People finally realized that Ethanol means higher prices for food.....DUH!
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
People finally realized that Ethanol means higher prices for food.....DUH!
I myself as well as a few other people brought up this very point a long time ago regarding the enthusiasm over Ethanol:
Seems only the ethanol lobby is enthusiastic about using food for fuel. I know large corn farming companies have a huge intrest in seeing prices for their crop skyroket, but I'm willing to bet that oil companies also have an investment in this as well.
Ethanol's benefits questioned as food costs rise
H. Josef Hebert / Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- Just months ago, ethanol was the Holy Grail to energy independence and a "green fuel" that would help nudge the country away from climate-changing fossil energy.
Democrats and Republicans cheered its benefits as Congress directed a fivefold increase in ethanol use as a motor fuel. President Bush called it key to his strategy to cut gasoline use by 20 percent by 2010.
But now with skyrocketing food costs -- even U.S. senators are complaining about seeing shocking prices at the supermarket -- and hunger spreading across the globe, some lawmakers are wondering if they made a mistake.
Advertisement
"Our enthusiasm for corn ethanol deserves a second look. That's all I'm saying, a second look," said Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., at a House hearing Tuesday where the impact of ethanol on soaring food costs was given a wide airing.
The dramatic reversal has stunned ethanol producers and its supporters in Washington as they have seen their product shift from being an object of praise to one of derision.
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, one of the Senate's two working farmers and a longtime ethanol booster, said he finds it hard to believe that ethanol could be "clobbered the way it's being clobbered right now" over the issue of food costs. What does the cost of corn have to do with the price of wheat or rice, he is telling people.
The uproar over ethanol is clearly gaining momentum.
The governor of Texas and 26 senators, including the GOP's presumptive presidential nominee John McCain, are asking the Environmental Protection Agency to cut this year's requirement for 9 billion gallons of corn ethanol in half to ease food costs, they say. Connecticut's governor recently asked Congress to temporarily waive the requirement.
Meanwhile, Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., is gathering senators' signatures on a letter opposing any EPA action so "this attack on ethanol will be blocked," said a statement from Thune's office. "It will be a fight."
Robert Meyers, an EPA deputy assistant administrator, told a House hearing Tuesday the agency will respond to the request as quickly as possible, but doubts anything will be forthcoming for about three months. There's a regulatory process to follow, he said.
But lawmakers, even those who enthusiastically supported the requirement for refiners to ramp up ethanol use to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022 from about 7 billion gallons last year, have begun to have qualms.
"Corn ethanol was presented as an almost Holy Grail solution," said Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Pa. "But I believe its negatives today far outweigh its benefits. ... We need to revisit this ... and back away from the food to fuel policy."
Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he will introduce a bill to abandon the ethanol requirement passed just before last Christmas and go back to the one Congress enacted in 2005 that would call for a more modest ethanol increase.
But Barton is not so naive to think his bill has a chance. House Democratic leaders have given no indication of retreating from the ethanol requirement. Still, said Barton, "it's worth putting in."
In fact, most of the squirming over ethanol and food prices appears to many as little more than political posturing with little chance of actual legislation emerging this crowded election year when much of Congress often seems to be in stalemate.
Ethanol lobby still strong
Like soaring gasoline prices, skyrocketing food costs are largely beyond the realm of what Washington can do.
And ethanol's powerful farm lobby still has considerable clout.
"The ink has hardly dried on this new law when the clamoring began ... for congressional intervention," Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said Tuesday of the ethanol uproar.
But Dingell made clear he has no intention of making any significant changes in the production requirements passed in December as part of a broader energy bill, saying such a move "would be unwise and could lead to unintended consequences."
Still, congressional unease about the food for fuel debate is showing itself in a number of places.
In a massive farm bill, for the first time in memory lawmakers recently trimmed back the federal tax subsidy for corn ethanol, reducing the tax break from 51 cents to 45 cents a gallon.
At the same time, however, lawmakers reiterated their support for making ethanol production from cellulosic feedstocks -- wood chips, switchgrass and even garbage -- commercially viable. The same farm bill provides $400 million for cellulosic ethanol research and development.
H. Josef Hebert / Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- Just months ago, ethanol was the Holy Grail to energy independence and a "green fuel" that would help nudge the country away from climate-changing fossil energy.
Democrats and Republicans cheered its benefits as Congress directed a fivefold increase in ethanol use as a motor fuel. President Bush called it key to his strategy to cut gasoline use by 20 percent by 2010.
But now with skyrocketing food costs -- even U.S. senators are complaining about seeing shocking prices at the supermarket -- and hunger spreading across the globe, some lawmakers are wondering if they made a mistake.
Advertisement
"Our enthusiasm for corn ethanol deserves a second look. That's all I'm saying, a second look," said Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., at a House hearing Tuesday where the impact of ethanol on soaring food costs was given a wide airing.
The dramatic reversal has stunned ethanol producers and its supporters in Washington as they have seen their product shift from being an object of praise to one of derision.
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, one of the Senate's two working farmers and a longtime ethanol booster, said he finds it hard to believe that ethanol could be "clobbered the way it's being clobbered right now" over the issue of food costs. What does the cost of corn have to do with the price of wheat or rice, he is telling people.
The uproar over ethanol is clearly gaining momentum.
The governor of Texas and 26 senators, including the GOP's presumptive presidential nominee John McCain, are asking the Environmental Protection Agency to cut this year's requirement for 9 billion gallons of corn ethanol in half to ease food costs, they say. Connecticut's governor recently asked Congress to temporarily waive the requirement.
Meanwhile, Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., is gathering senators' signatures on a letter opposing any EPA action so "this attack on ethanol will be blocked," said a statement from Thune's office. "It will be a fight."
Robert Meyers, an EPA deputy assistant administrator, told a House hearing Tuesday the agency will respond to the request as quickly as possible, but doubts anything will be forthcoming for about three months. There's a regulatory process to follow, he said.
But lawmakers, even those who enthusiastically supported the requirement for refiners to ramp up ethanol use to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022 from about 7 billion gallons last year, have begun to have qualms.
"Corn ethanol was presented as an almost Holy Grail solution," said Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Pa. "But I believe its negatives today far outweigh its benefits. ... We need to revisit this ... and back away from the food to fuel policy."
Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he will introduce a bill to abandon the ethanol requirement passed just before last Christmas and go back to the one Congress enacted in 2005 that would call for a more modest ethanol increase.
But Barton is not so naive to think his bill has a chance. House Democratic leaders have given no indication of retreating from the ethanol requirement. Still, said Barton, "it's worth putting in."
In fact, most of the squirming over ethanol and food prices appears to many as little more than political posturing with little chance of actual legislation emerging this crowded election year when much of Congress often seems to be in stalemate.
Ethanol lobby still strong
Like soaring gasoline prices, skyrocketing food costs are largely beyond the realm of what Washington can do.
And ethanol's powerful farm lobby still has considerable clout.
"The ink has hardly dried on this new law when the clamoring began ... for congressional intervention," Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said Tuesday of the ethanol uproar.
But Dingell made clear he has no intention of making any significant changes in the production requirements passed in December as part of a broader energy bill, saying such a move "would be unwise and could lead to unintended consequences."
Still, congressional unease about the food for fuel debate is showing itself in a number of places.
In a massive farm bill, for the first time in memory lawmakers recently trimmed back the federal tax subsidy for corn ethanol, reducing the tax break from 51 cents to 45 cents a gallon.
At the same time, however, lawmakers reiterated their support for making ethanol production from cellulosic feedstocks -- wood chips, switchgrass and even garbage -- commercially viable. The same farm bill provides $400 million for cellulosic ethanol research and development.
Last edited by guionM; May 7, 2008 at 11:15 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,406
From: Philaduhphia
The problem was they turned food crops into fuel crops instead of just starting new fuel crops.
Didn't Brunson or Branson(virgin guy) like, cry at a press conference over this?
I also think we had some electric officianados lobbying to do this so fuel prices would go up and more hybrids would sell. I mean why, anything can happen in washington, Bush IS president.
Didn't Brunson or Branson(virgin guy) like, cry at a press conference over this?
I also think we had some electric officianados lobbying to do this so fuel prices would go up and more hybrids would sell. I mean why, anything can happen in washington, Bush IS president.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 632
From: NC
This is just the oil companies and the greenies trying to put the last nail into the coffin of biofuels. (For seperate agendas of course) Oil wants to destroy the alternative fuels movement before it steals their thunder and greenies want to destroy it because 1) it means that we'll have the freedom to drive those "ghastly SUVs" 2) because it actually employees americans and 3) because we all know that electricity, not biofuels is the answer to all of our problems (yeah right)
Food prices have been going up for years now, yet all of the sudden it's the fault of Ethanol? Bull****. And they will continue to go up, ethanol or not.
However, if we can develop fuels fast enough to displace gasoline, then maybe we can bring prices on EVERYTHING back down.
I don't understand why these people are so ignorant about alternative fuels. Corn is actually not a very good source for ethanol in the first place. Yet, you'd think, from reading this and the media, that people believe it to be the ONLY source for ethanol.
As a result, the entire movement is likely to get destroyed because the general public is too dumb to figure out the facts for themselves.
Food prices have been going up for years now, yet all of the sudden it's the fault of Ethanol? Bull****. And they will continue to go up, ethanol or not.
However, if we can develop fuels fast enough to displace gasoline, then maybe we can bring prices on EVERYTHING back down.
I don't understand why these people are so ignorant about alternative fuels. Corn is actually not a very good source for ethanol in the first place. Yet, you'd think, from reading this and the media, that people believe it to be the ONLY source for ethanol.
As a result, the entire movement is likely to get destroyed because the general public is too dumb to figure out the facts for themselves.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Ethanol is important to reduce middle east oil consumpsion, but the right crop is needed and that is not corn. Electric cars are the only real alternative, oils days are numbered.
Do they still do that though?
Do they still do that though?
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 681
I believe that something like 2% of food crops go to make ethanol. Even if you double or tripple that, I doubt it would make a huge impact on the price.
There are technologies that would allow for both. The corn kernels would be harvested for food, but the stalks, leaves, and cobs could be used to produce ethanol.
You can also use algae and other sources that would not rely on conventional farm land.
There are technologies that would allow for both. The corn kernels would be harvested for food, but the stalks, leaves, and cobs could be used to produce ethanol.
You can also use algae and other sources that would not rely on conventional farm land.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 915
From: Tucson, AZ
Exactly! Everyone who cares about the environment, clean air, and the ability of our children to enjoy the outdoors simply hates America and wants us to fail. 
I agree Ethanol is agood idea if we are planting *new* crops and not sacrificing existing farm land.
As for paying farmers to not grow food...Isn't this usually done for a short term (a few growing seasons) to allow the soil to get replenished with nutrients? This is a good thing isn't it? However, subsidizing farmers by paying them to not grow crops (and protect them from too low of food prices) is stupid. I'd rather we subsidized them and still had them grow crops. It's socialism I know to keep food prices low for the greater good...but better than paying them to not grow any crops at all. But i'm not sure we pay that many farmers to simply not grow crops period. Maybe someone can link to info on this.
I agree Ethanol is agood idea if we are planting *new* crops and not sacrificing existing farm land.
As for paying farmers to not grow food...Isn't this usually done for a short term (a few growing seasons) to allow the soil to get replenished with nutrients? This is a good thing isn't it? However, subsidizing farmers by paying them to not grow crops (and protect them from too low of food prices) is stupid. I'd rather we subsidized them and still had them grow crops. It's socialism I know to keep food prices low for the greater good...but better than paying them to not grow any crops at all. But i'm not sure we pay that many farmers to simply not grow crops period. Maybe someone can link to info on this.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,705
From: Oakland, California
We need a fuel source that isn't used for food or other uses, something we would otherwise throw away, for instance... GARBAGE!
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008...al-gas-lng.php
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Of each barrel of oil, only about 19 gallons becomes gasoline (out of 42 gallons of oil per barrel).
The US used over 13.4 million gallons of oil per day in 2007, which equals 4.9 TRILLIONgallons of oil last year.
It's generally accepted that we use at least 146 billion gallons of gasoline last year (not counting diesel).
We produced 7 billion gallons of Ethanol last year.
New regulations aim to increase that to 36 billion gallons by 2022.
So....
By even the extremely ambitious 2022 standard, and the unlikely event that gasoline consumption remains flat for the next 14 years, Ethanol will only account for 24% of our gasoline usage but barely a drop in the bucket of our overall oil usage.
The same ear of corn will be bid on for food and fuel. If it's going to get more money as fuel, then guess what it's going to be sold as?
IMO, Ethanol is simply a way to make alot of money.
No money has to be invested on a new fuel infrastructure (including refilling stations) as it would be if we went to Natural Gas or other fuels that require a different refueling system. The government would get away from subsidies for farmers (though after looking at oil company tax breaks, that's by no means a given).
But the thing that's most ignored, and I'm stunned no one has brought this up in national debate: Ethanol burns at a much quicker rate than gasoline (let alone diesel)!
That means that 1 gallon of Ethanol won't replace 1 gallon of gasoline let alone diesel. Adding Ethanol to gasoline (ie: E85) is more expensive per gallon PLUS you'll use more of it driving the same distance, and it barely makes a real dent on oil imports.
If this doesn't drip the word "scam", I'm not sure what does.
Oh... by the way... did I mention that it takes fossil fuel (oil) to actually make the stuff?
http://zfacts.com/p/350.html
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pe...im0_mbbl_a.htm
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...9/eng99288.htm
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question417.htm
IMO, if we are serious about reducing oil imports, we need to switch to diesel in cars, natural gas on short haul trucks, replace oil burning power plants with hydroelectric, clean coal, or even nuclear power, and expand the use of solar energy as a supplementary source of energy on individual homes.
Last edited by guionM; May 7, 2008 at 12:28 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 840
From: Nashville, TN
This is just the oil companies and the greenies trying to put the last nail into the coffin of biofuels. (For seperate agendas of course) Oil wants to destroy the alternative fuels movement before it steals their thunder and greenies want to destroy it because 1) it means that we'll have the freedom to drive those "ghastly SUVs" 2) because it actually employees americans and 3) because we all know that electricity, not biofuels is the answer to all of our problems (yeah right)
Food prices have been going up for years now, yet all of the sudden it's the fault of Ethanol? Bull****. And they will continue to go up, ethanol or not.
However, if we can develop fuels fast enough to displace gasoline, then maybe we can bring prices on EVERYTHING back down.
I don't understand why these people are so ignorant about alternative fuels. Corn is actually not a very good source for ethanol in the first place. Yet, you'd think, from reading this and the media, that people believe it to be the ONLY source for ethanol.
As a result, the entire movement is likely to get destroyed because the general public is too dumb to figure out the facts for themselves.
Food prices have been going up for years now, yet all of the sudden it's the fault of Ethanol? Bull****. And they will continue to go up, ethanol or not.
However, if we can develop fuels fast enough to displace gasoline, then maybe we can bring prices on EVERYTHING back down.
I don't understand why these people are so ignorant about alternative fuels. Corn is actually not a very good source for ethanol in the first place. Yet, you'd think, from reading this and the media, that people believe it to be the ONLY source for ethanol.
As a result, the entire movement is likely to get destroyed because the general public is too dumb to figure out the facts for themselves.
In the early stages of planning Corn was the easiest to convert, now as we have learned more, corn really isnt the most effective crop. ethonal made from switch grass produces much more ussable organic substance than corn. and with cellulistic (sp?) ethonal coming online its only a matter of time before corn is back to being just for food/feed....
It pisses me off to no end when I hear that rising food costs are due to ethanol! Stupid ppl, same ppl that probably think dodge giving you gas for 2.99 is better than rebates.....
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 808
From: manassas, VA
Right, so when we start making ethanol from some other crop/plant farmers are going to go back to growing corn and ignoring the new fuel crop that is worth more $$$/per acre planted.
No matter what we make ethanol from, it still takes land to grow it. "...But switchgrass grows anywhere"....and exactly how the hell do you efficiently harvest a crop planted just anywhere? you don't, you plant it in nice easily tendable fields to maximize your output with a minimum of work. Fields that otherwise were until recently producting cheap food for us and our livestock. It is impossible to grow fuel without impacting food prices.
Ethanol is a dead end. Sure, making small quantities with waste might make some sense, but then, even most waste products get used for something these days so it's not like waste products are a long term cheap/free source of fuel.
No matter what we make ethanol from, it still takes land to grow it. "...But switchgrass grows anywhere"....and exactly how the hell do you efficiently harvest a crop planted just anywhere? you don't, you plant it in nice easily tendable fields to maximize your output with a minimum of work. Fields that otherwise were until recently producting cheap food for us and our livestock. It is impossible to grow fuel without impacting food prices.
Ethanol is a dead end. Sure, making small quantities with waste might make some sense, but then, even most waste products get used for something these days so it's not like waste products are a long term cheap/free source of fuel.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,705
From: Oakland, California
IMO, if we are serious about reducing oil imports, we need to switch to diesel in cars, natural gas on short haul trucks, replace oil burning power plants with hydroelectric, clean coal, or even nuclear power, and expand the use of solar energy as a supplementary source of energy on individual homes.