Yet More Outrages of the Corn Ethanol Scam

[Sunsettommy]

Energy Tribune

Posted on Jan. 11, 2010

By Robert Bryce

EXCERPT:

Imagine driving into a service station. At one pump, conventional gasoline costs $3.25. Right next to it stands a pump with ethanol-blended fuel selling for $5.20. And since you are a savvy fuel buyer you are aware of the fact that numerous studies have shown that the fuel costing $5.20 is worse for the environment -- in terms of water quality, water availability, and carbon dioxide emissions -- than the fuel costing $3.25.

Given those factors, which fuel would you purchase?

The answer is pretty obvious. And yet thanks to Congressional mandates and subsidies for corn ethanol, the real cost of the ethanol scam has been hidden from taxpayers for years. But a new report by the Baker Institute for Public Policy has underscored some of the more outrageous aspects of the corn ethanol scam. The report, “Fundamentals of a Sustainable US Biofuels Policy,” should be required reading for federal policymakers, particularly given the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency has delayed making a decision regarding the breaking of the “blend wall” a move that could allow gasoline producers to use up to 15% ethanol in their gasoline blends. Current regulations limit the blends to no more than 10% ethanol.

LINK

Maybe a temporary Corn blight attack will stop this stupidity.

[Richard S Courtney.]

SST:

In August 2006, when the US was planning to introduce its ethanol mandate, I wrote an article that made several predictions and it can be read at
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/courtney_082006.pdf

In March 2008 I did a review of the predictions in that paper and the review can be read at:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/origin...ssues.html

The synopsis of the review says:

Quote:This paper reviews effects of large use of biofuels that I predicted in a paper published in August 2006 prior to the USA legislating to enforce displacement of crude oil products by biofuels. The review indicates that policies (such as that in the EU), subsidies and legislation (such as that in the USA) to promote use of biofuels should be reconsidered. The use of biofuels is causing significant problems but providing no benefits except to farmers. Biofuel usage is a hidden subsidy to farmers, and if this subsidy is the intended purpose of biofuel usage then more direct subsidies would be more efficient. But the problems of biofuel usage are serious. Biofuel usage is

• damaging energy security,
• reducing biodiversity,
• inducing excessively high food prices, and
• inducing excessively high fuel prices, while
• providing negligible reduction to greenhouse gas emissions.

All these effects were predicted in my paper on the use of biofuels that was published in August 2006 and can be seen at
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/courtney_082006.pdf

My 2006 paper also predicted objections from environmentalists if large use of biofuels were adopted although this then seemed implausible because many environmentalists were campaigning for biofuels to displace fossil fuels. But this prediction has also proved to be correct.

Richard

[HarpoSpoke]

Excellent information to have at hand.

Really the most disturbing part of this to me is the refusal by some to admit a mistake. Whether you agree or disagree about the initial implementation of the policy, one would like an objective assessment and action taken as a result of that assessment. Alternatives to fossil fuels are not a bad idea...it's the politics attached to them which cause concern.

This of course leads one to question whether or not the forces behind AGW theory would blindly support all the policy ideas to the detriment of everyone.

I think we know the answer to that one. Some still want Cap and Trade despite real world examples of its faults.

[mcclane]

I was never a fan of ethanol. For some reason, the hippies tout ethanol as the saviour of the planet.

The gov't may not be able to back out of ethanol, despite how bad it is. The amount of money invested the gov't may have to see it thru, sink hole or not.