Posted on 04/27/2008 5:32:40 PM PDT by Dawnsblood
Here’s an inconvenient truth:
Long before man-caused global warming kills people and topples governments, the man-caused scare over global warming is going to have the same effect.
Unlike the myth of man-made global warming, the scare is real, and it is here today.
The secretary-general of the United Nations told reporters in Austria on Friday that the sudden and steep rise in food prices worldwide has developed into a global crisis.
With shortages of affordable food spreading around the world, food-related unrest has broken out in nations as diverse as Egypt, Haiti, Indonesia and Afghanistan.
One of the base causes of the shortages is the effect of global-warming concerns in the United States, where it is estimated that 30 percent of the nation’s corn crop now is devoted to the production of ethanol, rather than going into the food chain. As the “food basket” of the world, what happens in crop production in the U.S. affects the world food supply.
A noted professor of applied economics and law at the University of Minnesota, C. Ford Runge, has concluded that ethanol production in the United States - a product of the global-warming scare - has had a “clearly substantial” effect on the world food crisis.
Meanwhile, former vice president and Oscar winner Al Gore, father of the global-warming scare, has been uncharacteristically silent - as have been his liberal cheerleaders in the media.
(Excerpt) Read more at chieftain.com ...
* Cease all ethanol production. It requires more energy to make than it yields and the unintended consequence is higher food costs. Just say "no" to ethanol!
* Immediately create only ONE "blend" of gasoline and cease regional blends which are stupid, costly, and meaningless. Even if this is the "cleanest" blend, just make it ONE and be done with it. Trucking custom blends around the country is wasteful.
* Drill for oil in Alaska, Gulf of Mexico, and other sites in the CONUS as a matter of national security.
* Construct state-of-the-art refineries and/or retrofit current and dormant ones and crank up production.
* Make all “carbon credit” scams unlawful.
* Construct SEVERAL, regional Pebble-Bed Reactors (or other similar designs) that are not considered "breeders", are rechargeable, and cleaner than any current nuclear generator design.
* Use the residual heat from the reactor above to process motor fuel from coal. Even though Clinton "stole" some of the best coal reserves, we still have a lot to use.
* Have Iraq pay for its freedom, and maybe even pay us back for their freedom. We'll still need their oil.
* Bust up the cartels.
* Convince local taxing bodies to lift or fix the sales tax on gasoline so that as gas prices go up, the local tax collectors don’t see a windfall revenue jump at the expense of the consumer.
Why does a shortage of food become the fault of the US?
The OPEC states are driving up the cost of oil until the cost of alternative liquid fuels becomes cheaper. And, every time we find a short-term potential substitute, some fool liberal jumps up and says: “No, that one is out of bounds.” So we can’t drill for more oil anywhere, we can’t use coal, we can’t use nuclear, etc.
The real problem does not lie in the US, it lies in OPEC and in the liberal mind.
Soon, ethanol from non-food crops is going to be feasible. Switchgrass looks pretty promising right now. I don’t care how we get ethanol right now, in 10 years it is going to come from specialized crops grown on what is now wasteland.
So, we need to “prime the pump”. Work out distribution issues with the ethanol we have, and recognize a better source is on the way.
To he11 with the naysayers. Let them go complain to the arabs.
Google is a easy thing to use.......
FR’s-—some are starting to sounds like Dem’s, take a look at your posts
Ethanol Facts:http://www.ethanolfacts.com/ETHL2007/quickfacts.html
Ethanol produces up to 9% of daily US imports 311 million barrels per day.....
Corn and Food prices have been essentially stagnent for 25 yrs......lets see your business/ line of work duplicate that
Last yr. Ag Fed Prog. gave back 6 billion in unused federal dollars....and US Treas. via a brazille ethanol tariff brought in .50 per gallon 6 billion gals of brazille ethanol..........ethanol subsiz near a wash,
A phase down, maybe out of ethanol sub. has started, new farm prog. close to being submitted drops blenders credit from 51 to 45 cents—— A sched phase down is fine.
Dont let the MSM media campaign pit Red against Red..really what is trying to be done.
Ethanol is likely respon for 25 to 33% of corn price increase. China, India etc demand along with Middleman profit taking and Trans. cost accounts for other 75%....a concerted campaign by Food and Oil Corptns is in full swing, fully assisted by MSM’s
Question-—with china, india, Indonesia, Japan demand, even without ethanol in the equation.....one could say corn price might be at same level regardless.......Check out the price history of Hard Red Spring wheat in the last 6 month time period......with dollar low USA is the grain supplier of 1st choice pure and simple.
Sure ethanol has its weakpoints, but has employed 160k people.
final point in food concern: Ethanol uses only the starch portion of the corn kernal.....the protein is sold to the lvsk industry, in very high demand to produce food, actual reduction in feed available is reduced dramatically.
Spend some time in the “ethanol facts” link.... make an informed decsion,.......not a D.Kos type decsion
Waaaa! I'm not blaming "big oil"...neither is TEXAS A&M...you do realize that they are in TEXAS? Oil Country?
Read the link that I posted...READ IT. It is the price of oil; which is directly the result of our falling dollar (along with several other more minor issues...like speculation in the grain markets) that is driving the cost of food.
That, is an "inconvenient truth" to people like the fool that wrote this article.
Me as well, with Clinton running a definite third...
But to the people who will watch their children, parents and friends whither and die of starvation — once they realize that it was primarily his schlock science and ego-mongering lies that have caused it — I think Gore is going to be the ultimate fiend.
http://www.ntu.org/main/press_papers.php?PressID=855&org_name=NTU
[SNIP]
Subsidizing Overproduction
For over two decades, ethanol has been portrayed as the way to save the family farm and rural America. Iowa Senator Tom Harkin believes that ethanol will be "the next place to look for income for farmers."[16] And, it's easy to see why. Ethanol's supporters are quick to point out that a new refinery in an area will typically cause corn prices to rise 5 to 10 cents per bushel. According to the industry, ethanol generated $32 billion in economic activity and created 153,725 jobs in 2005.[17] Almost $6 billion of that $32 billion accrued to more than 300,000 growers and producers as farm income.[18] Writing in The Des Moines Register, Editorial Page Editor Carol Hunter highlights the benefits of these jobs for Iowa – and by extension all of rural America – declaring: "Those jobs help keep communities viable and offer new career opportunities for Iowa's young people – and older Iowans, too."[19]
While these jobs give the appearance of stability and vitality, they are in fact an artificial outgrowth of the subsidies that support the growing of corn and the making of ethanol. There are, in general, only two ways to increase farmers' incomes: (1) engage in labor activities off the farm, or (2) increase yields for every planted acre. The motivation at the farm level to secure additional income through additional output leads to an aggregate level of overproduction. As The Salt Lake Tribune observed, "We don't make ethanol from corn because it is efficient.… We make ethanol mostly out of corn because it is astoundingly plentiful, thanks to decades of heavy federal subsidies."[20] Author Michael Pollan estimates that taxpayers spend $5 billion a year – almost half of net farm income – to subsidize the growing of 10 billion bushels of cheap corn.[21] As a result, the U.S. sits on a two billion-bushel surplus of corn. According to Pollan, "Ecology teaches that whenever an excess of organic matter arises anywhere in nature, creatures large and small inevitably step forward to consume it, sometimes creating whole new food chains in the process."[22] In this instance, the need to deal with all of that excess corn – which results in large part from government subsidies – and in turn raise farm incomes is used as a justification for the creation and maintenance of the ethanol industry. It is reasonable, therefore, to question how much of this should come at taxpayers' expense.
Subsidizing Production
Prior to 2004, producers of E10 received a 5.2-cent-per-gallon exemption from the 18.4-cent federal motor fuels excise tax.[23] But as CRS notes, "Because the exemption applied to blended fuel, of which ethanol comprises only 10%, the exemption provided for an effective subsidy of 52¢ per gallon of pure ethanol."[24] In 1997, the then-General Accounting Office found that the excise tax exemption had the effect of reducing the Highway Trust Fund by $7.5 billion to $11 billion over the period from FY1979 to FY2000.[25] Concerns over ethanol's drain on transportation funds led the 108th Congress to replace the excise tax exemption with an income tax credit. Producers can now receive a 51-cent-a-gallon credit for pure ethanol that is used for blending purposes. This subsidy was troubling when it was originally confined to motorists. It is even more so now that it has become embedded in the general Tax Code. In an interview with the Detroit Free Press, ExxonMobil Chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson expresses the skepticism of many, saying, "What the government has done is stick a filter between the signals of the market and consumers. The fact that the subsidies exist shows it's not a viable alternative."[26] The industry is also receiving support at the state level. Data from the RFA shows that 15 states offer some type of producer incentive program. Table 2 highlights some of these programs. Yet, Pete Geddes of the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment questions the efficacy of such programs by pointing out, "Since 1983, Montana taxpayers have provided subsidies for ethanol production. And there is not a single ethanol plant in Montana."[27] Minnesota's taxpayers have the opposite problem: subsidizing 11 privately owned plants to the tune of $26 million a year. The NBC affiliate in Minneapolis-St. Paul obtained financial reports from the state's ethanol plants and found that pre-tax profits had risen 300 percent in the past year, from $31 million in 2004 to $131 million in 2005. The Duluth News Tribune reports that Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty tried to terminate the subsidy program in 2003 but backed down in the face of opposition from the farmers who owned the plants.[28] David Strom of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota rightly calls this "a giant taxpayer rip off."[29]
[SNIP]
It has not mattered when each time ethanol had a rationale, that rationale either became invalid or the product could not do what proponents claimed; it still surmounted every obstacle due to gigantic political clout. When oil prices crashed in a glut of oil in the mid-1980s, the tax subsidy kept ethanol in use for lead replacement. Ethanol was there when the feds claimed that oxygenation should be required for RFG [reformulated gasoline]. When its too-high RVP [Reid vapor pressure] hurt air quality goals, it was given a waiver. Now, after nearly three decades, the feds say we do not need oxygenation of RFG, but ethanol has won mandated sales increases that go on infinitum.[sic][35]
Agreed, but the corn lobby and all it's supporters who hang out here on FR (who are probably making a pretty penny themselves), will run to their congressman/senator and complain about the welfare they're not getting anymore.
SECO commissioned this 2003 report by Texas A & M University's Department of Agricultural Economics to provide a broad overview of ethanol production and to evaluate its potential as an economic development strategy for Rural Texas. This abbreviated version of the full report includes the Executive Summary and the Summary and Conclusions, Chapter 5 of the full report.
http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/re_ethanol_plants.htm
The “e” mark and the “stylized e” are registered service marks of the Ethanol Promotion and Information Council. The links include the "Corn refiners Association", "Distillers Grains Technology Council", and "University of Minnesota Distillers Grains Web Site"
I prefer the guys who stand up for the American Taxpayer instead. Not a bunch of welfare moms who refuse to get off the gov't dole.
http://www.ntu.org/main/press_papers.php?PressID=855&org_name=NTU
“”stop raping the American tax payer””
The oil companies have been raping the taxpayers for the past 50 years. What do you call the billions of dollars we spend protecting oil company production facilities in foreign lands? What is $120.00 a barrell oil?
As far as subsidys, I suspect you will find numerous businesses and industries like airlines, railroads, busses, highway construction and many others that get some kind of subsidy or tax break. What is bailing out the banks who made bad mortgages and loans? Looks like a Wall Street Subsidy to me. The bonuses some of the Wall Streeters made last year was more than many of us make in 5 years. Do they look like they need a subsidy?
What little money farmers might be getting in subsidies is like comparing a penny to a hundred dollar bill we hand Saudi Jihadi every time we fill our gas tank. At least American farmers keep their money right at home, paying school taxes and shopping at the local hardware store. When did big oil ever spend anything in your town??
And I don’t think you see any farmers who are in the Fortune 500 or 1000 so I have no idea where you think farmers are rich or close to being considered rich.
If they want to make their corn into ethanol, it is their decision. If energy pays farmers better than feeding the world with bumper crops, who cares about some hungry barbarians as long as we can commute to work 100 miles a day.
Ain’t any rich farmers out there. But there are sure a lot of rich oil barons and stock holders in big oil companies laughing all the way to the bank.
Gore’s “Great Leap Forward”
Protecting oil companies oil wells in the Persian Gulf is a Billion Dollar a Month subsidy, is it not? Escorting oil tankers through foreign seas so they can make it to America is a huge subsidy also.
A few farmer/ investors getting a low interest loan (the ethanol subsidy) for a few million dollars to build an ethanol plant that employs local workers, and saves transporting grain hundreds of miles is pennies on the dollar compared to protecting big oil companies so you can enjoy your $3.50 a gallon gas on your drive to the grocery store.
American refiners produce less than 25% of their total crude needs. They buy the other 75%. I.e., they're the ones who are laying out that $120 for a barrel of crude.
For the most part, the 75% they're having to pay for is going to nationalized companies (i.e., other governments).
By the way, I was a farmer myself (pecans). And, like you, I know that farmers are the last reason why food prices are rising. But the oil companies aren't guilty of what you're accusing them of.
Unless Ethanol can actually provide real energy for our military, why should there be any interest whatsoever in a useless product that costs more to produce? You let me know the next time a tanker, jet, and tank runs on pure ethanol
No, gov't should not be bailing airlines out or providing subsidies for the airlines, perhaps the corn growers can learn a lesson from that disaster
http://www.ntu.org/main/press_papers.php?PressID=855&org_name=NTU
A.
For over two decades, ethanol has been portrayed as the way to save the family farm and rural America. Iowa Senator Tom Harkin believes that ethanol will be "the next place to look for income for farmers."[16] And, it's easy to see why. Ethanol's supporters are quick to point out that a new refinery in an area will typically cause corn prices to rise 5 to 10 cents per bushel. According to the industry, ethanol generated $32 billion in economic activity and created 153,725 jobs in 2005.[17] Almost $6 billion of that $32 billion accrued to more than 300,000 growers and producers as farm income.[18] Writing in The Des Moines Register, Editorial Page Editor Carol Hunter highlights the benefits of these jobs for Iowa – and by extension all of rural America – declaring: "Those jobs help keep communities viable and offer new career opportunities for Iowa's young people – and older Iowans, too."[19]
While these jobs give the appearance of stability and vitality, they are in fact an artificial outgrowth of the subsidies that support the growing of corn and the making of ethanol. There are, in general, only two ways to increase farmers' incomes: (1) engage in labor activities off the farm, or (2) increase yields for every planted acre. The motivation at the farm level to secure additional income through additional output leads to an aggregate level of overproduction. As The Salt Lake Tribune observed, "We don't make ethanol from corn because it is efficient.… We make ethanol mostly out of corn because it is astoundingly plentiful, thanks to decades of heavy federal subsidies."[20] Author Michael Pollan estimates that taxpayers spend $5 billion a year – almost half of net farm income – to subsidize the growing of 10 billion bushels of cheap corn.[21] As a result, the U.S. sits on a two billion-bushel surplus of corn. According to Pollan, "Ecology teaches that whenever an excess of organic matter arises anywhere in nature, creatures large and small inevitably step forward to consume it, sometimes creating whole new food chains in the process."[22] In this instance, the need to deal with all of that excess corn – which results in large part from government subsidies – and in turn raise farm incomes is used as a justification for the creation and maintenance of the ethanol industry. It is reasonable, therefore, to question how much of this should come at taxpayers' expense.
B. Ethanol is supposed to lead to reduced foreign oil consumption, but former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says, "Its ability to displace gasoline is modest at best."
C.The fuel(ethanol) is supposed to help ensure America's energy independence, but the Government Accountability Office has concluded that the tax incentives given to the ethanol industry have done little to promote energy security.
D.The ethanol industry owes its rather comfortable relationship with politicians to the efforts of Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) and its then-Chairman Dwayne Andreas. Andreas spent the 1970s and 1980s convincing politicians that ethanol was good for America. It just happened that ethanol was also good for ADM. Writing for the Cato Institute, James Bovard lays out in great detail the connections between ADM and a number of powerful Washington politicians – names such as Carter, Dole (Bob and Elizabeth), Daschle, Clinton, Bush, Harkin, and Gingrich. By toiling away in the halls of Congress and spreading generous campaign contributions to both political parties, ADM – and to some measure the entire industry – has been able to reap a taxpayer-funded windfall. Bovard estimates that "every dollar of ADM ethanol profits is costing the American public more than $30."[36] One estimate places ADM's earnings from ethanol in fiscal year 2007 at $1.3 billion.[37] If even a portion of Bovard's ratio remains valid today, then ADM can still expect to do very well for itself at taxpayers' expense.
E.The Lundberg Letter quotes an anonymous oil refiner who believes, "As long as you have 100 senators and 60 of them are from farm states, you will never overturn that tax credit, and now the sales mandate."
F.Government Protection
The ethanol industry not only receives billions of dollars in subsidies each year, but governmental protection from international competitors as well. Ethanol imported into the U.S. is subject to a 54-cent-per-gallon tariff. This levy "has been a significant barrier to ethanol imports," according to CRS.[41]
The tariff deters most but not all imports. Ethanol from Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) countries is exempt from the duty. However, the exemption is capped at 7 percent of total domestic use. The Heritage Foundation points out that the 7 percent threshold has not been reached since ethanol production in most CBI countries barely exceeds demand and that diverting non-CBI produced ethanol to CBI countries for shipment to the U.S. is rather costly.[42] As such, domestic producers enjoy an effective monopoly thanks to the government protecting them from global market forces.
Regardless of what form the subsidy takes, taxpayers have spent substantial amounts of money to support and protect the ethanol industry.
Creating Markets by Fiat
Perhaps the most generous subsidy that the political system has presented to the ethanol industry was the Energy Policy Act of 2005. President Bush signed the bill into law on August 25, 2005. The law eliminated the oxygen requirements for reformulated gas (RFG) and with it one of the key reasons for using ethanol. In place of the RFG standard, however, the energy bill established a more clever rationale for ethanol use: a renewable fuels standard (RFS). The RFS requires the use of 4.0 billion gallons of renewable fuels in 2006. That requirement increases to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012. Table 3 below details the RFS thresholds for each year. While the RFS does not specify the use of ethanol, it is generally understood that ethanol is the only way to meet the standard. The legislation does require the use of 250 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol beginning in 2013. The law also gives cellulose-based ethanol an additional benefit on top of a guaranteed market. According to CRS, "a gallon of cellulosic ethanol counts as 2.5 gallons of renewable fuel under the RFS."[43]
Ethanol exposes taxpayers to significant long-run financial risks. The fuel is a combination of two commodities, corn and oil, whose production and prices are given to some volatility. CRS notes that "high corn prices caused by strong export demand in 1995 contributed to an 18% decline in production between 1995 and 1996."[80] It is reasonable to assume that unforeseen events will force taxpayers to increase subsidies for farmers, ethanol producers, or both. Consider these possible scenarios and their impact on taxpayers:
Continued overproduction causes the price of corn to fall; taxpayers must increase subsidy payments to corn growers. Corn production falls due to bad weather and ethanol producers must pay more for corn; taxpayers shell out more in agricultural subsidies (or even disaster compensation) and more to the ethanol industry to offset the price spikes in corn.
Continued high corn prices cause a shift in demand to other crops as ethanol input; taxpayers increase subsidy payments to corn growers to offset lower production, as well as to other farmers to increase production.
The ethanol industry over-expands and has excess capacity; taxpayers increase subsidies to offset potential losses. (According to the Department of Agriculture, "projections indicate ethanol production will increase beyond the mandated minimum level of 7.5 billion gallons by 2012.)[81] In this scenario, it is possible that government would mandate the use of more ethanol, which would cost both taxpayers and consumers. Oil prices drop, making ethanol even less competitive relative to gasoline; taxpayers must increase subsidies to ethanol producers.
I'm getting continually amused by freepers who are cheering on this Jimmy Carter backwards legislation ethanol mandates that made the corn growers nothing but a bunch of welfare mamas
It does look like it’s coming soon.
Matthew 24: 3 - 14
[3] And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
[4] And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
[5] For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
[6] And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
[7] For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
[8] All these are the beginning of sorrows.
[9] Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.
[10] And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
[11] And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
[12] And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
[13] But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
[14] And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
Have been called many names in the past...holy roller, heretic, etc. I know what I know when I know it.
Thank you for the link. This is one of the most detailed comparisons of food costs from the farm share of the grocery item to the retail share. I realize some people are still not smart enough to understand, or even have the ability to read.
Taking into account inflation, world demand etc, the farm percentage of grocery costs is only an amazing 19% of the total cost of retail food. 81% of retail food costs are attributed to costs other than the farm share.
Oil, packaging, transportation, labor, interest rates, taxes, transportation, marketing are all considered.
Ethanol has a very small impact compared to all the other factors.
Such as yourself?
If you would like to see a return to $2.00 a bushel corn, then you will no longer see corn produced for any reason.
Farming is a business and anyone with brains knows you can’t work for nothing and survive.
If you think food prices are high now, just wait till all food production is controlled by Cargill and ADM after competition has been eliminated.
Nobody mentions anything about how much corn is used in syrup for soda and soda demand is skyrocketing. Ethanol demand makes up less than 10% of the price of corn. Exports and speculators have run up food commodities just the same as they have run up the cost of a barrell of oil.
The cost of oil is responsible for price inflation in everything we consume. Not to mention that world population has increased, meaning more consumers, and more competition for the supply of everything.
I have been using ethanol blended gas for over 35 years.
The ethanol money stays in America. Ethanol don’t require military protection. Ethanol don’t require tanker ships, with military escorts for 8000 miles like oil tankers.
Ethanol don’t raise a dime in price because of an attack on an oil well in Nigeria or because it’s close to hurricane season.
We all know drilling in ANWR would help. So why do you keep re-electing envirowacko Senators who don’t have a lick of common sense?
Why can’t we get some common sense back in Washington DC, for those of you who don’t like ethanol? Because you can complain, but have absolutely no solution, and are ignored because you have no means to put pressure on the politicians. We were told 35 years ago it was going to come to this. Everyone looked to government to solve the problem. Government IS the problem. If you can’t change the government, you aren’t putting your money where your mouth is.
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.