Congress Actually Ends Taxpayer Funding Of Ethanol Subsidies

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

evnow

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Messages
11,480
Location
Seattle, WA
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20111224/AUTO01/112240320/1148/auto01/Congress-ends-corn-ethanol-subsidy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The United States has ended a 30-year tax subsidy for corn-based ethanol that cost taxpayers $6 billion annually, and ended a tariff on imported Brazilian ethanol.
...
Environmental group Friends of the Earth praised the move.

"The end of this giant subsidy for dirty corn ethanol is a win for taxpayers, the environment and people struggling to put food on their tables," biofuels policy campaigner Michal Rosenoer said Friday.

That doesn't mean the mandate to blend ethonol has gone away.

Ethanol supporters are worried Congress might roll back a 2007 mandate that dramatically boosts the use of ethanol annually through 2022. The mandate jumps from 15 billion gallons of renewable fuels — including cellulosic ethanol in 2015 — to 36 billion gallons by 2022.
 
Many people have been mislead against ethanol by PR paid for by the oil industry. I see it all over the place and it is often repeated in error. Oil price increases cause food prices to go up, much more so than ethanol.

Don't be fooled. See the movie Called "Freedom" and it will open your eyes. Details on the website:
http://thefreedomfilm.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oil from well to wheel is much dirtier than ethanol.

Also visit http://www.ethanolrfa.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; the Renewable Fuel Association for details on benefits of ethanol for local jobs, energy independence, future improvements possible. Because ethanol provides 10 percent of our fuel we are less dependent on oil and it actually helps keep our costs down. This is an excellent way to help us diversify.

Hope you can spend a little time to research more of the rest of the story.
 
" "The end of this giant subsidy for dirty corn ethanol is a win for taxpayers, the environment and people struggling to put food on their tables," biofuels policy campaigner Michal Rosenoer said Friday."

This mentally damaged person actually believes this.. there is still a requirement for ethanol to mixed in gasoline, yet the subsidy went away and that means that all gasoline will go up.. not a bad thing in itself but it will impact the poor that can barely afford to fuel their cars as it is.
 
lkkms2 said:
Many people have been mislead against ethanol by PR paid for by the oil industry. I see it all over the place and it is often repeated in error. Oil price increases cause food prices to go up, much more so than ethanol.
No we haven't been fooled by PR from oil industry. You can search here for detailed discussions on the ills of ethonol - basically a scam to suck $40 Billion in subsidies.
 
I can not imagine how the starving countries around the world look at americans that burn food to fuel our cars and they can not get food.
 
Well said, IMO.

Too bad it has a snowball's-chance-in-22ND-century-Southwestern-USA, of actually happening...

Now that the most polarized and paralyzed Congress in memory has managed to kill one of its most resilient boondoggles — the three-decade-old, multibillion-dollar subsidy for corn ethanol — we hope it has not exhausted its resolve and will take a hatchet to other harmful energy subsidies, chiefly those it gives to fossil fuels. ...

President Obama has tried twice to kill these subsidies, without success. We hope he tries again in his coming Budget Message. The Congressional Research Service says that ending the subsidies would have no effect on gas prices for consumers and only a trivial effect on industry profits, which have been at record highs.

But we are not holding our breath for a sea change in Congress on this issue. The unusual coalition that mobilized to fight the ethanol subsidy is unlikely to be replicated in any struggle over oil and gas subsidies, which House Republicans and their paymasters in industry have sworn to defend. ...

The bottom line is clear: Congress should end the subsidies to Big Oil and redeploy the money saved to support truly new energy technologies, like wind and solar power, or even high-tech biofuels that don’t harm the environment and threaten the food supply.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/opinion/one-bad-energy-subsidy-expires.html?_r=1&hp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
imagine 1/10th of that money devoted to installing QC's around each metro area thru out the US to start?

we would have NOTHING to complain about
 
"Ethanol requirements for U.S. gasoline appear to be losing friends and influencing the wrong people, with calls growing to reform or scrap the government mandates altogether."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101297359" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
evnow said:
lkkms2 said:
Many people have been mislead against ethanol by PR paid for by the oil industry. I see it all over the place and it is often repeated in error. Oil price increases cause food prices to go up, much more so than ethanol.
No we haven't been fooled by PR from oil industry. You can search here for detailed discussions on the ills of ethonol - basically a scam to suck $40 Billion in subsidies.
I'd like to see the accounting on subsidies, evnow, if it's easy.

What's been published on this board - and in this thread - are not actual 'ills' of ethanol - they're propaganda from primarily the oil industry (actually the fuel industry...) against any non-petroleum fuel.

As others have said - this will be a good thing only when ALL fuel subsidies are dropped - especially the cash given to 100+ year old industries that are not only mature but have one foot in an assisted care facility!

The federal government provided substantially larger subsidies to fossil fuels than to
renewables. Subsidies to fossil fuels—a mature, developed industry that has enjoyed
government support for many years—totaled approximately $72 billion over the study
period, representing a direct cost to taxpayers.
http://www.eli.org/sites/default/files/eli-pubs/d19_07.pdf

blacknotgreen.jpg

This is a win for the American Petroleum Institute and Big Oil - not for us 'little people'.

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
http://www.eli.org/research-report/estimating-us-government-subsidies-energy-sources-2002-2008-0
http://www.eli.org/sites/default/files/eli-pubs/d19_07.pdf
 
Not everyone shares the view that big oil enjoys "subsidies"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2013/01/02/oil-gas-tax-provisions-are-not-subsidies-for-big-oil/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bottom line: Despite the Administration’s rhetoric that has been so widely repeated in the press, the tax treatments in question are not “subsidies” that are in any way outside of the mainstream of tax treatments commonly available to all U.S. industries.

I imagine if XOM gets a tax credit or takes capital depreciation for upgrading to energy-efficient lighting in one of their office buildings, environmentalists would count it as a "tax break for big oil".
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
Not everyone shares the view that big oil enjoys "subsidies"

I imagine if XOM gets a tax credit or takes capital depreciation for upgrading to energy-efficient lighting in one of their office buildings, environmentalists would count it as a "tax break for big oil".

And I imagine that Big Oil would not. IMHO if it's a tax benefit to them, it's a tax benefit to them. Just like if I chose to take the tax break it would be a tax benefit to me.

...pretty much no one in the news media ever reports on the subject accurately.

I would imagine that WSJ does not include themselves in this accusation.
 
prebson said:
IMHO if it's a tax benefit to them, it's a tax benefit to them. Just like if I chose to take the tax break it would be a tax benefit to me.
True, but this isn't how it is framed.

From everything I've heard, saying that oil companies are subsidized is sort of like saying that murder is subsidized because OJ Simpson was able to take the standard deduction.
 
AndyH said:
This is a win for the American Petroleum Institute and Big Oil - not for us 'little people'.

Last I checked 98% of us little people are still put gasoline in our cars (I'm thinking diesel is still more used than anything else in the "other" category).

I'd be OK with it if you said it was a win for big oil that happened to also help people that own cars with gas engines.

I sure know I've avoided putting E10 in my Prius and I'd like to see less ethanol in the supply chain going forward.

I'd be happy to see the ethanol mix back down to 5% max (same as Canada) and see Mexico move to 5% also (they are currently at 6%)

Even nicer if they go to E4 max (like Ireland) or E3 max (to be the lowest federal limit on ethanol)
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
Not everyone shares the view that big oil enjoys "subsidies"
Of COURSE Forbes doesn't agree. :lol:
LTLFTcomposite said:
I imagine if XOM gets a tax credit or takes capital depreciation for upgrading to energy-efficient lighting in one of their office buildings, environmentalists would count it as a "tax break for big oil".
You'd imagine incorrectly. If you check the reports on what subsidy-watchers call tax breaks and subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, you'll find that they are the ones that go above and beyond 'regular business expenses' available to all from sole-proprietors to supercorps.

Even without including the stupid levels of blood we spill to maintain foreign oil fields, we've been dumping TONS of cash on oil for more than 100 years. At some point we might consider that mature industries with higher cash flow rates than many countries probably don't need taxpayer-funded 'aid to dependent CEOs' any longer...
 
GPowers said:
I can not imagine how the starving countries around the world look at americans that burn food to fuel our cars and they can not get food.

Its probably similar to how they look at the Chinese wasting valuable land to grow tea or bamboo.
or how they look at the Finns wasting valuable land to grow timber.
or how they look at the Dutch wasting valuable land to grow flowers
or how they look at Malaysia/Indonesia wating valuable land to grow rubber.

using corn for ethanol is just like any other cash crop. Its a natural idea for many in less devloped countries. American/European's may find it strange, but its quite normal.
 
AndyH said:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cqc2-D51Iw[/youtube]

I'm thinking solar panels and EVs will keep money away from the middle east more than buying ethanol laced gasoline will.

He thinks big oil doesn't want us buying ethanol, betcha they have similar or stronger objections to us using electricity in place of gas.
 
Back
Top