Republicans Big-Time Wrong on Ethanol Issue - Political Forum

JimfromPennsylvania · 05-07-2008, 07:06 PM

The recent sending of a letter by a large number of Republican Senators to the EPA requesting the EPA drop its requirements on gasoline producers to increase ethanol use is a perfect example of why the Republicans deserved to lose control of Congress and deserve to for the foreseeable future not regain back control of Congress. Republicans too often put special interests’ interests above ordinary Americans’ interests. These Republicans collectively claim their reason for dropping the ethanol mandates is that it would allow the farmers that grow the corn used for ethanol production to grow other crops instead so as to stabilize or possibly lower food prices for the American people. The truth of the matter is that these Republican senators are not these extraordinary virtues people that care deeply about the burden high food prices are putting on the American consumer and the suffering experienced by people throughout the world because of food shortages. If they were they would be proposing legislative initiatives to bring the needed amount of new farm land on line in the U.S. to solve these food problems and not an initiative that will worsen our nation’s problem of dependancy on foreign oil. The disgraceful truth here is that collectively these Republican Senators largely have as their motives here to try to improve the political landscape for opening up ANWR and U.S coastal sites to oil drilling because if they can get the EPA to reverse the ethanol mandates they can then claim that the biofuel solution (technically partial solution) to the nation’s energy problem has failed and the nation needs to turn to expanding oil drilling in the U.S. the only meaningful help for this problem. The one definite exception to this scheming motive here would be Senator McCain because time and again publicly he has said he opposes this expansion of drilling.

This whole matter really underscores the catastrophic mistake Washington is making on this food/ethanol debate. Washington needs to be taking drastic action to bring more farmland on line in the U.S.. It is outrageous how Washington keeps talking about this whole issue as if it is a zero sum game that America’s only decision is to choose between growing more grains for food or for ethanol production. Are they so completely in a mental fog over this whole issue that they can’t see that America is land rich, if one drives or flies across America one can see an absolute plentiful amount of land to grow the agricultural products America requires for its food and biofuel needs. It is absolutely unbelievable and frankly massively negligent that our elected officials in Washington are not passing legislation guaranteeing needed amounts of farm land aren’t quickly brought on line in the U.S..

If our elected officials can’t figure out how to bring more farm land on line in the U.S. let me suggest they pursue these following common sense steps. Instruct the U.S. Agricultural Department to determine how much additional farm land needs to be brought on line to fulfill the nation’s food and biofuel needs and to provide meaningful help to the world’s food needs. Once they have that figure ask the Agricultural Department to come up with a plan that is reasonable to offer financial incentives and financial assistance to farmers to bring more farm land on line. Where necessary the government’s legal powers of eminent domain and Federal law preemption should be used to get the needed new farm land. If such an incentive/assistance plan can’t bring about the needed number of acres of new farm land on line to meet the American people’s needs then do the following. The American Government should set-up a separate company to go into the farming business. The American Government would stake this separate company and appoint its board of directors and it would operate on it’s own buying and leasing land and set up farming operations on this land with the overall business plan to fulfill the agricultural products supply needs of the nation not satisfied by the private sector. Such a Federal agricultural producing business is not so far fetched. The federal government created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac private companies that buy mortgages and sell them to investors. The federal government created Sallie Mae a private company that provides loans to college students. Moreover, the Federal Government wouldn’t have to sponsor this type of business forever, the primary mission of this organization would be to bring needed amounts of new farm land on line. After seven to ten years this organization if it is run correctly will have brought an enormous amount of farm land on line and the country should not be in the crisis situation that it is today so then this organization will be in the position if the American people want to pursue parceling off its operations and selling them to either individual farmers or farming businesses and get out of this business and so the Federal government will be off the financial hook. It is sort of what the government has done with the pharmaceutical industry over the years in a sense, it spent money developing vaccines or medicines to solve serious national medical problems and once the vaccines or medicines are invented it lets private companies take over. It may not be miniscule the amount of money needed to stake such a Federal Agricultural Producing Corporation but the negative economic impact of supply shortages of needed food grains and shortages of ethanol supplies on the energy market make it a no-brainer that it would be worth it for the nation to spend this money and solve these supply shortages; moreover, I am sure the amount of money needed to stake this organization would be much less than the $190 plus billion per year spent on funding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

These Republican Senators want to in effect give up on biofuels being an integral part of the solution for America’s energy problems; they in essence want to say our nation failed on the biofuel solution. To borrow a line from the movie Apollo 13, “failure is not an option here”. Drilling in ANWR would take 8 to 10 years at minimum (the nation can’t wait!) to bring oil from those fields to market and then only around one million barrels of oil a day would be produced less than five percent of our nation’s oil needs and the opening up of other U.S. regions have like drawbacks. The bottom line on biofuels is that America either makes that energy source succeed and succeed in a big way in America or the American people are going to suffer and suffer in a big way.

Bartholomew Roberts · 05-07-2008, 07:48 PM

Really, the best way to solve the price issue is to increase the availability of mass transit, and somehow encourage people to carpool. The issue right now is that The supply of oil is staying the same, but the demand is going up because Americans refuse to change their driving habbits.

That being said, I agree that what the Republicans are doing is questionable, but the way you have proposed to go about it has one problem I readily see as well.

First, I just want to know how much farmable land you think we have that is not in use. The only reason I ask this is because there is so much profit in farming at this point, that I would think people would have already used most of the available land. If they haven't, I still have to oppose your arguement to use Eminent domain to attain the needed land. As much as I would like to see people help out the world by selling their land for farming, it is a violation of an individual's rights to take away their land. I don't care if the government technically has the right to do it or not, it is wrong because it is theft.

Right now, the best solution for the problem would probably be to do exactly what the Republicans are trying to do, although it seems wrong and twisted. We need Americans to cut down their use of oil. It's that simple. No action taken by the government will stop the cost of gas from rising, and at least they will bring down the cost of food, and higher gas prices will force Americans to change their driving habbits. Americans forget that we are still doing a lot better than most of Europe when it comes to gas prices, and they also don't notice that Europeans have drastically reduced their oil consumption.

So right now, I would say we should probably reduce the government mandates and allow the forces of the market economy to force people to make wiser decisions. Really, no matter what we do, someone is getting hurt somehow. The question is how can we fix the problem while hurting the fewest people, and right now it looks like the Republicans may be on to something, because their idea will temporarily hurt the US, but in the end, it will help by forcing us to reduce dependency on oil.

GlobalSmiles · 05-07-2008, 08:44 PM

I've got your answer right here. . .

Grass Makes Better Ethanol than Corn Does: Scientific American

Bartholomew Roberts · 05-07-2008, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlobalSmiles

I've got your answer right here. . .

Grass Makes Better Ethanol than Corn Does: Scientific American

Great, now we will completely stop producing corn and switch to grass...

Interesting Article, though...

Shiva_TD · 05-07-2008, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlobalSmiles

I've got your answer right here. . .

Grass Makes Better Ethanol than Corn Does: Scientific American

Good article but there is even a better source.... kelp grows up to 12" per day which is far faster that any land based plant. Only one problem with being able to harvest kelp for fuel... we've polluted the coast lines so much that most of it is dead and gone.. at least along the California coast where it used to be harvested continuously back in the 1950's. There used to be huge kelp beds off the California coast but most are gone except around the Channel Islands.

But if we were to clean up our act and not dump all of the herbicides and pesticides into the ocean we could get those kelp beds back and with them an endless source of low cost biofuel.

prrriiide · 05-07-2008, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

Good article but there is even a better source.... kelp grows up to 12" per day which is far faster that any land based plant. Only one problem with being able to harvest kelp for fuel... we've polluted the coast lines so much that most of it is dead and gone.. at least along the California coast where it used to be harvested continuously back in the 1950's. There used to be huge kelp beds off the California coast but most are gone except around the Channel Islands.

But if we were to clean up our act and not dump all of the herbicides and pesticides into the ocean we could get those kelp beds back and with them an endless source of low cost biofuel.

Also, due to its high growth rate, kelp is an excellent resource for carbon sequestration. As is switchgrass.

nemesis · 05-07-2008, 11:35 PM

Algae is another good alternative that requires no farmland to use. We should get off ethanol it isn't even efficient as an energy source. It's more expensive then gas is once you take out the subsidies.

Caltex · 05-07-2008, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nemesis

Algae is another good alternative that requires no farmland to use. We should get off ethanol it isn't even efficient as an energy source. It's more expensive then gas is once you take out the subsidies.

Corn ethanol is bad.

Ethanol itself is probably going to be the next fuel source. As soon as scientists come up with a reliable and efficient way to break down the cellulose into usable ethanols we'll be in good shape.

Whether it's grass, or kelp, both require practically no effort to grow, and can grow pretty much anywhere. They don't need prime farm land and water. Plant them, come back and harvest it all a few months later,

Shiva_TD · 05-08-2008, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caltex

Corn ethanol is bad.

Ethanol itself is probably going to be the next fuel source. As soon as scientists come up with a reliable and efficient way to break down the cellulose into usable ethanols we'll be in good shape.

Whether it's grass, or kelp, both require practically no effort to grow, and can grow pretty much anywhere. They don't need prime farm land and water. Plant them, come back and harvest it all a few months later,

Growing grass does require good farm land. It has to be harvested and therefore has literally the same land constrants as growing wheat so you get into the problem of using land that can be used for food being used for fuel. That has been a major problem with using corn in that it is taking food off the table to put into a gas tank.

This is why I would recommend cleaning up our environmental problems related to polluting the oceans and use kelp production for ethanol production. The advantages to a liquid fuel for many transportation needs is evident to most. It's high concentration of energy in a portable fuel is undeniably advantageous for such things as long trips. We need a renewable source that does not take away farmland for production. Harvesting the oceans provides such a source but until we clean up our pollution it remains a dream.

AzTeK · 05-08-2008, 08:23 AM

I didn't know that ethanol from celulose was already at a stage where actually plants for mass production are being built ("The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is partially funding the construction of six such cellulosic biorefineries") That's very good news indeed. I remember a while back reading about such a pilot plant in Austria that also used forest waste, but back then had gotten the impression that it oculd still take a while until it became really feasible, but appearently it already is.

The kelp idea sounds pretty neat as well...but you have to remember that the problem with herbicides and pesticides, along with fertilisers, getting into the ocean lies not at the ocean but inwards, on the countryside. In order to prevent pesticides and herbicides from getting to the ocean, you basically would have to ban them alltogether countrywide, or atleast put very strict limits on how much of it can be used per acre.

Here in Austria generally speaking people try to avoid food that had herbicides or pesticides used on it while it grew (the whole "bio-movement" has been going on for a long time here), but in the US I really don't see that happening.