Politicians: Just Say No to Ethanol

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.

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:

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.)

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.

How about whether or not corn-based ethanol affects food prices?

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.

States Want Opt-out Option on Ethanol

U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, will introduce legislation which would offer gas stations to decide whether or not they want to use gas without ethanol at the pump.

A draconian law will soon go into effect which will force everyone to offer gas with ethanol in it, even though many people don't want to put the stuff into their cars and equipment, because of the proven ethanol causes.

Some foolish and ignorant proponents of ethanol, for example, Terry Dietrich, President of American Farmers and Ranchers Insurance, say things like this, "We think it's high time that we quit fighting wars overseas and funding both sides. We've lost enough American soldiers."

This is so stupid as to not even be able to be taken seriously. In other words, all that oil in Afghanistan you mean? Is that why we need ethanol? Demagogues like this don't even attempt to use their brain when making their statements.

Some even pretend the proven higher costs of food coming from pushing ethanol isn't true either. That's an outright lie. Just ask the meat industry if that's what they have found out.

Just one way this happens is through the higher cost of feeding animals, which when we buy their meat, creates higher costs at the supermarket. How hard is that to understand.

Ethanol needs to be allowed to stand on its own, and the subsidies which make it survive need to be removed. Then we'll see if there's really a demand for it or not. I think we already know the answer to that.

The Evil of Forced Ethanol

It's unbelievable what America and the radical environmentalists are getting away with. Ethanol is the latest attempt to force Americans to adhere to what can only be called a religion, with their god being the earth and the environment.

To even resist the monster is to be called a name, and that name is now a derisionary "gas purist."

Here's one example:

"Eric “Ric” Foster, the owner of a Gardner gasoline station, doesn’t like ethanol. No, that’s not quite right. He despises the stuff.

"A sign in front of the station alerts motorists that his gas contains no ethanol, and in case you miss it, an electronic sign in the window boasts of the station’s ethanol-free fuel."

The misguided regulations that force ethanol upon Americans is evil People have a right to the type of gas they want to buy, and the government has no place in telling them any different.

There are a growing number of people resisting this forced ethanol policy, and even by the standards of honest researchers, developing the ethanol industry on the back of corn is far worse for the environment than not doing it.

Once the monster that government is becoming puts something into law, only the bold and wise will be able to get a hearing on it, let alone make some real changes.

With so many things happening around us, it's hard to keep up with all this grab for power by the government, but we need to keep up the good fight, and this is really an issue of freedom.

People should be able to put into their cars what they deem the best fuel, and in a number of cars ethanol can damage them. And the damage done to power equipment is well documented.

The government blending the lines between them and industry is called fascism. This is the road we are increasingly traveling on in America, and we need to battle it every step of the way.

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.

Ethanol News | EPA Report Says Ethanol Harder on Climate than Gasoline - Politicians Throw Fit

Ethanol News

There is so much proof that the ethanol debacle needs to end, that even the report by the EPA that ethanol is worse on the environment than gasoline hasn't stopped politicians trying to get taxpayer dollars into their states from thowing a tantrum.

We’ve entered another ugly battle in the ethanol wars. The EPA released an analysis last month purporting that corn-based ethanol is actually worse for the climate than gasoline on a lifecycle basis, and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) released a ruling that will effectively exclude corn-based ethanol from California’s Renewable Fuels Standard for that reason.

The ethanol industry and its supporters are livid (who cares). House Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN), a longtime ethanol supporter, threw a fit during a recent hearing and now is threatening to block climate legislation over the new rules. "I don't care,” he exclaimed during a hearing over EPA’s draft rule, “Even if you fix this. I don't trust anybody anymore -- I’ve had it." Ethanol opponents are cheering the agencies' decisions and urging them to look at ethanol under worst-case scenarios.

What is sad about this spat is that while everyone is arguing over whether ethanol is bad, no one is talking about how to make it better. The worst impacts of ethanol occur far from Iowa or Washington in the forests that are burned down to respond to added demand for cropland.

Deforestation results in almost 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and it will not be solved through tired finger pointing. This problem is hard but solvable if we focus on the systemic drivers of slash-and-burn agriculture.

A quick primer on the latest wrinkle from the EPA and CARB: Both reached damning conclusions about the impact of ethanol based on complex economic modeling, but the basic logic behind their analysis is simple:


• Using farmland for ethanol diverts land from being used for food production, driving up price and demand
• Higher prices and demand encourage farmers in the developing world to plant more crops
• Developing world farmers clear and burn forests so they can plant more crops
• Clearing forest for cropland releases a tremendous amount of greenhouse gas
• Thus, devoting cropland to ethanol production leads to increases in greenhouse gas emissions

The ethanol industry and its supporters don’t dispute this logic, but claim two problems with the agencies’ approach: (1) The science behind this economic modeling is too new and imprecise, and (2) biofuels are being held to a much tougher standard than other climate solutions. Their opponents hold that the science is sound, and that other low-carbon technologies simply don't have these massive "indirect land-use" problems.

Yet this debate is just so much fiddling while Rome (or maybe Indonesia) burns. The crux of the problem is not in how we measure the impact of ethanol, it is that developing world farmers clear and burn forests so they can plant more crops. Ethanol is just one of the pressures that speed the disastrous destruction of these forests. The rest is just an accounting exercise.

Farmers in the developing world burn forests because it is the most economical, and often only, choice they have. They often can’t afford fertilizers, equipment or high-yield seeds. They have limited access to informational tools like education, soil tests and precision agriculture technology that would allow them to produce more crops in the same place. Without these resources, the only choice is to find new land.

Moreover, there is little or no barrier to slash-and-burn agriculture. Logging roads often give farmers access to virgin forests. Not enough forests are protected, and where they are, many governments lack the resources or the will to enforce conservation laws.

The solutions to these problems are not easy, but models exist. Technology transfer and economic development programs can increase crop yields and reduce the real costs of agricultural technology. A global agreement on REDD (reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation) could protect forests and provide payments from a global trust fund as an alternative to chopping trees down.

In order to reduce the lifecycle impact of ethanol, the industry needs to do more than cry foul on these regulations. It needs to be engaged in finding solutions to reduce the pressure to clear land for agriculture. A forward-thinking producer would be lobbying for global forest protection and working with partners in the agricultural industry to support technology transfer to the rural poor.

Meanwhile, ethanol's detractors need to admit that producers can't bear this burden alone, and that failing to compromise with such a politically powerful industry will lead only to delay and more poorly designed policies.

Here's a modest proposal: Congress lets the ethanol industry off the hook for its indirect upstream effects, and the industry agrees that some of its massive subsidies be diverted to programs that protect forests and give farmers options beyond burning them down. Putting more resources toward these programs will not only protect forests from the indirect effects of ethanol, but also the threats of logging, development or other future pressures on agricultural growth.

We will see many more of these fights in the coming years as industries, activists and policymakers argue over who has to bear the burden for indirect, unanticipated environmental and social damages. We need a systemic approach that tackles the problems on the ground, instead of shifting the blame around.

Noam Ross is a senior analyst at GreenOrder, an LRN Company. GreenOrder is a strategy and management consulting firm that has helped leading companies turn sustainability into business value since 2000.

Of course there aren't any climate problems in the first place, and to listen to Ross attempt to apply logic, confusion and reason to the made-up crisis, just shows how far many will go when decisions and conclusions take money out of their greedy pockets.

Ethanol News

Ethanol | Worse than Gasoline

... says a study from the University of Minnesota on corn-based ethanol



Ethanol continues to get hammered as another study, this time from the University of Minnesota, says the costs are much higher than originally anticipated, and is higher than gasoline when taking into account all factors.

Health, environmental factors make conventional ethanol costly, but the market for alternative fuels is tanking

As noted in The New York Times yesterday, researchers from the University of Minnesota compared the cost of corn-based ethanol to the cost of gasoline and found that ethanol costs more when environmental and health factors are included.

The process of making ethanol is energy-intensive, and the most expensive ethanol is made with corn in facilities that burn cheap but polluting coal.

According to the study, “Climate change and health costs of air emissions from biofuels and gasoline,” the numbers are grim.

“For each billion ethanol-equivalent gallons of fuel produced and combusted in the U.S., the combined climate-change and health costs are $469 million for gasoline, $472–952 million for corn ethanol … but only $123–208 million for cellulosic ethanol [ethanol derived from prairie biomass, corn stalks, switchgrass or other sources],” the study says.

The huge range of cost for corn ethanol is due to the different methods used to produce the fuel. The $952 million number is for ethanol made using coal, a method that’s being used in an increasing number of ethanol facilities.

As Grist noted back in 2006, “More and more ethanol manufacturers are looking to power their plants with cheap coal instead of its cleaner and increasingly expensive competitor, natural gas, thereby potentially limiting ethanol’s environmental benefits.”

The University of Minnesota study includes charts and maps, including one that shows a big, dark red blotch — next to New Mexico — that indicates where corn ethanol is made with coal.

Without those handy state border lines it’s a little hard to tell what’s what in those pictures above. But here’s another map that puts it in better perspective:


The map is a little old; there are now three plants in operation in Texas and seven more planned.

That green dot in New Mexico is the Abengoa Bioenergy plant in Portales. Built in 1985, it was producing 30 million gallons of ethanol before a temporary shutdown in October due to fluctuations in both the grain and oil markets.

Most of the city of Portales gets its power from Xcel Energy, which sells power generated New Mexico and Texas, including two coal fired power plants in West Texas. About half of Xcel’s power — 52 percent — comes from coal; 41 percent comes from natural gas and 7 percent comes from wind and other renewables.

“The coal plants run about 24-7 because its the least expensive and the most efficient,” says Wes Reeves of Xcel.

More than 70 percent of New Mexico’s power is generated at two coal-fired plants near Farmington (pdf). Carbon dioxide emissions from coal make up more than half of the emissions from power plants in New Mexico.

Because producing ethanol is so energy intensive, many ethanol plants don’t buy electricity; they either buy natural gas or they have their own power plants, which burn coal or other fuel, such as cow poop.

When the Abengoa plant is running, it uses the cleaner, but more expensive, natural gas. Abengoa, which is headquartered in Spain, does not have any coal-fired ethanol plants, says Vice President Christopher Stanley.

The Portales ethanol plant had to close temporarily because the high price of grain sorghum and milo — the raw ingredients it uses to make ethanol — is relatively high, while the price of gasoline, which largely determines the price of ethanol, is low.

“It’s all market-driven,” Stanley says. “It’s our intention to resume production as soon as the market improves.”

And the market is not good. As the Times noted earlier this week, the crummy economy and the credit crisis have put a serious dent in the market for alternative energy. Companies that make wind turbines and solar panels have all laid off workers; biomass and geothermal groups have also seen a slowdown. Meanwhile, the falling price of oil has put a kink in alternative fuels’ chain.

One ethanol plant in Hereford, Texas, which broke ground in 2005, planned to use manure from nearby dairy farms rather than natural gas or coal for power. But less than two weeks ago, the company, Hereford Biofuels, filed for bankruptcy and announced it was putting the still-unfinished plant up for sale.

Algae-derived biodiesel is attractive in part because conventional biodiesel is made from soybeans, and like corn-based ethanol, is subject to the “food or fuel” debate. And demand for biodiesel is increasing; in 2007, the New Mexcio Legislature passed the Biodiesel Standards Act, which will require 5 percent biodiesel in state vehicles by 2010 and for all vehicles by 2012. The state is also offering tax credits to facilities that install blending equipment.

The Center of Excellence for Hazardous Materials Management, working in partnership with Los Alamos National Laboratory and New Mexico State University, has developed an algae biodiesel test project near Carlsbad.

“In Carlsbad we’re hoping to take microalgae to market. The project has the potential to make biodiesel that wouldn’t use a field crop but would take advantage of some wide open spaces and brine water,” says Fernando Martinez, director of the Energy Conservation and Management Division of the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department.

But is algae biodiesel economically viable? Last year, Doug Lynn, the center’s executive director, said he was cautiously optimistic that biodiesel could be produced from algae for $80 per barrel. That’s a lot better than last year’s $150 per barrel prices for oil, but not compared to the $40 we’re paying right now.

In the aftermath of yet another study critical of corn-based ethanol, ethanol backers are expressing frustration with what they consider faulty research.

Dr. Martha Schlicher is the former head of the National Corn to Ethanol Research Center and now vice president of Illinois River Energy. She says the recent University of Minnesota study, like others in the past, fails to recognize dramatic technology improvements occurring in corn ethanol production.

“Science grows and develops and gets perfected with time,” Schlicher says. “We have a willingness to accept that in the medical field—I think brain surgery and heart surgery have probably improved dramatically. Antibiotics have improved dramatically.”

In the Minnesota study, for example, Sclicher says researchers failed to mention that natural gas and electricity could eventually be eliminated from the ethanol production process, which would greatly alter its emission profile.

While negative to corn ethanol, the Minnesota study was very positive to cellulosic ethanol. However, Schlicher thinks it “over-promises” on the potential of cellulosics.

“If we think for a minute that cellulosic-based ethanol, or an advanced biofuel, is going to be perfect when it gets to market, we’ve got another think coming,” Schlicher says, “and then we’re right back to the same old starting point and we’ll never have an alternative to gasoline.”

Schlicher says cellulosic ethanol is an important part of our renewable future. But while it is being developed, she says America should optimize the base of production that it has today in corn ethanol.

Even with these continuous misguided and dishonest calls for ethanol as a biofuel, and even looking to the more expensive cellulosic ethanol as a future alternative to corn-based ethanol, it looks like its backers are looking at it as a form of environmental religion, as they continue to ignore the disaster that ethanol in whatever form it takes is.

Pacific Ethanol Shuts Down Madera Plant

Pacific Ethanol (PEIX) continues to fight to survive, as they have now shut down the Madera plant, although they say it's only a temporary move.

This follows their disastrous third quarter, where "Losses for the company widened by an extraordinary amount, surging to $54.9 million, or 98 cents a share, in contrast to the same quarter last year where losses were at $4.8 million."

None of this will end any time soon, as on average ethanol is 60 cents higher in cost than gasoline, and make gas prices higher when included in the mix. Consequently, demand continues to fall, in spite of the misguided subsidies offered by the government.

Take the subsidies out of there, and the real story would be far worse for this ongoing debacle that is becoming more of a religion than at legitimate alternative.

This has pummeled the company's stock, which on January 9, 2008 was at $8 a share, now it stands at a pathetic 56 cents a share.

We need to end this ignorant pursuit of corn-based ethanol, and cellulosic ethanol as well. Those of the ethanol religion are now attempting to get the mind of the public off the corn-based ethanol debacle and make it look like the even more expensive cellulosic ethanol is the answer.

Government-created Ethanol Industry now Begging for their Bailout!

Already gouging taxpayers for $25 billion in handout subsidies, the ethanol industry lobbying arm - the Renewable Energy Association - is now begging the government for another billion in short-term credit, along with up to $50 billion in loan guarantees to expand the diastrous industry.

In an even more evil move, the association is asking for the government to lower the existing 10 percent limit on how much ethanol can be added to fuel for regular cars and trucks. That has the potential to wreak havoc on the engines of the car, as those mixtures are unproven.

So what we have is a false market created by the government because it's great to get votes and give the illusion that jobs are being created. So now the non-market business needs to be bailed out in order to keep our politicians from looking like the uniformed, dangerous people they're increasingly becoming.

More Reasons to Abandon Ethanol Subsidies

USDA Secretary Pick Vilsack Faces Ethanol Decision

“We’re also hopeful that Governor Vilsack will take an objective look at the volatility corn ethanol has imposed on the food and fuel system, and its adverse impact on the environment,” said Ken Cook, the president of Environmental Working Group, an environmental advocacy organization in Washington.

Bentley plan to cut CO2 with ethanol comes under fire

"The weight of the evidence against ethanol as a net reducer of greenhouse gas emissions vis-À-vis gasoline is by now quite overwhelming."

Environmental Groups Oppose Ethanol Bailout in Stimulus Package

The Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Working Group, Friends of Earth, and the Network for New Energy Choices released a statement today saying that federal government subsidies and mandates for corn-based ethanol produce potentially catastrophic consequences to the environment, and have no payback to taxpayers in terms of alleviating global warming effects, providing for energy security, or even simply reducing the cost of driving.

Unrealistic Ethanol Subsidies Should be Dropped in Minnesota

With their darling biofuel project - corn-based ethanol - continuing to prove a disaster, many states are having to reevaluate their commitment and cut back on funding.

Minnesota is one of those states, as Governor Tim Pawlenty will have to make a key decision on how much the state is able to commit to with a projected $5.2 billion budget deficit facing him.

The problem for Minnesota is they hailed the dubious industry as a savior of Minnesota farmers and could face a huge backlash as that assertion and ploy comes back to haunt them.

Last year Minnesota paid out above $15 million to ethanol plants in subsidies, and its going to be hard to justify continuing that in the current economic climate.

All states need to take a hard look at the problem and get rid of this subsidy and misguided effort to produce a biofuel that experts all around say isn't viable and does more harm than good.

Pacific Ethanol Performance Underscores Ethanol Debacle

The performance of Pacific Ethanol (PEIX) in the third quarter underscores the debacle that the ethanol industry is in the United States.

Losses for the company widened by an extraordinary amount, surging to $54.9 million, or 98 cents a share, in contrast to the same quarter last year where losses were at $4.8 million.

This happened while revenue increased to $184 million, up from $118.1 million last year. Analysts were looking for revenue to reach $218.6 million. The 98 cents a share was also far higher than the 16 cents a share analysts expected.

It's time to end government subsidies and end the ethanol fiasco in the U.S. Even with subsidies the industry isn't viable, and saying cellulosic ethanol is the answer is wrong as well, as it costs far more to produce than the corn-based ethanol we're now producing.

So much for change! Obama to follow same failed ethanol policy as Bush

We now see the first step in change Obama will perform in his new administration, he will keep the failed ethanol policy of President Bush in place. Wait! Change? What's this?

It's politics as usual in Washington, and things aren't going to change in spite of this being the most "important" election in decades.

Obama has already confirmed this through his announcement via his campaign senior energy adviser Heather Zichal, who recently said concerning Obama's policy for ethanol: "Obama recognizes how important the renewable and biofuels industry is to creating jobs and meeting our goal of reducing dependence on foreign oil. He's fully committed to it and sees tremendous value in the renewable fuels standard and continuing down this path."

Yawn. I guess the food riots will continue around the world, and feed prices rise as we continue along this disastrous path.

Even though the idea of cellulosic ethanol was offered up as the eventual future of the biofuel, the truth about it at this time is it costs about twice as much to produce as corn-based ethanol, and it's many years away from being ready for use, if it ever is.

When subsidies and tariffs can't even make an industry succeed, it's far past time to change directions and admit mistakes. To continue to pour billions down this rabbit hole is irresponsible at best.

One major reason for Obama is his home state of Illinois is the second-largest producer of ethanol, and he also was rewarded by Iowa on his presidential run. He wouldn't dare to the right thing by ending this travesty, as he would pay for it in four years.

Business as usual in Washington.

VeraSun Energy Corp. May be Close to Declaring Bankruptcy

It's far past time to end the taxpayer subsidizing of the ethanol industry in America, as another big ethanol company is on the verge of declaring bankruptcy.

This time its VeraSun Energy Corp., based in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, which is close to declaring bankruptcy. The share price on Wednesday closed at a pathetic 49 cents a share, as they, along with many other ethanol companies, are quickly becoming insolvent.

As usual with government-sponsored companies, the management is horrible, and strategies employed with an eye toward being bailed out regardless of decisions or the marketplace.

When companies aren't allowed to fail, like in the current financial climate, all it does is regard terribly run companies with a safety mechanism that doesn't belong there.

In the past industries and companies were allowed to fail in order that the best-run companies emerge with the best products and services at the best price.

The foolishness of ethanol in America simply needs to be dropped and the market left to decide which way it wants to go. Most Americans want to drill for the proven reserves of billions of barrels of oil while we work on legitimate energy alternatives. Ethanol isn't one of them.

Update: VeraSun Files

Greater Ohio Ethanol Latest to File Bankruptcy in Ongoing Ethanol Debacle

Another company bites the dust in the continuing exposure of the ethanol debacle in the U.S. The latest casualty is the Greater Ohio Ethanol company, which has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

As usual with the ethanol hoax, people let their emotions get in the way of facts, and they make terrible decisions. Unfortunately it's creating a false hope in many communities across the country which were counting on it to make a difference in where they live.

In this particular case, the amount of water needed to make the fuel was seriously miscalculated by half of what is being used, and that has pretty much destroyed the project and the hopes of the people that were counting on it. This is becoming the story across numerous communities in the U.S.

While chapter 11 bankruptcy is initiated in order to attempt to reorganize, the sounds of this is another company has foolishly entered into the ethanol fray without the understanding of the high costs of ethanol.

More Reasons to Free us from the Ethanol Devil

The growing number of reasons to drop ethanol and its government subsidies continues to reveal the utter stupidity of pursuing ethanol as a significant source of renewable fuel.

As people continue to deconstruct the arguments made in favor of ethanol, it's getting clearer and clearer it's an initiative pushed by special interest groups who created fear of foreign energy dependency at the cost of sanity.

While we obviously need to look at real alternatives in the years ahead, we are far from being in some type of serious trouble, as the billions of barrels of oil under American soil, as well as under its oceans attest to.

Environmentalists and opportunist have created this false problem by panicking people into believing we're on the cusp of a worldwide disaster, when in reality there's enough oil to last for decades ... if not longer.

Recent discoveries in Brazilian waters, along with the huge oil deposits in the Canadian oil sands are also proof of the need to slow down and take into account all the effects and unintended consequences that always accompany decisions that are motivated by fear and political expediency.

U.S. Ethanol Subsidies to Keep Food Prices High Everywhere

The outrageous subsidy for corn-based ethanol in the U.S. continues to batter consumers across the world, as even though other commodities have been dropping, food prices are expected to stay the same, and in a number of cases - rise.

For retail food prices in the U.S., they have been growing at a 6 percent rate this year, in contrast to the regular inflation rate at about 2 percent.

With irresponsible politicians and ongoing ignoring of stories like this by the mainstream media, the cost of food items related to corn price increases like chicken, beef and pork are projected to continue rising for the immediate future. The majority of that related to the misguided and terrible idea of subsidizing big corporate corn farmers so it can look like the government is doing something related to energy.

The disaster will continue until the story is continually reported on and the reality of the consequences understood by the public.

The next meat to be affected will be chicken, which so far producers haven't passed on the higher feed costs to consumers, but Bill Roenigk, senior vice president of the National Chicken Council said that's all about to change.

"From a consumer standpoint, more and more of these feed costs are going to be passed on and that means higher prices at the supermarket," said Roenigk.

All this because of the usual pressure from special interest groups with an agenda, as well as a government that continues to pass themselves off as the big daddy of the universe. Until this attitude is reined in, Americans and people around the world will continue to suffer from the continual rise in food prices.

Just like we need to drill for the billions of barrels of oil on American soil or it's coastlines, so we need to stop this outrageous subsidy that is helping no one but the huge corporate corn farmers in America, as well as some landowners cashing in on rising farmland prices.

Battle over Ethanol Continues: Resistance Grows

Cellulosic Ethanol turning into fight

Is Ethanol a Boon or Drain on Our Economy?

Big Horn Basin Ethanol puts brakes on new plant

Minus microphones, ethanol critics still have their say

Texas Gov Calls Ethanol Mandate a 'Scam'

Ethanol blend petrol not much healthier

Ethanol producers say they didn't cause spike

What are the future of biofuels?

More Reasons to Drop the Ethanol Nonsense

As Kenneth P. Green wrote in a recent article concerning ethanol, we need to adapt a new slogan: "Ethanol: Drink It, Don't Drive It."

He offers a number of reasons increasingly understood as to why we need to drop this disastrous policy and taxpayer subsidy for corn-based, or any other type of ethanol, encouraged for the dubious reason of being energy independent, creating jobs, lowering gasoline prices and reducing the non-existent global warming.

The truth is, other than the corn industry, nobody is really prospering from this misguided government policy set up to make it look like something's being done. I guess people deserve it for making big government their god.

Other possibilities like making use of switch grass or other cellulosic crops to produce ethanol would "increase greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent compared to using regular gasoline."

Whether or not increasing greenhouse gas emissions is really bad for the planet, using the standards of those promoting ethanol as the answer, it is a negative.

Anyway, go here to get a number of reasons this needs to be stopped ASAP.

Moronic EPA Rejects Ethanol Waiver Request of Texas Governor Rick Perry

As Texas Governor Rick Perry said in response to the idiotic decision by the EPA to refuse an ethanol waiver, "Congress specifically created an emergency waiver provision for situations like these and EPA refuses to implement it."

In the latter part of April, Perry asked the EPA for a 50 percent waiver on the so-called Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which artificially forces about 9 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol to be added to U.S. gasoline supplies on a yearly basis. Next year it'll rise to 11.1 billion gallons.

It's caused huge food problems around the world, and has significantly impacted the price of food in the U.S., as prices continue to rise.

According to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, the agency denied the waiver because it did not find it caused "severe economic harm."

I wonder if he knows how stupid that sounds? He's basically acknowledging it's causing harm, but as long it's not "severe," it's ok. Screwball!

The only recognition that it's causing higher prices was that it has in the EPA's terms it is only adding 7 cents to each bushel of corn.

While that could be disputed, even if it's true, you add that to the number of bushels sold and it's significant. But that's far from the whole story, and Johnson and the EPA know it. There are huge residual effects not talked about, like the cost of feed and seed, which adds to the price of various meats. Even more significantly, the increasing use of acreage for corn is causing less acreage to grow other crops, which is also raising their prices.

The cost of ethanol is huge, and largely not worth the effort. It's already seen as a disaster in the making, and the usual good intentions of government interference in the free market is again rearing its ugly head, as people pay the price of lawmakers' folly.