Skip to comments.Texas seeks EPA ethanol waiver over high food costs
Posted on 04/25/2008 10:03:15 PM PDT by stickman20089
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Texas Governor Rick Perry has asked the Environmental Protection Agency for an immediate waiver on the state's requirements under a federal ethanol mandate because of "skyrocketing food costs," according to a release on the state's Web site Friday. Perry asked the EPA to reduce the state's federal renewable fuel standard mandate by 50% for ethanol produced from grain. "We appreciate the good intentions behind the push for renewable fuels. In fact we're diversifying our state's energy portfolio at a rapid rate, but this misguided mandate is significantly affecting Texans' family food bill," said Perry in a statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at marketwatch.com ...
Good for Perry.
Stand up and speak out Americans! This oil for food business is insane!
Ethanol fraud bump
With Perry it’s all about pandering. He’s pushing TTC, open borders and global warming BS which the media of course ignores.
What’s the total number of wells in Texas contaminated with MTBE at last count?
The “environmentalists” have shifted from destroying our water supply to destroying our food supply in their quest to kill us all and save the planet.
That a texan would be against any, all and every attempt to get free of fossil fuels is hardly news.
Strangely texas, whicj is a republic, has zero qualms about 38M acres set as No Till.
What then accounts for the rest of the increase? Several things: rising food demand from rapidly developing countries; poor wheat harvests in several major exporters (Russia, Australia, Canada); and of course, the rise in energy costs, which drives up the cost of diesel, fertilizer, irrigation, and pesticides for farmers.
Does so how does ethanol net out if one tries seriously to account for all the feedback loops? Fair minded observers can debate that, and a small army of economists are trying to model it right now. But ethanol last year provided more than 100% of the increase in U.S. gasoline demand. One commonly cited estimate is that gasoline prices in the U.S., absent ethanol, would be 15% higher than they are right now. This does not get reported because both food and fuel costs are rising. This allows the media to report Armageddon on two fronts, but the talking heads notwithstanding, ethanol is a big asset on the energy side. (This will become crystal clear to the MSM if we get a pro-ethanol democrat in the White House.) And it will get bigger if/when cellulosic ethanol begins to come on line.
The impact on U.S. food prices is trickier than the hysterical reporting suggests. The farm price of commodities accounts for about 15% of the U.S. retail food dollar, and the rising cost of oil is itself a major driver of the higher farm cost. The impact on consumers varies widely by product, but for example there is only about 5 cents worth of corn in a box of corn flakes. You could double the price of wheat and it would net out to another nickel a box. The impact is much greater in poor countries where people use less processed food and staples are a much larger part of the diet.
Yes, the U.S. could choose to shut down our ethanol industry in order to accomodate rising demand elsewhere. A better solution IMHO is for other countries to ramp up agricultural production and feed themselves. The world's aid agencies are in a panic about the food situation in Africa. Africa is a basket case, but I don't think U.S. energy and agricultural policy both should be compromised to subsidize dumping grain on a continent that could and should be feeding itself.
Article and governor are crocks, as there isn’t
enough ethanol to meets even the 50% he is
asking for.He is just doing this so as to be seen
as doing something for the uninformed nuts
doing the bitching. They still will add oxygenates
of some kind. Our farmers have increased corn
productiov in 15 years 31% for food/feed use as well
as the extra for ethanol, which really is a by-product
of making high protein animal feed in the process,
that with other outputs, has more value than ethanol.
Many populous contries were exporting food they shouldn’t
have hurting their people, and now they stopped so
that is major cause of shortages. We still export,and
anyone with the price of food to spend, can get their
needs. The price is the kicker and is being speculated
up by huge influxs of money from investors. Ed
About damn time!
I guess I’m surprised Rick had the ballz to do this, but good for him!
You overlook the obvious but seldom-stated fact that ethanol does not have near the energy content of gasoline on a per-gallon basis.
So adding ehtanol to our gasoline also appreciably reduces our fuel mileage with no discnerible reduction in per-gallon fuel price.
Mandating we use ethanol as a fuel is a hand-out to famrers, pure and simple. And the money comes out of MY wallet!
It won’t matter. The problem is Peak Oil and we must adjust to that.
It's not just the farmers:
Congress subsidized farmers to grow corn by paying oil companies a 52 cents per gallon subsidy to blend biofuels with gasoline.
Congress slapped a heavy tariff on Brazilian fuel...which they make primarily with sugar beets.
If Congress would get their &^%$## OUT of their collective arses, and stop forcing this back-door global warming garbage on us, there would BE no skyrocketing cost of food & fuel!
Not so. Your comment, however, illustrates my point that since both food and fuel costs are rising, the beneficial impact of ethanol on fuel costs tends to be overlooked.
Yes, it is true that ethanol on a per-gallon basis contains about a third fewer BTU's. It is, however, still a superior oxygenate and a useful fuel extender. Last year ethanol supplied over 100% of the total increase in U.S. gasoline usage. Gasoline prices would be appreciably higher today were it not for ethanol.
Corn ethanol will hit acreage/production limits in the near future. Cellulosic ethanol, if it can be made cost-competitive, is another story. The USDA-DOE "Billion Ton Study" estimated that, with cellulosic ethanol, we could sustainably supply a third of our current transportation fuel needs utilizing existing waste streams -- e.g. farm and forest waste and some urban recycling. That doesn't include the prospect of dedicated energy crops and "exotic" feedstocks. There is a huge potential here.
Legendary oil investor T. Boone Pickens was on CNBC earlier this week talking about energy and oil prices.
According to Delta Farm Press, his comments about ethanol did not receive very much media attention, but they are certainly interesting to the ethanol industry.
Pickens, who admitted he once opposed ethanol, said on CNBC’s daily âSquawk Box program that America’s purchases of foreign oil are costing the country a half a trillion dollars every year.
You take 10 years, and you have $5 trillion, said Pickens. That’s more than $1 billion a day. We can’t stand that. (That $500 billion per year is not far from the record federal deficit of $552 billion in 2004.)
Ethanol industry leaders have been saying the United States needed to reduce its use of foreign-produced oil to avoid transferring such wealth out of the country. But few have put it in such dramatic terms as Pickens.
Acknowledging he didn’t think much of ethanol’s claims in the early years, he said he now supports increased production. I’d rather have ethanol and recirculate the money in the country, than to have it go out the back door on us.
10% ethanol blend gives my V8s and extra mile per gal.
The 10 % blend doesn’t have a great BTU loss, regular
gas is 115,000 btus/gal, 10% blend 111,000 btus/gal.
Ethanol is oxygenator and in aiding clean burning,
you get more effiency, less unburnt hydrocarbons, etc,
out the tailpipe, and more energy pushing things down the
road. On new small engines in front wheel junk, milage
is same. Ed