Posted on 06/15/2008 6:59:49 PM PDT by mtrott
SAO PAULO, Brazil — U.S. presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain supports ending subsidies for U.S. ethanol production and would back Brazil’s inclusion on an expanded United Nations Security Council, a Brazilian newspaper reported Sunday. In comments published by the Estado de S. Paulo newspaper, McCain also said he would support Brazil’s addition to the Group of Eight industrialized nations and lauded the nation’s drive to find clean energy sources. The United States has “committed a series of errors in not adopting a sustainable energy policy,” McCain was quoted as saying. “One of those is the subsidies for ethanol from corn.” McCain blamed the price supports for “destroying the market” and “causing a serious problem with inflation.” The Republican also blasted U.S. tariffs on Brazilian ethanol imports, saying that the Brazilian product made from sugarcane “is much more efficient than ethanol from corn.” Critics of the U.S. subsidies say spurring the planting of corn for use in ethanol has added to a sharp spike in global food prices. But White House economic advisers say corn-based ethanol is responsible for just 2 to 3 percent of the overall increase in food prices, which are up more than 40 percent this year over 2007. According to Estado de S. Paulo’s report, McCain also said he would back the entry of Brazil and India into a larger G-8 and would favor removing Russia from the group.
(Excerpt) Read more at elections.foxnews.com ...
Ethanol ping
Ok EEE
I agree with you on this, so it must be true. ;->
Good for McCain!
Nothing to see here, just an epiphany gleaned from his afternoon nap. ;-)
Ethanol is a loser regardless. Cheaper Brazilian stuff included. It is cheaper and more energy efficient to drill and pump petroleum.
And so far McCain is just talk. And not a great deal of that. Has he submitted a list of off limits areas (oil development) that he wants to open up? But he has compared ANWR to the Grand Canyon. Jeez, what does that make the Gulf of Mexico? heaven?
Unfortunately, as long as he is a vocal proponent of destroying the economy over the GW hoax, his comments on energy don’t count for much.
McCain bump. Hooray!
If he is going to end the subsidies for Ethanol then he needs to simultaneously end any Federal or State requirements that a certain percentage be mixed with gasoline. Otherwise, without the subsidies and the laws staying static...gasoline will go up another .50 per gallon.
EXCELLENT , its about time someone said please stop this stupid agri-business lobby scam.
McCain’s timing is brilliant. Just brilliant. A large swath of the corn belt is under water, and a large percentage of the corn crop is gone. I’m sure this will win him lots of friends in Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, et al, at this perfectly-timed political moment. /s
Pander to Brazil, screw the American farmer. It’s part of of John’s MO. Betray your own, kowtow to everyone else.
Before any of the anti-ethanol folks get their nose out of joint, this is a political comment, not a comment on the advisability of ethanol subsidies.
I’m glad to see McCain get something right.
No one wants to see the price of food rise. Environmentalists making a corrupt bargain with agribusiness giants to save Gaia is the theater of the absurd.
BS , this additive has jacked up fuel prices and distorted fuel supplies from state to state and jacked up the price of fuel. Is there anything Mccain can do to satisfy the Mccain haters and the sea of fellow Obama operatives here at FR ?
“The ethanol mandates that have been foisted on American taxpayers are not just fiscal insanity, they are immoral. Congress has created a system of subsidies and mandates that requires the U.S. to burn food to make motor fuel, at a time when there is a global shortage of food and no global shortage of motor fuel.”
....and drumroll please.....
(snip of above below)
“So, where did the claim that ethanol is more energy efficient originate? I believe it originates with researchers from Argonne National Laboratory, who developed a model (GREET) that is used to determine the energy inputs to turn crude oil into products (4). Since it will take some amount of energy to refine a barrel of crude oil, by definition the efficiency is less than 100% in the way they measured it. For example, if I have 1 BTU of energy, but it took .2 BTUs to turn it into a useable form, then the efficiency is 80%. This is the kind of calculation people use to show that the gasoline efficiency is less than 100%. However, ethanol is not measured in the same way. Look again at the example from the USDA paper, and lets do the equivalent calculation for ethanol. In that case, we got 98,333 BTUs out of the process, but we had to input 77,228 to get it out. In this case, comparing apples to apples, the efficiency of producing ethanol is just 21%. Again, gasoline is about 4 times higher.
OK, so Argonne originated the calculation. But are they really at fault here? Yes, they are. Not only did they promote the efficiency calculation for petroleum products with their GREET model, but they have proceeded to make apples and oranges comparisons in order to show ethanol in a positive light. They have themselves muddied the waters. Michael Wang, from Argonne, (and author of the GREET model) made a remarkable claim last September at The 15th Annual Symposium on Alcohol Fuels in San Diego (5). On his 4th slide , he claimed that it takes 0.74 MMBTU to make 1 MMBTU of ethanol, but 1.23 MMBTU to make 1 MMBTU of gasoline. That simply can’t be correct, as the calculations in the preceding paragraphs have shown.
"Not only is his claim incorrect, but it is terribly irresponsible for someone from a government agency to make such a claim. I don’t know whether he is being intentionally misleading, but it certainly looks that way. Wang is also the co-author of the earlier USDA studies that I have critiqued and shown to be full of errors and misleading arguments. These people are publishing articles that bypass the peer review process designed to ferret out these kinds of blatant errors. I suspect a politically driven agenda in which they are putting out intentionally misleading information.
"One of the reasons I haven’t written this up already, is that 2 weeks ago I sent an e-mail to Wang bringing this error to his attention. I immediately got an auto-reply saying that he was out of the office until March 31st. I have given him a week to reply and explain himself, but he has not done so. Therefore, at this time I must conclude that he knows the calculation is in error, but does not wish to address it. In the interim, ethanol proponents everywhere are pushing this false information in an effort to boost support for ethanol.
"Look at the Minnesota Department of Agriculture claim again: "the energy yield of ethanol is (1.34/0.74) or 81 percent greater than the comparable yield for gasoline". If the energy balance was really this good for ethanol and that bad for gasoline, why would anyone ever make gasoline? Where would the economics be? Why would ethanol need subsidies to compete? It should be clear that the proponents in this case are promoting false information.”
The previous has infuriated the ethanol proponents and even some Freepers. Keep in mind that some of this info is old, and newer info seems to reinforce the folly of ethanol even more.
We should cease all ethanol production. It takes away from food production and the unintended consequence is higher food costs. As diesel prices go up, the cost of farming tips the balance of cost to make ethanol a bad idea. Just say "no" to ethanol! Even Jimmy Carter says that diverting farm production from food to fuel is dumb – even HE gets it. This will create only ONE "blend" of gasoline and will cease regional "boutique" blends (gasohols) which are stupid, costly, and meaningless. Trucking custom blends around the country is wasteful. Ethanol blends may actually lead to fewer miles to the gallon, and adds to the cost of production and transportation. Newer cars do not need oxygenated fuels.
WOW - maybe next he'll expose the "global warming" scam... we can dream.
This is not news. He already said this months ago.
No. Unlike you and your fellow McCain Whig Party members, I don’t support liberals of any sort. I don’t give one ounce of impetus to anyone who is destroying my country.
Enjoy the ash heap, because that’s where you’re heading.
The answer is no, to be honest. Some people here want McCain to lose in November hoping that Obama will wreck the country, so that they can go out find a Nehemiah Scudder to run in 2012.
It appears that support ethanol subsidies. What is conservative about that? Maybe you are one of those Patbucananites.
Right, all you ever post is non stop McCain bashing . Your a useful idiot for the Obama camp and his allies such as ACCORN his former employer , Code Pink, Moveon.org, David Geffen, George Soros , Mr Ayers and his lovely terrorist wife . As Obama is setting up his internet police which he plans to keep as a full time police force once he gains power , your still busy as beaver helping him get elected with you nonstop ridiculous McCain is just as bad campaign. The fact you will not directly address Obama and his radicalism allies dangerous agenda speaks volumes about your agenda .
McCain says: “The United States has “committed a series of errors in not adopting a sustainable energy policy,” McCain was quoted as saying. “One of those is the subsidies for ethanol from corn.”
Not sure I understand the reasoning.
McCain plans to end subsidies, which will be the same thing as ending ethanol production in the USA.
To replace the lost ethanol, Americans will have to purchase refined gasoline from foreign countries, since we have no extra oil and no extra refining capacity.
That’s not my idea of a “sustainable energy policy.”
Move over Alan Keyes, we're comin' to visit.
I'm confused. Why does calling ethanol a loser elicit that response?
As far as hating McCain goes, I have legitimate beefs with a number of his positions.
-He has stated he doesn't want to drill in ANWR. He's wrong.
-He is in favor of the GW hoax, and the expensive government taxes and programs that go with it
-I won't even get into CFR
-He is in favor of blanket amnesty for illegals & essentially opening the floodgates further.
There is absolutely nothing ad hominem in my criticisms of those positions.
My refusal to rubber stamp any Republican's positions that I consider to be bad for this country can hardly be construed as pimping for a radical leftist America hater.
Good point on the politics, E.V.
I completely overlooked it.
Well, one thing he could do is take a consistent stand.
Quote:
"I support ethanol and I think it is a vital, a vital alternative energy source not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse gas reduction effects," he said in an August [2007] speech in Grinnell, Iowa, as reported by the Associated Press.
Generally McCain has been on the correct side of the Ethanol question, which is that he's against it. But one has to wonder if his temporary conversion on Ethanol in the Fall of 2007 was similar to his "new awakening" on the question of illegal immigration.
Now he's saying if states want to do drilling, we ought to listen to them -- unless of course the state is Alaska, where natives are overwhelmingly in favor of continental shelf drilling and ANWR exploration. One wonders what straight talker John McCain would be saying if AK had more electoral votes, or if those votes were actually in play in November.
So, you're forsaking McCain and moving back towards conservatism? Awesome!
Next thing you know this old coot will come out for ANWR and offshore drilling
Looks bogus to me. The car has an "energy generator."
Uh-huh. Whatever that might be.
Somehow, electrons are extracted from the Hydrogen, powering the car.
Uh-huh. Wonder how the Oxygen feels about that.
Can you say "Perpetual Motion Machine of the First Kind?"
Keep the Ethanol. You're going to need to drink lot's of it if you want to believe in this kind of stuff.
What on earth could be said about McCain that is positive?
The man can only win because so many folks will refuse to vote for Obama.
That is so completely unlikely to actually happen.
Why is McCain sucking up to Brazil? If we end subsidies then we need to end paying farmers not to grow certain crops.
Years. He said it in 2000. I know, because I despised him as much then as I do now, but I had to grudgingly admit he was the only one on the stage right about the issue.
Why is McCain sucking up to Brazil? If we end subsidies then we need to end paying farmers not to grow certain crops.
How do you think Nixon and Carter won ?
Yah. Ray of hope.
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!! Good On Him!
Can't the American farmer go back to selling corn for food, like he did for decades before the ethanol fiasco?
I started predicting that last week.
Not only will McCain do a Conservative about face on drilling, but the scientific, financial, and political realities of cap-and-trade and alternative fuels will force him out of that fantasy world, too.
He can join the ‘Rat party. It would be the 1st time he told the truth.
I would dearly like to know what Jack Kemp thinks of statements like "I'm deeply disturbed at the oil companies enormous profits and how they haven't used this money to explore other alternatives."
Hello?
This is like saying that you're deeply disappointed in the huge profits of the NFL and don't understand why they haven't invested some of the money in Women's Lacrosse.
Please! Get this guy focused or have him shut up.
Not to mention its uses as a beverage, esp when flavoured in oak casks.
Cease **ALL** ethanol subsidies? Now that, FRiend, is an excellent idea!
Stay with your instincts and don’t try to predict America ought 12. It’s a fatal mistake.
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.