Ethanol mandate gift for state (barf alert)

Subsidies, sure. How about Gulf wars one and two?

If we had not transferred billions of dollars out of our American economy to enemy Muslim nations to purchase petrolium, Iraq would not have invaded Kuwait, which they did in part for their oil, in part because they were flush with money and idle men. with no Iraqi invasion we would not have gone in and spent billions more to rescue them. This is and must be a direct charge against our cost of oil.

If Saddam Hussein had not have had billions of petrol dollars, many from the US, he would not have had the money to deveolpe WMDs or to sponser terrorism. We would not have spent additional billions to go in a second time to remove him.

How about the cost to us of 911? without billions of dollars from petroleum, Saudi Arabia would be a collection of camel hair tents, not a vastly wealthy sponser of world trerrorism and would not have funded the attack on the towers and the Pentagon.

Even the hatred level focused by these evil primitive people would not now have been focused on Western Civilization were it not for TVs and now computers spread across the Middle East and exposing them to a Western Culture that they deeply envy and are then taught to despise.

You know I could go on Professor, shall I?

larry

Professor, if you are a professor you should know better than to distort my words and use your distortion as the object of your rebuttal.

It is no secret that we have been militarily propping up foreign petroleum supplies for many years. To say that I believe that is the only reason we go to war is specious and should be beneath you.

How about the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve, established in response to the OPEC oil embargoes. That is pegged at 5.7 billion dollars a year. What is that if not a subsidy of oil?

You yourself mentioned the tax breaks. Here are a few excerpts detailing various subsidies that you probably do not know about:

Source: International Center for Technology Development.
http://www.icta.org/doc/Real%20Price%20of%20Gasoline.pdf

Federal tax breaks that directly
benefit oil companies include: the Percentage
Depletion Allowance (a subsidy of $784 million to $1
billion per year), the Nonconventional Fuel Production
Credit ($769 to $900 million), immediate expensing of
exploration and development costs ($200 to $255
million), the Enhanced Oil Recovery Credit ($26.3 to
100 million), foreign tax credits ($1.11 to $3.4 billion),
foreign income deferrals ($183 to $318 million), and
accelerated depreciation allowances ($1.0 to $4.5
billion).

Tax subsidies do not end at the federal level.
(clip) (A list of various state subsidies)

PROGRAM SUBSIDIES
Government support of US petroleum producers
does not end with tax breaks. Program subsidies that
support the extraction, production, and use of
petroleum and petroleum fuel products total $38 to
$114.6 billion each year.
(clip)

Source: International Center for Technology Development.
http://www.icta.org/doc/Real%20Price%20of%20Gasoline.pdf

I could clip and paste a lot more Professor. But really, need I go on?

Professor your own knowledge of the world of alternative energies seems to be fragmentary and outdated. Perhaps you should do some googling of your own.

Here is a place to start:
http://www.iowabiocenter.com/

I did not distort your words. You indicated that GWI and GWII were subsidies to oil. I indicated that it is preposterous that these wars were subsidies to oil.

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is not an oil subsidy. It is part of national defense. The US military needs lots of petroleum. There is no realistic alternative for petroleum for the US military.

Most of the subsidies that you list are available to other industries, especially other energy and export industries. To be fair, you could also list all of the taxes on oil exploration and development. In a way, the largest subsidy to oil is our refusal to explore known reserves in the US, develop new refining capacity, and demands for ever increasing environmental standards on gas. These political roadblocks are driving the cost of oil and gas much higher.

I have nothing against alternative energy production. With the high cost of crude, it is natural for a boom in alternative energy. I am strongly opposed to the direct mandates given for certain types of alternative energy (corn-based ethanol, wind, and solar). I am opposed to corporate income taxes so accelerated depreciation does not count as a subsidy to me. The direct mandates are the same as a central plan. Let the market determine the appropriate mix of energy technologies and fuel mixtures. Mandates will lead to boondoggles in which investment is locked in a poor technology and not redirected to a more efficient usage. Politically driven mandates almost guarantee boondoggles.

Of course you distorted my words and of course the Gulf wars were oil subsidies, just as I indicated in my post.

Your statements that subsidies are not subsidies do not change the facts and they carry no weight with me. Are you conceding that ANY of my listed subsidies are valid or do you deny them all? If you accept even one subsidy out of the hundreds or thousands out there as valid you must then concede that I have proved my point that gasoline is subsidized.

As for your statement that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is military, not civilian, again the facts hardly support you;

Past Sales [click on link for more details]
2005 Hurricane Katrina Sale - 11 million barrels
1996-97 total non-emergency sales - 28 million barrels
1990/91 Desert Shield/Storm Sale - 21 million barrels
(4 million in August 1990 test sale; 17 million in January 1991 Presidentially-ordered drawdown)
1985 - Test Sale - 1.1 million barrels

Past Exchanges [click on link for more details]
June 2006 - exchanged 750 thousand barrels of sour crude with ConocoPhillips and Citgo due to the closure for several days of the Calcasieu Ship Channel to maritime traffic. The closure resulted from the release of a mixture of storm water and oil. Action was taken to avert temporary shutdown of both refineries.
January 2006 - exchanged 767 thousand barrels of sour crude with Total Petrochemicals USA due to closure of the Sabine Neches ship channel to deep-draft vessels after a barge accident in the channel. Action was taken to avert temporary shutdown of the refinery.
Sep/Oct 2005- exchanged 9.8 million barrels of sweet and sour crude due to disruptions in Gulf of Mexico production and damage to terminals, pipelines and refineries caused by Hurricane Katrina.
Sep/Nov 2004 - exchanged 5.4 milliion barrels of sweet crude due to disruptions in the Gulf of Mexico caused by Hurricane Ivan.
Sep/Oct 2004 - exchanged 5.4 million barrels in response to physical shortages of crude oil supplies in the Gulf of Mexico following Hurricane Ivan.
Oct 2002 - exchanged 296,000 barrels with Shell Pipeline Co. to secure Capline storage tanks in advance of Hurricane Lili.
Sep/Oct 2000 - exchanged 30 million barrels in response to concern over low distillate levels in Northeast.
July/August 2000 - exchanged 2.8 million barrels of crude oil for 1st-year tank storage and stocks for 2 million barrel Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.
June 2000 - exchanged 500,000 barrels each with CITGO and Conoco, due to blockage of the ship channel that allowed incoming crude oil shipments to those refineries. Action taken in order to avert temporary shutdown of both refineries.
August 1998 - exchanged 11 million barrels of lower quality Maya crude in SPR with PEMEX for 8.5 million of higher quality crude (more suitable for U.S. refineries)
April/May 1996 - exchanged 900,000 barrels of SPR crude with ARCO to resolve company’s pipeline blockage problem.
source;
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/spr/spr-facts.html

Understand that I am not defending socialist style central control, I rebutted your original statement which was riddled with errors in fact and you have no answer for most of that. Instead of rebutting my response in its entirety you are focusing on the narrow issue of Gasoline subsidies and denying they exist when in fact they run into the billions of dollars and are easily googled.

In fact the over riding and by far most important reason for developing alternatives is the national security issue. All this Mickey Mouse bickering about the details is rather pointless. The good news is that you and those naysayers like you are way behind the curve in your evident knowledge of and indeed the present state of alternative energies.

Professor, the fact is your demagoguery of Ethanol subsidies and denial of petroleum subsidies can not and will not stop the rapid growth of alternative energies. The fact is this is critical to our national security and you should be ashamed of yourself for demagogueing it.

Larry

The enourmous mandates and subsidies to alternative energy are evidence that they are not viable. Otherwise, the subsidies and mandates are not needed.

The SPR is subject to political control. The original intent of the SPO was for the military. Regardless of how the SPR is used, it is not a subsidy for oil or the oil industry. The country depends on oil for many uses. The SPR may or may not be prudent planning. The SPR is just excess capacity, a practice common in many industries.

I am not denying that the oil and gas industries receive subsidies. My reply indicated that most subsidies were common to other export and energy industries. In addition, there are many barriers to development of oil and natural gas including taxation and regulatory. The development barriers are driving the cost higher, dollars that are flowing directly to the middle east producers because we will not develop our own supplies.

As I indicated, I am not opposed to alternative energy. I just do not want massive subsidies and mandates. Corn-based ethanol is a primary example of a boondoggle. Most demand for corn-based ethanol is mandated, originally for environmental reasons and now for the oil independence movement. The market does not want corn-based ethanol for a variety of reasons: poor energy content, corrosive engine wear, and cost. Let the investment dollars flow to other investments that may be more viable. Solar and wind energy are similar. They may be good niche technologies and someday they may become more viable. They are just subsidized boondoggles now. We will have high energy prices and low global competitiveness as a result of these boondoggles.

I reject national security as a reason for developing alternative sources of energy. I reject the entire idea of energy independence. Developing alternative forms of energy should be driven by the market place. With the high price of petroleuml, investors naturally seek alternative forms of energy. Energy is a world-wide commodity in many forms. We will not ever be energy independent unless we become a closed society, not trading with other countries. The military may have some special energy needs that can be addressed without energy independence. The drive for energy independence will make us poorer, not richer. If our wealth declines, we will be less able to defend ourselves.

Professor you do keep wiggling around. Now you say the issue is that I favor subsidies and mandates.

A couple of emails back you said it was that there were no subsidies for gasoline.

You were wrong by trillions of dollars.

Then you said I was unable to prove my point about the subsidies.

You were wrong again.

First thing you need to do is study up on these issues so you have something better than hoary old long debunked soundbites to offer. Your lack of knowledge on the subject is obvious.

When you have a basic knowledge of the issues involved with alternative energies then perhaps we can have a meaningful conversation.

The issue has always been the enormous subsidies and mandates bestowed to corn-based ethanol, other biofuels, wind, and solar. I am supportive of any private investment in energy technologies and fuel sources. The Energy Act of 2007 will lead to boondoggles due to its mandates and subsidies.

When I search about oil industry subsidies, the only sources that I see are leftist organizations and ethanol proponents. Please point me to an unbiased source about oil industry subsidies. The oil industry pays tremendous amounts of taxes and fees. I suspect that a careful analysis of the subsidies listed by the leftist and ethanol sources involve tax breaks given to most energy and export industries. I would like to see the corporate income tax abolished or lowered for everyone so I do not consider accelerated depreciation and R&D expensing as subsidies.

Here is a basic point that you need to consider. There is little demand for corn-based ethanol except for its mandated usage. Oil has tremendous demand, so much that demand is driving prices higher. The rats and their allies have restricted development of new oil supplies and refining capacity driving the price even higher.

If you agree with the mandates and subsidies to ethanol and biofuels in the Energy Act of 2007, then we have a fundamental disagreement in principle. If you think that the Energy Act of 2007 is similar to a Soviet style central plan, we are in agreement. I do not see any differences in opinion about private investment in alternative energy supplies.

So far you provide no proofs of anything. You deny all my proofs because you say they are biased.

You are still focusing on this one narrow factor of subsidies and ignoring the greater part of my post that getting off the dependency of petroleum produced by our enemies is of vital strategic importance to the United State of America.

All I have seen from you so far is a bias against ethanol, solar and wind power, coupled with a massive lack of knowledge of the state of the industry. I wonder if you have any clue as to the hundreds of other alternative energies now being developed, many in US military labs or under contract to the military and at public expense. I suspect not.

Of course government subsidies produce waste. There was a lot of waste in the Manhattan Project, and the fight against cancer and the fight against or for....name anything you want.

If you can do no better than to keep repeating yourself, with no proofs of your own, and demanding yet more proofs of me after you reject the very solid proofs I have provided this thread might as well end.

You have not responded to any of my points. I suspect that you are in the ethanol business, so perhaps you have a dog in this fight.

- There is little demand for corn-based ethandol except the demand created by mandates.

- The biofuel and alternative energy mandates are unprecedented. These mandates are just a Soviet style central plan. There is no equivalent mandate for oil. There is massive world-wide demand for oil. The mandate levels are arbitrary. Production levels should be determined by market forces not politicians.

- The critics of the oil industry have strong biases. Bias is an important factor in judging a source. I am suspect about reports from environmental groups, rat politicians, and ethanol boosters.

- I am not opposed to tax breaks such as accelerated depreciation, R&D expensing, and export credits. These tax breaks have been granted to many industries including oil. I support the same tax breaks for alternative energy.

- You keep insisting that I am opposed to development of alternative energy sources. I am fully supportive of this development. I am opposed to mandates about the energy mix, import quotas on ethanol, and the federal fuel tax subsidy given to ethanol. I am not ignorant about the alternative energy industry. The high price of oil and natural gas along with the global warming hysteria has driven investment dollars.

- I think that corn-based ethanol is not a viable fuel source on a large scale. It corrodes engines, has low energy content, is difficult to transport, has negative environment impacts, and has high cost. The rats have even proposed mandates for E85 availability at service stations and car manufacturers.

If alternative energy is viable as you claim, why does it need the massive mandates? It seems that you favor these massive mandates rather than allowing the marketplace to determine the proper mix of energy sources. If you are opposed to these massive mandates, we are in agreement about investments in alternative energy sources.

Professor you are a fine one to talk about answering points. I have answered your points, you are the one that is ducking and dodging. You are still ducking the over riding issue, that alternative energy is a critical national security issue to release us from our dependence on Mideast oil. What about that Professor? Any unbiased proofs to suggest otherwise?

As for your belief that subsidies and mandates are evil, I have a few questions that I would like answers to.

Do you believe that education should be privatized and voluntary, that it should lose all mandates and subsidies?

Do you believe that public health should be entirely dependent on private funding, that it should lose all subsidies and mandates?

The US Food and Drug Administration is a very arbitrary agency, subsidized by the federal government, should we stop all public testing of drugs, make testing by the companies voluntary?

Do you believe that public safety should lose all mandates and subsidies? No traffic cops, no traffic laws, no driver's licenses, no rules or laws or prisons. Sounds great to me.

Do you believe that our public roads and streets should be all privatized, that they should lose all subsidies and mandates?

Do you believe that our public defense should be wholly privatized, that the government should stop all public funding of the US military?

How about building codes and mandates about how to put buildings together?

You see Professor, simply repeating one liners and simple sound bites without thinking thru the consequences is always dangerous. You need to think these things thru, do in depth research, then take your position.

You have not answered one issue that I raised. Answering a question with a question is not a valid debating point. Education is a different issue but I can assure you that my beliefs are consistent about education, drug policy, traffic control, and health care. All of these areas need less government interference. Making laws and regulations is not equivalent to dictating the level of production so the energy mandates are unique in economic regulation.

You are right about the central issue: energy independence as national security. I clearly indicated that energy independence is a bad policy. We have an unreconcilable difference on this issue. We will never be energy independent. Trying to be energy independent will only drive up energy costs and decrease supply. Energy independence is not necessary for national security. The military can deal with its specific needs without energy independence.

My ideas about energy policy are much more in line with other members of this website. Your policy preferences (huge mandates and subsidies) are much more in line with rat politicians. I want restrictions on oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear relaxed. I do not want any mandates about the amount of biofuels, wind, and solar. I support similar tax breaks (R&D, accelerated depreciation, export credits, and so on) for all energy technologies as well as other areas of industrial development.

Professor, please name these issues you claim I have not answered. I believe I have answered each one.

Please cite proof to your preposterous claim that we can never become energy independent. You say energy independence is bad policy but when have you offered any proof that energy independence is bad policy? Please cite your proofs.

Please support your claim that your beliefs on energy policy are in line with the group opinion on this web site and that I am not. In fact this site is a patriotic and conservative site and I rather resent the implications that the people using it do not value American independence and strength. I find it very hard to believe that the people using this site wish to remain dependent on our enemies for our energy.

Here you go again, distorting my words. When have I ever said I was for Huge Subsidies of ethanol or gasoline? I have not, and obviously both gasoline and the alternatives are already hugely subsidized. I have cited many proofs and you have cited none.

How can we expect any alternative energy to gain market share by the free market system with the huge gasoline subsidies in place? Obviously both subsidies need to be reduced and I have never expressed any opinion to the contrary.

Professor I have cited many proofs for my positions, all you have done is duck and weave, stated your own opinions and demonstrated an over all lack of knowledge of the subject.

You reject my proofs saying they are biased. Get Real Professor. You yourself are biased and so is every site on the web containing any citable information on any subject whatsoever and you should know this. No one establishes a web site without some goal and a goal is a bias.

Professor I think you have learned some things from this debate but if you can cite no proofs, biased or not, for any of your opinions, then continuing this exchange by merely repeating yourself and your personal opinions and continually denying my cited proofs is valueless to the list.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.