The problem of government involvement in the markets is they without fail always screw it up and the result is unintended consequences. That's the case with ethanol, an artificial construct in America which couldn't survive without subsidies and worse: legal force requiring its use.
This is the case even with the horrid idea of corn-based ethanol, which demands enormous inputs that are worse than the alleged problem ethanol is being used to fix.
Now the industry is whining in Washington through their lobbyists as just about everyone is coming against the corn-based ethanol industry created by the government, but now not able to meet the goals imposed by that very government on it.
According to the shady federal law, big refiners like Exxon Mobil (XOM) are forced to use a specified amount of renewable fuels like ethanol annually. If they don't they have to buy production credits, which have soared in price on concerns the federal mandate for ethanol usage won't be met.
so we have an artificial industry, an artificial fuel, an artificial law, and an artificial payment energy companies must make in order to meet federal guidelines. No wonder everyone hates the American ethanol industry.
Among the haters of ethanol are groups trying to help the poor and hungry, who have to pay much more for food because of the rise in corn prices because of government laws. Not only is corn itself rising in price, but other foods that corn is used to feed like chickens and cattle, along with dairy products. Most food using corn also rises in price because approximately 40 percent of the corn crop goes into this loser of an industry which doesn't deserve to even exist because there is little real demand from consumers for it.
From an environmental viewpoint, not only is the inputs to grow corn among the highest in agriculture, but the need for more land to plant corn has led to the destruction of wetlands and grasslands.
While I'm not as concerned there, it does show the absolute hypocrisy of the government which pretends it is concerned about those areas until a pet program of the government overrides those alleged concerns.
Ethanol as an additive of any kind must be abandoned completely, and the market left to decide what it wants to use as a fuel.
The ethanol debacle confirms what most of us already know: the government doesn't belong in the market, and needs to keep its hands out of it.
Showing posts with label Ethanol Subsidies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ethanol Subsidies. Show all posts
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Ethanol: U.S. Politicians Ignore Global Calls to Suspend Ethanol Mandate
With the presidential elections in the U.S. just a short couple of months away, you would think one of the candidates and/or political parties would tackle the horrendous ethanol scam. But alas that's not going to happen.
According to Robert Bryce at The Daily Beast, it's all about votes, even though the devastating practice and support and enablement from the U.S. government continues.
He said this:
We at Ethanol Fix vehemently oppose the ethanol racket, and call for the abandonment of this outrageous and damaging environmental, and more importantly - people-harming practice.
The ethanol mandate in America not only needs to be suspended, it needs to be ended and the industry shut down.
People in America should decide whether or not they want the harmful ethanol in their vehicles, as well as be forced to use it in their small equipment.
According to Robert Bryce at The Daily Beast, it's all about votes, even though the devastating practice and support and enablement from the U.S. government continues.
He said this:
The two presidential candidates dare not call attention to the corn-ethanol scam despite the drought that is ravaging the Corn Belt and sending corn, and other grain prices, to record highs. Mitt Romney and Barack Obama apparently want voters to forget that last month both the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and the International Food Policy Research Institute called on the U.S. to suspend the mandates that require gasoline sellers to blend increasing amounts of corn ethanol into their fuel. (This year those mandates will require those fuel sellers to mix 13.2 billion gallons of corn ethanol into our gasoline. By 2015 the mandate will increase to 15 billion gallons.)How about whether or not corn-based ethanol affects food prices?
On Tuesday the FAO, in conjunction with the World Food Program and the International Fund for Agricultural Development, warned that because of soaring grain prices, the world faces “a repeat of the 2007–2008 world food crisis.” The nations of the world need to “act urgently to make sure that these price shocks do not turn into a catastrophe hurting tens of millions” of people. The statement said the countries of the world “need to review and adjust” policies that “encourage alternative use of grains” including, of course, “biofuel mandates.”
What accounts for the silence of the candidates in the face of such urgent appeals? One logical answer can be found in a simple number: 27. That’s the number of Electoral College votes at stake in three key states: Iowa, Minnesota, and Indiana. Those three states, which account for more than one third of all domestic ethanol production capacity, have exactly 10 percent of the electoral votes needed to clinch the race for the presidency. And those 27 votes are critical for both candidates.
At least 17 studies—done by organizations ranging from Purdue University to the World Bank—have exposed the link between increasing biofuel production and higher food prices. Last year the Farm Foundation, a nonprofit entity formed in 1933 that focuses on agriculture issues, issued a report saying that the ethanol mandate creates a “large, persistent and non-price responsive demand for corn.” The report went on, saying “there is little doubt that biofuels play a role in the corn price level and variability, and this has spilled over into other commodity markets.”
Thanks to Obama’s EPA, the food-versus-fuel problem is going to get worse. The agency is expected to approve the use of sorghum for ethanol production. Like corn, sorghum is a feed grain. But the agency is planning to designate ethanol made from sorghum an “advanced” biofuel, which will allow distilleries to sell it for a premium price. (Sorghum requires less water than corn but yields about the same amount of ethanol per bushel.)
We at Ethanol Fix vehemently oppose the ethanol racket, and call for the abandonment of this outrageous and damaging environmental, and more importantly - people-harming practice.
The ethanol mandate in America not only needs to be suspended, it needs to be ended and the industry shut down.
People in America should decide whether or not they want the harmful ethanol in their vehicles, as well as be forced to use it in their small equipment.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Bill to Stop U.S. Ethanol Credit Needs to Pass
The bill to stop the outrageous tax credit for the destructive production of corn ethanol needs be supported and passed, which will save taxpayers $6 billion a year and get us out of a policy which is as damaging to the environment as any there is.
Congressional opponents of the $6-billion-a-year blenders credit see eliminating it as a no-brainer, while stalwart advocates are likely to put up a fight
WASHINGTON—It turns out Sens. Ben Cardin and Tom Coburn have more in common than six-letter last names that begin with the letter "C."
The Maryland Democrat and Oklahoma Republican have drawn a substantially higher number of cheers than jeers for introducing bipartisan legislation this week to repeal a tax credit on corn ethanol that could save taxpayers roughly $6 billion per year.
Both senators refer to the blenders tax credit as costly and ineffective in a joint statement. What's officially known as the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit, or VEETC, pays 45 cents for each blended gallon.
Coburn, a conservative long known as a fiscal watchdog, labeled the ethanol tax credit as "bad economic policy, bad energy policy and bad environmental policy."
"The $6 billion we waste every year on corporate welfare should instead stay in taxpayers' pockets where it can be used to spur innovation, stimulate growth and create jobs," the conservative Oklahoman said Wednesday.
"I'm hopeful my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will take a stand against business-as-usual special interest giveaways and eliminate this wasteful and harmful subsidy."
Source
Congressional opponents of the $6-billion-a-year blenders credit see eliminating it as a no-brainer, while stalwart advocates are likely to put up a fight
WASHINGTON—It turns out Sens. Ben Cardin and Tom Coburn have more in common than six-letter last names that begin with the letter "C."
The Maryland Democrat and Oklahoma Republican have drawn a substantially higher number of cheers than jeers for introducing bipartisan legislation this week to repeal a tax credit on corn ethanol that could save taxpayers roughly $6 billion per year.
Both senators refer to the blenders tax credit as costly and ineffective in a joint statement. What's officially known as the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit, or VEETC, pays 45 cents for each blended gallon.
Coburn, a conservative long known as a fiscal watchdog, labeled the ethanol tax credit as "bad economic policy, bad energy policy and bad environmental policy."
"The $6 billion we waste every year on corporate welfare should instead stay in taxpayers' pockets where it can be used to spur innovation, stimulate growth and create jobs," the conservative Oklahoman said Wednesday.
"I'm hopeful my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will take a stand against business-as-usual special interest giveaways and eliminate this wasteful and harmful subsidy."
Source
Friday, March 4, 2011
Get Rid of Ethanol Subsidies, Save the World
America's farmers are closely eyeing commodity prices to help them decide what crops they should plant in their fields.
For American farmers, the options look great economically. Soybean futures are fetching 44 percent more than last year; wheat futures now get 69 percent more than a year ago and corn futures are up a full 92 percent.
But for buyers, especially in countries like China, India, Tunisia, Philippines, Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia and Pakistan where food is a full third or more of consumptive income, this spike in food prices is an economic crisis.
Many factors contribute to the world's food emergency. The most severe come from natural causes: drought in Argentina, China and Russia; floods in Australia, Canada and Pakistan.
But there is a set of man-made policies that is having a particularly pernicious impact on marginal world food prices while simultaneously costing the U.S. treasury more than $5 billion annually.
These are our policies to support the production and use of ethanol, a corn-based fuel. Congress provides a subsidy for every gallon of gasoline blended with ethanol. Congress also mandates its use.
It is true that ethanol provides a cleaner and environmentally safer octane boost than its alternatives. But it remains highly debatable whether it offers any net energy savings or any net environmental benefit.
Indeed, by the time one factors in all the petroleum-based inputs that go into ethanol's production and distribution (fertilizer, tilling, harvesting and shipping), David Pimentel at Cornell University estimates that it takes 1.3 gallons of oil to produce one gallon of ethanol.
And even if it takes, as some contend, a little less than a gallon of oil to produce a gallon of ethanol, that claim that ethanol provides environmental benefits becomes more questionable when one considers the water consumption, the fertilizer-laden run-off and pollution inherent in its production and distribution.
In the meantime, however, ethanol's mandated and subsidized use has tilted farmer's planting decisions towards corn. More and more corn is going to ethanol production. And consequently, less and less of what could be food supply is going to address the increasing world demand for food.
Ethanol is an inefficient substitute for petroleum. Subsidizing it not only costs the U.S. taxpayer over $5 billion each year, but it artificially incentivizes converting what could be food production into inefficient energy production at a time when the world is facing a most serious food crisis.
Getting rid of our nation's ethanol subsidy would help improve our country's balance sheet. But more importantly, it would eliminate an artificial price distortion contributing to a global food emergency.
Source
For American farmers, the options look great economically. Soybean futures are fetching 44 percent more than last year; wheat futures now get 69 percent more than a year ago and corn futures are up a full 92 percent.
But for buyers, especially in countries like China, India, Tunisia, Philippines, Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia and Pakistan where food is a full third or more of consumptive income, this spike in food prices is an economic crisis.
Many factors contribute to the world's food emergency. The most severe come from natural causes: drought in Argentina, China and Russia; floods in Australia, Canada and Pakistan.
But there is a set of man-made policies that is having a particularly pernicious impact on marginal world food prices while simultaneously costing the U.S. treasury more than $5 billion annually.
These are our policies to support the production and use of ethanol, a corn-based fuel. Congress provides a subsidy for every gallon of gasoline blended with ethanol. Congress also mandates its use.
It is true that ethanol provides a cleaner and environmentally safer octane boost than its alternatives. But it remains highly debatable whether it offers any net energy savings or any net environmental benefit.
Indeed, by the time one factors in all the petroleum-based inputs that go into ethanol's production and distribution (fertilizer, tilling, harvesting and shipping), David Pimentel at Cornell University estimates that it takes 1.3 gallons of oil to produce one gallon of ethanol.
And even if it takes, as some contend, a little less than a gallon of oil to produce a gallon of ethanol, that claim that ethanol provides environmental benefits becomes more questionable when one considers the water consumption, the fertilizer-laden run-off and pollution inherent in its production and distribution.
In the meantime, however, ethanol's mandated and subsidized use has tilted farmer's planting decisions towards corn. More and more corn is going to ethanol production. And consequently, less and less of what could be food supply is going to address the increasing world demand for food.
Ethanol is an inefficient substitute for petroleum. Subsidizing it not only costs the U.S. taxpayer over $5 billion each year, but it artificially incentivizes converting what could be food production into inefficient energy production at a time when the world is facing a most serious food crisis.
Getting rid of our nation's ethanol subsidy would help improve our country's balance sheet. But more importantly, it would eliminate an artificial price distortion contributing to a global food emergency.
Source
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Meat Producers Ask for End to Ethanol Subsidies
Meat producers in America are rightly calling for an end to the subsidies given them by the government in order to misguidedly create ethanol industry.
The American Meat Institute, the National Cattlemen's Beef Assn., the National Chicken Council and the National Turkey Federation call for a level playing field in competition for corn, and they are of course correct.
If the ethanol industry can't survive competitively, it doesn't deserve to survive, and if people reject it as an alternative fuel, than there's no reason for it to be not only forced on people, but also to increase the price of meat as well for consumers.
The ethanol industry is coddled through tariffs on foreign ethanol, as well as receiving the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit.
Government interference in any industry should be forbidden, as it eliminates market forces and creates a pseudo industry that can't survive on its own because consumers wouldn't buy it otherwise.
So when the meat industry has to acquire corn feed, they compete against a government entity in the ethanol industry, which acquires it at subsidized prices.
The beef and pork industries have been devastated because of this ignorant initiative that should never have been allowed in the first place, but now that it has, needs to be ended as quickly as possible.
With the economy down and production prices up for the meat industry, they had to take the losses because of the ethanol subsidies because people wouldn't buy meat when it is too expensive for them in tough economic times.
The meat industry estimates it has lost over $13 bilion as a result of higher corn and soybean prices.
Corn prices are over 4 times higher from 2005 to 2009 as the terrible ethanol policies devastated the industry.
The American Meat Institute, the National Cattlemen's Beef Assn., the National Chicken Council and the National Turkey Federation call for a level playing field in competition for corn, and they are of course correct.
If the ethanol industry can't survive competitively, it doesn't deserve to survive, and if people reject it as an alternative fuel, than there's no reason for it to be not only forced on people, but also to increase the price of meat as well for consumers.
The ethanol industry is coddled through tariffs on foreign ethanol, as well as receiving the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit.
Government interference in any industry should be forbidden, as it eliminates market forces and creates a pseudo industry that can't survive on its own because consumers wouldn't buy it otherwise.
So when the meat industry has to acquire corn feed, they compete against a government entity in the ethanol industry, which acquires it at subsidized prices.
The beef and pork industries have been devastated because of this ignorant initiative that should never have been allowed in the first place, but now that it has, needs to be ended as quickly as possible.
With the economy down and production prices up for the meat industry, they had to take the losses because of the ethanol subsidies because people wouldn't buy meat when it is too expensive for them in tough economic times.
The meat industry estimates it has lost over $13 bilion as a result of higher corn and soybean prices.
Corn prices are over 4 times higher from 2005 to 2009 as the terrible ethanol policies devastated the industry.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Ethanol Plant Closing in Minnesota
Low ethanol prices continue to take a toll on the so-called industry, as an ethanol plant was closed in Buffalo Lake by Minnesota Energy.
This is completely based on price and margins,according to chairman of the board of the company, Randy Byro.
Byro said prices need to increase by at least 50 cents to 75 cents a gallon to even think of reopening the plant.
While not a huge plant, it does underscore the ethanol fiasco which was marketed as a savior to small communities across America, but has dashed hopes as the market for it remains small, and if not for taxpayer subsidies, would be a complete joke.
Let the free market determine whether ethanol is viable or not. If people want it they'll be willing to pay for it. Obviously people don't want it, and the program needs to be droppped along with the waste of taxpayers' dollars.
This is completely based on price and margins,according to chairman of the board of the company, Randy Byro.
Byro said prices need to increase by at least 50 cents to 75 cents a gallon to even think of reopening the plant.
While not a huge plant, it does underscore the ethanol fiasco which was marketed as a savior to small communities across America, but has dashed hopes as the market for it remains small, and if not for taxpayer subsidies, would be a complete joke.
Let the free market determine whether ethanol is viable or not. If people want it they'll be willing to pay for it. Obviously people don't want it, and the program needs to be droppped along with the waste of taxpayers' dollars.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Ethanol: Archer Daniels Midland Company
Even though Archer Danels Midland Company (ADM) reported extraordinary profits for the economic climate they're operating in, those very profits caused consternation among many industry watchers, and even resulted in JP Morgan downgrading them from their suspicions.
Ethanol has been a huge downward pull on the company, as low gas prices and demand make it a disastrous sector to be operating in; and there's no quick way to get out of it. That's what happens when huge companies like Archer Daniels Midland Company suck from the government teat and then get sour milk. This is going to be the story of ethanol and companies trying to exploit taxpayer financed loopholes that give them tax credits that prop up and create an otherwise non-existent market.
Clueless Archer Daniels Midland Co CEO Patricia Woertz said during a conference call that the company didn't foresee "the depth of this current economic crisis or the decline in gasoline demand.” Strange, even a general bystander saw that the economic pressure would cause consumers to stop driving and traveling as much. That comment doesn't make much sense.
As far as the drag that ethanol had on Archer Daniel Midland Company profits, losses from ethanol, and to a smaller degree from other bioproducts came to a huge $111 million just for the three months ending in December.
Also during the call, the third-largest U.S. ethanol producer, Archer Daniels Midland Co., siad that the ethanol business is "challenging." Duh! Ethanol isn't just challenging, it's ignorant and needs to be dropped as a taxpayer subsidized socialist project it is.
What this shows is that any something happens in the economy to slow it down, ethanol will hit companies hard, along with its workers and investors, and cause everyone pain. All that because the government has blocked oil companies from drilling the hundreds of billions of barrels of proven oil reserves under U.S. land or coastlines.
We need to forget the misguided and criminal renewable fuels standard and forget this waste of time and billions of dollars on pursuing a pipe dream just so the government and its sycophants can say they're doing something about the alleged energy crisis that only exists because of government regulations creating it.
So far ethanol production capacity has plunged by 21 percent, that much being shut down in the U.S. as the numbers don't make sense. Ethanol capacity has fallen from 12.9 billion to 10.2 billion.
The response of Archer Daniels Midland Company to the disaster? They're going to make more ethanol facilities, as they're close to finishing two more ethanol plants in Cedar Rapids, Iowa and Columbus, Nebraska. What a waste of investors' money.
According to Archer Daniels Midland Company Chief Executive Patricia Woertz, profits for the company came for the most part from their agricultural services division, surging by $143 million for the quarter.
Even so, most of those profits came from successful hedging that locked in crop prices, giving them a big edge over their competitors who didn't fare nearly as well. The problem of course is there was some luck involved with those successful commodity futures hedges, and it isn't something that is reproducible going forward.
One successful element that can be reproduced for the ethanol company is the huge fee increases it charged for shipping grains overseas. That is the only bright spot for the immediate future that gives credence to the otherwise dubious profit gains of 24 percent, which was very suspect considering the rest of Archer Daniels Midland Company competitors did so poorly.
Analysts were not so kind with Archer Daniels Midland Company Chief Executive Patricia Woertz when she refused to identify where the profits specifically came from, with some even saying investors should be wary when they aren't allowed to look under the hood to see what makes it work.
That's another way of saying that there was a lot of luck involved, as when asked a number of times, Woertz refused to let it be known what made the company so profitable in such terrible conditions.
Again, if it was something reproducible, it would have been quickly identified by Woertz, as it would have been a competitive advantage which would have caused Archer Daniels Midland Company stock to surge ahead of its competitors.
So while ethanol pulled down ADM stocks, what evidently looks like a lucky timing of some hedging gave the company some good numbers. That unrepeatable situation has the ADM Corporation looking good, even though ADM stock quotes are not looking as good as you would expect in these circumstances.
ADM will probably be under more pressure from the tremendous numbers just because they revealed an unusual circumstance that obviously wasn't related to operational skill and productivity. That means that the guidance given that profits will be under pressure going foward for Archer Daniels Midland will be accurate, and the downward pressure of embracing the failing ethanol industry, as well as fairly long term economic slowdown will start to affect the grain company like any other.
This profit performance was an anamoly, and Archer Daniels Midland Company and Patricia Woertz know it. This is why any ADM news going forward won't be in line with what just happened with the company. It makes you think it would have been better to have underperformed so the obvious anamoly wouldn't have been so obvious and glaring.
Now the ADM stock will be under further pressure, assuming they won't be able to repeat the lucky hedging, or increase shipping fees at the rate they have been. Put that together with ethanol pummeling the company profits, and there isn't really any good news for ADM in the near or mid future.
Ethanol has been a huge downward pull on the company, as low gas prices and demand make it a disastrous sector to be operating in; and there's no quick way to get out of it. That's what happens when huge companies like Archer Daniels Midland Company suck from the government teat and then get sour milk. This is going to be the story of ethanol and companies trying to exploit taxpayer financed loopholes that give them tax credits that prop up and create an otherwise non-existent market.
Clueless Archer Daniels Midland Co CEO Patricia Woertz said during a conference call that the company didn't foresee "the depth of this current economic crisis or the decline in gasoline demand.” Strange, even a general bystander saw that the economic pressure would cause consumers to stop driving and traveling as much. That comment doesn't make much sense.
As far as the drag that ethanol had on Archer Daniel Midland Company profits, losses from ethanol, and to a smaller degree from other bioproducts came to a huge $111 million just for the three months ending in December.
Also during the call, the third-largest U.S. ethanol producer, Archer Daniels Midland Co., siad that the ethanol business is "challenging." Duh! Ethanol isn't just challenging, it's ignorant and needs to be dropped as a taxpayer subsidized socialist project it is.
What this shows is that any something happens in the economy to slow it down, ethanol will hit companies hard, along with its workers and investors, and cause everyone pain. All that because the government has blocked oil companies from drilling the hundreds of billions of barrels of proven oil reserves under U.S. land or coastlines.
We need to forget the misguided and criminal renewable fuels standard and forget this waste of time and billions of dollars on pursuing a pipe dream just so the government and its sycophants can say they're doing something about the alleged energy crisis that only exists because of government regulations creating it.
So far ethanol production capacity has plunged by 21 percent, that much being shut down in the U.S. as the numbers don't make sense. Ethanol capacity has fallen from 12.9 billion to 10.2 billion.
The response of Archer Daniels Midland Company to the disaster? They're going to make more ethanol facilities, as they're close to finishing two more ethanol plants in Cedar Rapids, Iowa and Columbus, Nebraska. What a waste of investors' money.
According to Archer Daniels Midland Company Chief Executive Patricia Woertz, profits for the company came for the most part from their agricultural services division, surging by $143 million for the quarter.
Even so, most of those profits came from successful hedging that locked in crop prices, giving them a big edge over their competitors who didn't fare nearly as well. The problem of course is there was some luck involved with those successful commodity futures hedges, and it isn't something that is reproducible going forward.
One successful element that can be reproduced for the ethanol company is the huge fee increases it charged for shipping grains overseas. That is the only bright spot for the immediate future that gives credence to the otherwise dubious profit gains of 24 percent, which was very suspect considering the rest of Archer Daniels Midland Company competitors did so poorly.
Analysts were not so kind with Archer Daniels Midland Company Chief Executive Patricia Woertz when she refused to identify where the profits specifically came from, with some even saying investors should be wary when they aren't allowed to look under the hood to see what makes it work.
That's another way of saying that there was a lot of luck involved, as when asked a number of times, Woertz refused to let it be known what made the company so profitable in such terrible conditions.
Again, if it was something reproducible, it would have been quickly identified by Woertz, as it would have been a competitive advantage which would have caused Archer Daniels Midland Company stock to surge ahead of its competitors.
So while ethanol pulled down ADM stocks, what evidently looks like a lucky timing of some hedging gave the company some good numbers. That unrepeatable situation has the ADM Corporation looking good, even though ADM stock quotes are not looking as good as you would expect in these circumstances.
ADM will probably be under more pressure from the tremendous numbers just because they revealed an unusual circumstance that obviously wasn't related to operational skill and productivity. That means that the guidance given that profits will be under pressure going foward for Archer Daniels Midland will be accurate, and the downward pressure of embracing the failing ethanol industry, as well as fairly long term economic slowdown will start to affect the grain company like any other.
This profit performance was an anamoly, and Archer Daniels Midland Company and Patricia Woertz know it. This is why any ADM news going forward won't be in line with what just happened with the company. It makes you think it would have been better to have underperformed so the obvious anamoly wouldn't have been so obvious and glaring.
Now the ADM stock will be under further pressure, assuming they won't be able to repeat the lucky hedging, or increase shipping fees at the rate they have been. Put that together with ethanol pummeling the company profits, and there isn't really any good news for ADM in the near or mid future.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Ethanol Problems Continue to Pressure Abandoning the Industry
Ethanol is becoming an increasingly controversial fuel source and problem, as the taxpayer subsidy is the only reason it can even be seriously considered as an alternative to regular gasoline.
The effect of ethanol on small engines has been a disaster, and yet proponents continue to ignore that and push for even higher levels of the mix in order to try to save the propped-up industry.
So far the basic standard has been E10, but even at that level it's harmful to owners of equipment with small engines,
With the cold weather this year, snowmobile owners have had a great opportunity to enjoy the outdoors, but the harm done by ethynol to small engines have brought them to the repair shop more often than not. Repair shop workers have said they're filled with machines waiting to be fixed because of the damage done from ethanol-ruined engines.
Other products used that are always are ruined in the repair shops at this time are snowblowers and chainsaws. Fears are the bad gas will cause even more harm in the biofuel disaster, and end up not only hurting equipment, but people as well. The danger is very real.
In the summer months all the usual power equipment we use like ATVs, lawnmowers and boats, among others, have the same survival challenge, as the engines face the same problems of their winter counterparts.
Along with starting and running problems, ethanol can also eat away at parts of the engine, effectively destroying them.
The two major problems beyond that, are the environment and food prices, which are impacted negatively from ethanol, especially corn-based ethanol. But even cellulosic ethanol won't be any better, and it'll be much more expensive, raising food prices even higher.
A recent study said oil would have to go to a price level of $233 a barrel in order for ethanol to break even.
The ethanol hoax and scam needs to be ended and put to rest. There are already numerous uprising against the misguided plan, and petitions are being signed and recommendations being made to stop the folly.
One politician even recently said that the reason we have to keep going with ethanol is because we've spent so much money on it already. That's plain nuts! You don't keep spending money in order to justify bad policies. It makes no sense at all.
Other than catering to the rich farm lobby, there's nothing good in pursuing the ethanol fiasco. The idea that jobs are being created is a fantasy. Sure you can get the loans and put construction workers together to build a plant. But like they're finding out, it's been a cruel joke on those that were given false hopes; especially the rural areas.
Outdoor equipment companies rightly assert that ethanol backers don't give an honest account fo the dangers and problems consumers will and do experience from the harmful effects of the biofuel.
Even if this weren't difficult times, ethanol would be a complete disaster, but when include the extensive damage to the equipment of people, potential bodily harm, cost of repairs, environmental inputs and higher costs of food, it's cruel to destroy people's lives continuing on with the harmful ethanol initiative.
What's the best way to protect your equipment? Don't put ethanol in them in the first place. All you'll get are more problems and headaches, along with potentially dangerous situations.
The effect of ethanol on small engines has been a disaster, and yet proponents continue to ignore that and push for even higher levels of the mix in order to try to save the propped-up industry.
So far the basic standard has been E10, but even at that level it's harmful to owners of equipment with small engines,
With the cold weather this year, snowmobile owners have had a great opportunity to enjoy the outdoors, but the harm done by ethynol to small engines have brought them to the repair shop more often than not. Repair shop workers have said they're filled with machines waiting to be fixed because of the damage done from ethanol-ruined engines.
Other products used that are always are ruined in the repair shops at this time are snowblowers and chainsaws. Fears are the bad gas will cause even more harm in the biofuel disaster, and end up not only hurting equipment, but people as well. The danger is very real.
In the summer months all the usual power equipment we use like ATVs, lawnmowers and boats, among others, have the same survival challenge, as the engines face the same problems of their winter counterparts.
Along with starting and running problems, ethanol can also eat away at parts of the engine, effectively destroying them.
The two major problems beyond that, are the environment and food prices, which are impacted negatively from ethanol, especially corn-based ethanol. But even cellulosic ethanol won't be any better, and it'll be much more expensive, raising food prices even higher.
A recent study said oil would have to go to a price level of $233 a barrel in order for ethanol to break even.
The ethanol hoax and scam needs to be ended and put to rest. There are already numerous uprising against the misguided plan, and petitions are being signed and recommendations being made to stop the folly.
One politician even recently said that the reason we have to keep going with ethanol is because we've spent so much money on it already. That's plain nuts! You don't keep spending money in order to justify bad policies. It makes no sense at all.
Other than catering to the rich farm lobby, there's nothing good in pursuing the ethanol fiasco. The idea that jobs are being created is a fantasy. Sure you can get the loans and put construction workers together to build a plant. But like they're finding out, it's been a cruel joke on those that were given false hopes; especially the rural areas.
Outdoor equipment companies rightly assert that ethanol backers don't give an honest account fo the dangers and problems consumers will and do experience from the harmful effects of the biofuel.
Even if this weren't difficult times, ethanol would be a complete disaster, but when include the extensive damage to the equipment of people, potential bodily harm, cost of repairs, environmental inputs and higher costs of food, it's cruel to destroy people's lives continuing on with the harmful ethanol initiative.
What's the best way to protect your equipment? Don't put ethanol in them in the first place. All you'll get are more problems and headaches, along with potentially dangerous situations.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Government's Ethanol Policy Costing another 75 Jobs: Butterball Laying Off 75 Workers
The horrendous, artificial ethanol industry continues to devastate other American industry, as Butterball announced it would be laying off another 75 workers, this time in Carthage, Missouri.
Last year the company had to lay off another 490 workers in Longmont, Colorado, citing the surging corn prices caused by corn-based ethanol subsidies from the U.S. government.
CEO Keith Shoemaker says this time around the problem continues to be the terrible government-sponsored ethanol policies which have artificially inflated the price of corn.
Many other animal-based businesses are experiencing the same disaster, as feed prices continue to rise.
Ethanol Fix continues to call upon the government to stop this atrocity and rescind the failed law and plan.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Obama's Pick of Tom Vilsack for Agriculture Secretary Grim News for Nation
Obama hasn't shown a lot of wisdom in his cabinet choices so far, and is evidenced in relationship to ethanol, as he picked ethanol subsidy proponent Tom Vilsack, former Iowa governor, to lead the Department of Agriculture.
The conflict of interest is too obvious to have to comment on, in that Iowa has been the largest recipient of taxpayer dollars, receiving the largest portion of the over $25 billion wasted on ethanol subsidies so far.
Not only that, but Vilsack is even more radical in pushing for larger subsidies for the failing biofuel strategy.
It's hard to understand how Obama on one side of his mouth asks for a cap on subsidies for wealthy farmers, citing the excessive power the special interest group wields, and then on the other side of his mouth places someone like Vilsack in charge of the Department of Agriculture. It's a grim, complete disaster.
"The president-elect’s own history is difficult to square with his recent farm-reform talk. Obama ardently backed ethanol subsidies while in the Senate — his home state of Illinois trails only Iowa in corn production — and one of his closest confidants, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, is as responsible as any politician for the explosion in these subsidies."
Not only does corn-based ethanol require more inputs than other crops, but the usual unintended consequences have emerged, and as usual hurt the little people the most, as processed food prices soared in response to the artificial propping up of the prices of corn, driven only by Federal subsidies.
It looks like a lot more pain will have to be inflicted on people before politicians and environmentalist admit the failure of this venture, which was instigated by the unholy agreement between the two.
Now that the obvious results of the disaster are becoming known, green groups are trying to distance themselves from the debacle, as they're made to look like the fools they are.
All of us are still waiting to see where the reform promised by Obama is going to implemented. So far it's business as usual in Washington. And in the case of ethanol, it's an increasing disaster no one is willing to admit to and just drop off the subsidy list.
The conflict of interest is too obvious to have to comment on, in that Iowa has been the largest recipient of taxpayer dollars, receiving the largest portion of the over $25 billion wasted on ethanol subsidies so far.
Not only that, but Vilsack is even more radical in pushing for larger subsidies for the failing biofuel strategy.
It's hard to understand how Obama on one side of his mouth asks for a cap on subsidies for wealthy farmers, citing the excessive power the special interest group wields, and then on the other side of his mouth places someone like Vilsack in charge of the Department of Agriculture. It's a grim, complete disaster.
"The president-elect’s own history is difficult to square with his recent farm-reform talk. Obama ardently backed ethanol subsidies while in the Senate — his home state of Illinois trails only Iowa in corn production — and one of his closest confidants, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, is as responsible as any politician for the explosion in these subsidies."
Not only does corn-based ethanol require more inputs than other crops, but the usual unintended consequences have emerged, and as usual hurt the little people the most, as processed food prices soared in response to the artificial propping up of the prices of corn, driven only by Federal subsidies.
It looks like a lot more pain will have to be inflicted on people before politicians and environmentalist admit the failure of this venture, which was instigated by the unholy agreement between the two.
Now that the obvious results of the disaster are becoming known, green groups are trying to distance themselves from the debacle, as they're made to look like the fools they are.
All of us are still waiting to see where the reform promised by Obama is going to implemented. So far it's business as usual in Washington. And in the case of ethanol, it's an increasing disaster no one is willing to admit to and just drop off the subsidy list.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
