuels question again next year."
Got that? $0.45 tax credit, $0.54 tariff. Oh, plus mandates on fuel for % of ethanol used. They figure the combination jacked up the price of corn $0.18 a bushel last year. This year is going to be fun, given the late spring and flooding in corn country.
Burning food is evil.
When the NY Times - the TIMES! . . . writes this:
"FEELING the need for an example of government policy run amok? Look no further than the box of cornflakes on your kitchen shelf. In its myriad corn-related interventions, Washington has managed simultaneously to help drive up food prices and add tens of billions of dollars to the deficit, while arguably increasing energy use and harming the environment."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/opinion/25Rattner.html?_r=1
Posted by: The Phantom
agreed-
Corn producers have millions of acres of corn,
3 foot high stalks,
rotting in the fields.
The bean crop is gone.
I guess Mother Nature doesn't understand subsidies, quotas, and regulations.
-
Look for livestock feed prices to rise even more than the 118 percent increase last year..
Might have to kill and refrigerate my Bambi Unicorn so I can feed my family.
And then there is the increased cost for all consumers who use small engines - from Augers to Boats as We can no longer be assured that Regular grade Gasoline is Ethanol free as it is not nice to small engines.
Phantom and LS, exactly.
Burning food and the slight of hand economics is evil.
The principal reason why corn prices are up is because of the changing diets of the world. China, Brazil and India are producing a middle class and they number in the several millions of people and growing. This new middle income class now have some disposable income. And when they have that they want to eat better -- more protein mainly meat.
It takes 2 lbs. of grain to make a lb. of Chicken, 5 lbs. of grain to make a pound of Pork and 7 lbs. of grain to make a lb. of Beef.
So instead of eating the grain directly they are now converting the grain into protein. Since there is no more land to cultivate the farmer needs to increase his yield on existing fields to have the increase in grain to feed domestic animals. This puts pressure on the price of food grains as the demands soars for meat production.
That's why Saskatchewan will do well with their Potash sales in the long run as farmers will try to increase their yields to capitalize on the rise in grain prices.
Posted by: AL at 7:18 AM
Subsidies by definition are local in focus?
Right.
That must be why 0blabla gave 2 billion to Brazil for off shore oil exploration.
A better definition of subsidy is; a value extorted from current or future taxpayers squandered on otherwise non-viable fantasies for temporary political gain.
Corn based ethanol is made by a wet milling process, which separates the 3 components; starch, oil, and outer shell. The starch is first converted to glucose (sugar) and this can then converted to ethanol. The germ or oil becomes corn oil, and the balance is dried and sold to livestock producers. It is a costly process both in factory costs and energy.
Sure we need ethanol.
Be a good fire-starter when we start burning politicians at the stake.
Small increases (say 5%) in corn inventory can cause a huge drop in corn(and food)prices. Imagine what a 40% increase in inventory would do! That is exactly what will happen when the world demands the politicos come to their senses on food-fuel.
And the Farmers will wear this grain price crash. Because of the politically driven drive to ethanol, millions of acres of jungle, forest and pasture are now producing crops. This will not be turned off easily - neither will the much higher costs for fertilizer, machinery, pesticides and farmland. It has all been capitalized into the industry ever since the idiot Vice President broke the tie.
Thank you Al Gore - what a looser! A $100 Million dollar looser - ugg.
Posted by: AL at June 28, 2011 4:07 AM - "Only complete idiot could compare ethanol and gasoline prices on volumetric basis."
_________________
Right. Lets compare on an energy content basis, and then ethanol becomes even more expensive. Or we could compare on the basis of total CO2 emissions, and then we would see that ethanol emissions are greater than gasoline.
Or we could even compare the cost of wear and tear on my engine....
Don't worry guys Obama's gonna pay my gas and mortgage if I vote for him.
Who says Obama dosent work overtime?
Scientific American also has an article in their June 2011 edition making the link between the increased demand for biofuels and rising food prices. The article is here:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-quick-fix-to-the-food-crisis
No, it's not a sign of the apocalypse. The same issue contains a rant about global warming.
It's also noteworthy that CO2 is a side-product of the production (fermentation) of ethanol from sugars, in addition to the combustion of ethanol (which has been pointed out).
The whole rationale for mandated ethanol is to create a false economy to subsidize freeloadin' farmers....we don't need no stinking ethanol, and we don't need no stinking welfare bum farmers.
As stated by the great Forrest Gump , " Stupid is as stupid does".
Lots of fairy tales being tossed around in the comments I see.
Maybe we should stop the trillion dollar subsidies (military ) to secure a stable supply of mideast oil if you're talking subsidies.
Ethanol does not damage engines(that would be methanol.Know the difference.) I have a CR250, a chain saw and a weed wacker running on it. Respiratory relief!
Once ethanol has been extracted from corn The protein remaining
is more effective than corn alone for bulking up cattle. That's why it sells for a premium to raw corn.