Saturday, February 13, 2010

Quote of the Day: Ethanol Mandates Are Immoral

"There are lots of stupid federal programs. There are lots of wasteful federal programs. The corn ethanol mandates are immoral."

~Robert Bryce writing in the
Energy Tribune

HT: Nick Schulz

22 Comments:

At 2/13/2010 10:34 AM, Blogger juandos said...

Robert Bryce depending on a raving moonbat for his supposed facts makes the whole Bryce rant questionable at best...

I'm sure there are more valid reasons not use ethanol for fuel besides the alledged inability of feeding 330 million people who should be feeding themselves...

 
At 2/13/2010 10:58 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ethanol mandates are the direct result of Iowa having the first presidential caucus. Change that and political support for ethanol will plummet.

 
At 2/13/2010 11:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Take away "goberment" subsidies for ethanol and it would not stand on it's own merits! That fact should suffice to stop this inefficient engine destroying rent seeking industry. Case Closed!

 
At 2/13/2010 11:51 AM, Blogger Beth said...

The immorality of the ethanol mandate is not primarily its diversion of corn away from food. That is simply an effect of the mandate.

More fundamental is the immorality of government intrusion into economic transactions at all. Mandates of this sort turn the moral justification for the existence of government on its head by changing institution created for the protection of individual rights into a violator of rights--in this case, violation of liberty and property.

 
At 2/13/2010 11:54 AM, Blogger juandos said...

I like Beth's point of view!

 
At 2/13/2010 6:45 PM, Blogger bix1951 said...

more people means more starving people
family planning is the best solution

You will always find someone to advocate the other side. You can argue that ethanol mandates are a good thing. I'm sure many do.

That is the basis of our whole legal system
Not really a search for truth
Just a competition in persuasion

 
At 2/13/2010 6:50 PM, Blogger rufus said...

Poor people Do Not, and Never Have eaten field corn.

Poor cattle eat field corn, and are, in turn, eaten by Rich People.

We planted 5% Fewer Acres of Corn in '09 than we did in '07.

Corn costs a little over $0.06/lb, today.

YOU try growing Corn for less than $0.06/lb.

 
At 2/13/2010 7:11 PM, Blogger rufus said...

You can have ethanol delivered to your station, anywhere in the Midwest for about $1.70 gal.

That is Before any subsidies/tax credits have been applied. This means you can add state, and local taxes, plus a reasonable profit, and sell Ethanol for $2.15, or so, a gallon. With NO subsidies/tax credits, Anywhere.

There's a Very good chance you'll see gasoline well above $3.00 gallon this summer, and that ethanol will be about the same as now.

You want "immorality?" Check back in 2012, and you'll probably see a whole lot of Immorality. Don't believe me? Check out the "Megaprojects" data on new oil fields, and the data on "decline" from existing fields.

Oh, btw; the "offshore" storage from which we've been getting a Million Barrels/Day. It'll likely be empty by July. Enjoy

 
At 2/13/2010 7:29 PM, Blogger rufus said...

And, btw, there is absolutely no way in the world that you can tie field corn in the U.S. (we had a very nice harvest, and record exports that year,) with

Drought in Australia, and Argentina, bad export/import policies in India, Egypt, Mexico, China, and a poor rice harvest in China.

And, Mexican Tortillas are made with White Sweet Corn, not Yellow Field Corn, and the Mexicans still had Import Controls on our corn at the time, and there was NO trade between us and Mexico in Yellow Sweet Corn, anyway. And, they sure as Dickens couldn't export field corn to the U.S. They would be nowhere near competitive.

Lester Brown wants to pare the world's population down to a half a million, or somesuch. He's a total loonytunes.

I can't believe you'd post such nonsense.

 
At 2/13/2010 8:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

US sugar prices higher than World sugar prices - immoral?

CO2 regulated by the EPA - immoral?

These are just a couple of examples of government policies to enrich a few at the expense of the majority.

We need a true free market to set prices.

 
At 2/13/2010 8:41 PM, Blogger Xavier Onassis said...

What Beth said!!

 
At 2/13/2010 8:58 PM, Blogger rufus said...

My vote for "Immorality" would be fighting endless wars in the Middleeast for a product for which we can supply a substitute at home, but that the oil companies Won't Distribute sans "mandates."

 
At 2/13/2010 9:01 PM, Blogger rufus said...

Go ahead, tell me how many hungry people we could feed with the $150 Billion, plus, we are spending in te Middle East.

How "immoral" is the 15% Oil Depletion Allowance?

 
At 2/13/2010 9:08 PM, Blogger rufus said...

A Major Oil Company is buying ethanol for $1.70/gal, taking the $0.45 Tax Credit (now, we're down to $1.25,) paying the Alabama, and Fed Taxes (now we're back up to about $1.60 gal, I guess,)

And, selling it for $2.40 Gal. (Don't believe me - go over to the EIA website, and check out the "Rack Prices" per state.)

Why? Because they have a Lock on the Distribution.

Got any good "Morality" arguments for That One?

 
At 2/13/2010 9:24 PM, Blogger rufus said...

About that $150 Billion. Do you know what you could buy with it?

Just about ALL of the Food Grain Crops produced in North, AND S. America.

Or, you could build enough biorefineries to replace Every Single Drop of Imported Oil we use.

But, then What would we do with our $150 Billion, Next year?

 
At 2/13/2010 10:16 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Rufus, get real, a lot of money will continue to be spent on police, military, security at firms, households, etc. I know you won't get rid of your keys and other security systems. Protection from criminal activity or worse is not immoral.

 
At 2/13/2010 10:36 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Also, I may add, do you want a madman and his two sons, sitting on trillions of dollars of oil, who used chemical weapons before, started wars in Iran and Kuwait, killed more Middle East people than anyone in history, and created an enviornmental disaster burning oil fields, while thumbing his nose at the UN and the civilized world for over a decade to continue his regime.

Or want fanatics willing to kill as many innocent people as possible, including through weapons of mass destruction, so they can go to heaven. Or a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, etc. How many 9/11s should there be?

 
At 2/13/2010 11:09 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Oil is a cheap form of energy. It's unfortunate the world has been prevented from buying oil and peaceful people have been prevented from selling oil by a bunch of criminals and fanatics. So, we have to rely on expensive alternative energy.

 
At 2/13/2010 11:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ethanol consumption is indirectly proportional to dependence on foreign oil. Brazil has been considered to have the world's first sustainable biofuels economy. Corn is not the only source of ethanol. So many health problems (obesity, diabetes) are directly related to corn-HFCS and sugar consumption) - it would do us good to cut food consumption of it anyway. Brazil is smart and already took the initiative. American entrepreneurs are following suit. The corn subsidy mandate is sideshow. Get a more complete story of the matter at Wikipedia - search for Food vs. Fuel.

 
At 2/14/2010 1:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If corn based ethanol is that cost effective, then think how much we could save if we dropped tariffs on the cheaper alternative sugar cane!

 
At 2/14/2010 5:03 PM, Blogger rufus said...

The last I looked that super-dooper efficient Brazilian Cane Ethanol was selling at the dock in Brazil for $3.62/gal.

Our corn ethanol was selling at the dock on the Gulf Coast for $1.90/gal.

Have at it.

btw, that import tariff doesn't apply to the first 700,000,000 gallons, and that threshold hasn't been reached yet. Import away.

 
At 2/18/2010 7:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ethanol production is the product of simple numbers and "Not In My Backyard" politics.

Anyone who wants to replace ethanol production with gasoline needs to find the locations to construct the new oil refinery capacity to offset the ethanol taken from the market.

What would their estimates of investment requirements be?

It's nice to talk about "feelings" but a simple plan will help everyone understand the "problem".

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home