U.S. House votes against ethanol-expansion funding

The Wichita Eagle ^ | Feb. 22, 2011 | DAN VOORHIS

[Dixie Yooper]

They need to kill all ethanol funding just like Reagan did.

[goodnesswins]

NExT UP....get RID of Ethanol funding

[Amagi]

AGW ping?

[Morpheus2009]

Chances are though, that President could veto this. Let’s hold on to our horses for a little longer on this story.

[backwoods-engineer]

The House voted 285-136 on a measure that blocks the Environmental Protection Agency from raising the cap on ethanol from 10 percent to 15 percent.

Excellent. Now let's remove the Federal mandate to put it in gasoline.

[Ancesthntr]

That’s a good first step. Now kill the subsidies entirely.

Ethanol production is a net energy loser, on top of which it raises prices for food. GET RID OF IT!

[Georgia Girl 2]

About freaking time. That stuff at 15% could mess up the lining of your gas tank, your oxygen sensor etc. The current auto engines are not built for ethanol except for the flex fuel cars. I was not looking forward to screwing up my CRV which I love just to keep the EPA happy.

They need to shut the EPA down.

[Enough is ENOUGH]

Thank God they are trying to do something about this travesty. Grassley and Harkin should be pressured to recuse themselves this time. This needs to be followed. Tell your politicians what you really think of this Iowa bailout law.

[US Navy Vet]

Even bought and paid for by Monsanto and ADM Chuckles Grassley(Rino-Iowa) is feeling the US House LOVE:
http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2011/02/22/grassley-would-swallow-anti-ethanol-measures-to-cut-deficit/

[Minus_The_Bear]

I wish it would happen... but Iowa is a welfare state & they are holding our nation hostage.

[US Navy Vet]

OH and NE,SD,IL,IN,OH,MO,MN,WI,MI are not??? SCREW YOU!

[org.whodat]

Next step, require government payments for corn crops be based on the percentage of income from other farm income. Make the farmers work for the money and actually farm.

[theBuckwheat]

“The ethanol industry took a shot on Saturday”

Is this opinion, for it could just as easily have been phrased, “The taxpayers who voted last November for smaller government prevailed at least in the case of government support for subsidizing ethanol.”

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

It is in a Funding Bill I think...he would risk shutting down the Government...

they are scheming to lay the Blame on the House Republicans.

[theBuckwheat]

Much of the corn from which ethanol is presently made comes from farmland that lays over seams of coal that could easily be mined. The US has over 100 years worth of coal and it strikes me as very foolish to convert food to fuel when we could be converting inedible coal into fuel. At present, government is going to cause over 1/3 of the entire corn crop to be turned into ethanol, no matter how high that drives the price of corn and no matter how much that distorts crop planting plans of American farmers.

The left has noted that the riots in Egypt are caused in part by higher food prices, yet they cannot see how their ethanol policy is the primary cause of increased grain prices.

[truthguy]

Ethanol production is a net energy loser, on top of which it raises prices for food. GET RID OF IT!

Yes, 100% agreement. But I wonder what percentage of the American public realizes this. Ethanol is stupidity squared. At least in Brazil they use it from sugar cane and not corn but even in that case it's a loser although less of a loser than corn. But I've talked to otherwise educated people who think that corn ethanol is a viable alternative fuel. What's causing these misperceptions? Answer: The lousy work of the Main Stream Media in informing the general public and the propaganda of the so called green organizations.

[Ancesthntr]

I think that the original idea was to use the leftover corn husks and stalks to produce a limited amount of ethanol...and then the program grew, as farmers saw profits and so did others whose job in life is to live on the taxpayers tit, plus the pols saw votes. However, even using the “waste” husks and stalks means not recycling their nutrients into the soil, further increasing our dependence on oil-based fertilizers. This is just plain a lousy idea.

[Minus_The_Bear]

"OH and NE,SD,IL,IN,OH,MO,MN,WI,MI are not??? SCREW YOU!"

__________________________________________________________

Iowa has a primary they use a weapon to drive food and fuel prices higher. But you know that.

[truthguy]

At $100/Barrel for Crude, coal and natural gas liquefaction makes sense. We should pursue this for the following reasons:

1. We have abundant resources of coal and natural gas right here in North America.

2. The production of liquid fuels can produce jobs- Good Jobs that pay well, not these BS green jobs that are subsidized by taxes.

3. National Security- With the situation in the middle east, we are always going to have uncertainty in oil supplies.

4. We can use Nuclear Power to generate the electricity we need and then take the coal and natural gas that are being wasted in the production of electricity and substitute it for transportation fuels.

5. Many vehicles can run directly on natural gas right now and the technology exists right now to run on natural gas.

6. The Natural Resources Defense Council is completely against it, and that alone should be good reason to pursue it.