Do not expect to read much about this in the NY Times — and definitely don’t expect any follow up questions about his motivation for climate policy ($$$). Former Vice President Al Gore has admitted that his “support for corn-based ethanol in the United States was “not a good policy”, weeks before tax credits are up for renewal.”
Gore was the tie-breaking vote in the Senate mandating the use of ethanol in 1994.
From Reuters:
“It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for (U.S.) first generation ethanol,” said Gore, speaking at a green energy business conference in Athens sponsored by Marfin Popular Bank.
“First generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small.
“It’s hard once such a programme is put in place to deal with the lobbies that keep it going.”
He continues (admitting more of the obvious):
“One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president.”
However, don’t make the mistake that he has had an epiphany on climate change:
Gore supported so-called second generation technologies which do not compete with food, for example cellulosic technologies which use chemicals or enzymes to extract sugar from fibre for example in wood, waste or grass.
“I do think second and third generation that don’t compete with food prices will play an increasing role, certainly with aviation fuels.”
Gore added did that he did not expect a U.S. clean energy or climate bill for “at least two years” following the mid-term elections which saw Republicans increase their support.
Again, the Democrats had 60 seats in the Senate, which is a filibuster proof majority and Pelosi controlled the House of Representatives with members to spare for most of 2009. They could have passed whatever they wanted. At least two years is translated: maybe in 2012 if Obama is re-elected, the Dems take back the House, and they don’t lose the Senate. In other words, the bill is dead.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Curious George,
You know corn is sold as a commodity right?
There are many varieties that go into the bin marked #2 and end up as either animal feed, ethanol, corn syrup or high fructose corn syrup.
Sweet corn and pop corn don’t go through the commodities market as such.
You might be suprised how much corn is actually on your dinner plate. Processed food is full of it.
Gore is a Soros wannabe……….
HMMMMmmmm, Just think out loud.
1. we are in a recession/depression
2. The food modernization Act that turns over control of US farming to the UN/World Trade Organization. Similar regs in other countries wiped out over 50% of the independent farmers and that was not during a recession.
3. Al baby now comes out against corn ethanol, thereby yanking the rug out from under American farmers best “cash crop”
4. Billy Clinton also delivers a swipe at US farmers.
“…Former President Clinton told a U.N. gathering Thursday that the global food crisis shows “we all blew it, including me,” by treating food crops “like color TVs” instead of as a vital commodity for the world’s poor. We Blew It’ on Global Food, Says Bill Clinton
Former U.S. President Bill Clinton made a remarkable admission a couple of weeks ago. His neoliberal “free trade” policies of the 1990’s have led to the destruction of Haiti’s agricultural sector and the inability of the country to feed itself.
“It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has not worked. It was a mistake,” said Clinton to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 10. “I had to live everyday with the consequences of the loss of capacity to produce a rice crop in Haiti to feed those people because of what I did; nobody else.”
Bill Clinton Admits his Neoliberal Free Trade Policies Are Wrong: ‘It Was a Mistake’ : http://www.stwr.org/latin-america-caribbean/bill-clinton-admits-neoliberal-policies-in-haiti-were-a-mistake.html
Remember the CEO of Monsanto, Robert Shapiro, was Clinton’s Senior Foreign Trade Adviser and Dan Amstutz, VP of Cargill, was a US trade negotiator and wrote the Agreement on Ag for the World Trade Organization.
As a farmer I sure feel like a deer in the crosshairs…
Yes I have!
There is no practical difference in fuel economy between E10 and straight gasoline. If your car actually gets that big of a fuel economy drop assuming you are properly measuring fuel mileage, your car is broke go get it fixed.
We have had ethanol added gasoline for sale here in Colorado for 30 years. The difference in fuel mileage between E10 and straight gasoline in well tuned cars is barely detectable in carefully conducted fuel mileage studies, as it is only about 1%-2% difference in miles per gallon.
The difference is so small, you need to measure the miles traveled and fuel used to 2 decimal places for 4-5 tanks of fuel to see the difference. You can have much larger changes in fuel economy due to changes in the weather (colder temps drop fuel mileage much more than that) or changes in driving conditions such as more rush hour traffic etc. or increased idle time to warm up the car in cold weather.
http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/ACEFuelEconomyStudy_001.pdf
The Pimentel studies demonstrate just how crappy peer reviewed studies can be. His studies are a joke and have been debunked by several other reports. His studies keep showing up in the media for the same reasons some alarming climate studies keep appearing in the media. His are the only ones that are scary enough to get the media readership and ratings.
He uses absurd assumptions and obsolete data for his studies and consistently is the odd ball among all the published studies on the ethanol energy balance.
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/page/-/objects/documents/84/ethanolffuelsrebuttal.pdf
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/354.pdf
http://www.ethanolmt.org/images/argonnestudy.pdf
I am glad the blenders tax credit is about to expire, as I feel it has accomplished the build out in the ethanol industry that was needed and that the industry is now mature enough it should be able to fend for itself. The speculators who bought into it to profiteer got creamed during the recent down turn and only the properly run state of the art efficiently designed plants survived. The plants that were built/bought by know nothing speculators have been driven out of business or gobbled up at pennies on the dollar by folks who have a clue how to run a biofuel operation.
Now that corn is selling at fair market value for the first time in about 35 year, perhaps folks like Tyson can stop ripping off the government for subsidized corn feed for their chickens and come up with a business model where they can survive without government subsidized corn prices.
Most of the price shocks to food in other countries were not due to corn diverted to ethanol production but due to speculators bidding up the price of food as they moved from oil speculation to food commodities. Rice shortages are not due to corn prices.
Corn is still historically cheap compared to what it cost in 1979 when it sold for about 2x what it sells for today in terms of inflation corrected prices.
Yes Gore is a moron and was just trying to scam the public and get rich off of the green revolution and I hope he continues to lose his shirt in all his little green investment projects. He is the worst kind of profiteer.
Larry
“First generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small.
“It’s hard once such a programme is put in place to deal with the lobbies that keep it going.”
This is a microcosm of why the government should stay out of the business of picking winners and losers in the free market as a first principle. We are now creating the same issues in wind and solar power, electric cars, battery technology, etc. Once a large subsidized business exists those with a vested interest protect it. Before long an economy is drowning under its own dead weight.
Buy more rope.
“”””” Manfred says:
November 22, 2010 at 10:56 am
Gore wrong again.
1. The energy balance may not be great but it is still postive “””””
Let’s say that the energy balance is just at break even. You spend the energy of one barrel of crude oil (equivalent) to get the equivalent of one barrel of ethanol fuel (energy wise).
So that means you get the same energy out of your car burning either the oil fuel or the ethanol fuel; and the effluent CO2 is about the same; well it ought to be more for ethanol, because the O in the ethanol is equivalent to adding water to the fuel.
But instead of burning the oil in oyur car; you burn it all up making the ethanol, and then you burn the ethanol in your car.
So you have just consumed twice as much fuel and generated twice as much CO2 as if you just burned the oil to begin with and left out the step of making the ethanol.
OK if your yield is betetr than break even say two for one, then you get two units of ethanol fuel from spending one unit of oil; so you burned three total units of fuel to do the same job you could do with two units of oil fuel you already have; and leave out the circuitous route of turning the oil into ethanol first.
It makes no sense to do work you don’t have to do, to get some job done.
Catching sailfish and marlin and everything else in the sea of Cortez, and using it to make fertilizer to grow corn is not a useful way of providing food. Fortunately the Mexican Government eventually woke up and stopped such wastage.
How cum no Kum?
===========
The sad fact is that the increase in hunger due to developed countries’ obsession with biofuels was entirely predictable. Pardon me for tooting my horn but as I wrote in 1999 here:
I’ve read through most of these posts bashing the use of corn for the production of ethanol and just have to shake my head at the lack of knowledge about the current efficiencies of ethanol production.
For starters the energy return for the production of corn to ethanol is @ur momisugly60% positive return to the energy balance. From a bushel of corn the current production of ethanol is @ur momisugly2.9 gallons of ethanol, (a bushel of corn is 56 pounds, @ur momisugly70 ears of corn and the price of corn is roughly $5.00/bushel or about .07 cents per ear unlike the fool who thinks an ear of corn is worth $.50-.75/ear. If you want to buy some for $.25/ear let me know how much you want, I can get all you want.) Out of the 56 pounds of corn there is 18 pounds of corn distillers grain left over for feed use to feed cattle, hogs, chickens, etc.
The production of corn this year is @ur momisugly 12.5 billion bushels with @ur momisugly4 billion going to ethanol production, of which 1/3 comes back out for feed usage. In 1994 corn production was around 9 billion bushels of corn, with total usage of less than 8 billion bushels. Corn production/acre goes up 1.5-2 bushels/acre/year offsetting annual ethanol or other usage increases. This is done using fewer inputs of fertilizer and fuel on a per acre basis than was used 30 years ago. As far as ethanol plants are concerned they get 2.9 gallons of ethanol per bushel versus 2.3 when Pimentol did his study and are using about 70% less energy than they did even 15 years ago. This has been accomplished using better enzymes that work using lower temperatures for the fermentation process.
Funny how there is so much bashing of an industry that was blamed for movie theatres raising the price of popcorn $.50 wen there was only $.02 of corn in the bag to begin with. Also, by the way I have lawnmowers, 4 wheelers and dirt bikes that burn E10 and have had zero problems with any of them, never mind my cars that have gotten over 350,000 miles burning ethanol. Do your homework on an industry before you pass judgement on it, else you are just as guilty as the global warming alarmists fomenting false information.
Kim,
Larry about said it all.
We use about one gallon of petroleum “wheel to well” to produce 20 gallons of ethanol.
Almost all of the fossil fuel used, about 30,000 btus, on average, is natural gas. This is going away as we speak. Within the decade all corn ethanol plants will derive the energy of distillation from the lignin left over from the biorefining of the cobs, and approx 1/3 of the stover.
Patzek is founder of the “Southern California OIL Consortium.” Pimental is an entomologist that has been pushing “Coal” (coal to liquids) for many years.
After allowing for DDGS, we’re replacing 9% of our gasoline with ethanol, and using approx 20% of our field corn crop. Pimental stated that it would require our entire crop to replace 10%. He is, quite simply, a fraud. In 2007 (and, quite possibly, today) he was using 2003 Crop yields (approx 25% less than present yields) in his calculations. His calculations included the farmer going out and building an enormous equipment shed, for the largest, most expensive equipment, to farm a fairly modest farm that would require much smaller, and already owned, equipment.
Pimental proved, emphatically, that 2.7 gallons of ethanol was the most that you could possibly get from a bushel of corn. Today, 3 years later, Poet gets 3.0 gallons of ethanol, plus corn oil, plus zein, plus the CO2 that they sell to bottlers, etc from a Bushel of corn.
Oh, the subsidies of which he speaks Will be going away on Dec 31st.
The $52 Billion/Yr Fossil Fuel Subsidies (U.S., alone) Won’t.
I hear Cropdoc saying that the ethanol industry is ready to stand on its own and compete without subsidies or mandates requiring ethanol at the pump. Good for the ethanol industry.
Some enterprising entrepreneur needs to turn that pic of Gore and his hot breath into an electric room heater. Instead of the fake log fire, you could have Gore’s hot air heating your tootsies.
Anthony,
I’m not sure where you get the impression that the NY Times (in particular) was a cheerleader for corn-based ethanol. Their editorial board sure hasn’t cast it in a favorable light. A few examples:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/opinion/11sun1.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/opinion/18tue2.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/opinion/24sun2.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/opinion/11thu3.html
Funny how the Goracle will not say these things in the U.S., but has to go to Athens, Greece to do so. Sorry, all you farmers out there, corn ethanol is not and will not be the future. You are better off producing corn for us and the rest of the world to eat, not turn into fuel. You guys can line your pockets all you want, because we all love eating corn in all of its forms. Just don’t waste my time with ethanol.
It’s hard once such a programme is put in place…
Wow. Gore spends so much time outside the US and jetting around the world, he’s picked up a British accent.
Bloody hell.
“It’s hard once such a programme is put in place to deal with the lobbies that keep it going.”
— Oh no sh**? —
So please Mr. Politician, stop passing bills that screw us over and can’t be undone and tell your a**hole friends in Washington to do the same.
I can only speak from my personal experience, but ethanol does NOT even come close to the mileage on non-E gas.
I keep very close track of the mileage on my old (93 Chev 4×4) truck. It is high mileage, but tuned to a tee. On 87 E10 I get 10 MPG, on no ethanol 93 I get 13-15mpg. The difference in performance and mileage is obvious.
The non-E premium comes at a price premium of about .25 cents, right now $3.25 Vs $3. At an 8% increase in price, I see a 23% increase in mileage using the low end figure.
I have also had two different cars have gas line problems from ethanol. One had the line corrode from the inside out, one had them split from the water that came with the ethanol separating and freezing when the weather went sub-zero.
Now I only run ethanol in my truck if I have to, and then only enough to get to a station that has the non-E gas. In my snowmobiles, chain saw, and outboard it is unthinkable. Thanks to the EAA, we can still get non-ethanol gas in WI, but usually it is premium.
Over a period of years, I have worked with and socialised with a number of North Americans and am honoured to call them my friends. Even have a couple of them in my extended family back home in New Zealand. Nice people, every one. Smart too, made lots of money, live in nice houses, know about a whole heap of stuff. But why, oh why are the politicians Americans produce such extraordinary snake-oil salesmen and all-round shysters.
Then I shifted to the UK. Guess what? UK politicians are even dumber than the US variety. As an example, the UK has a generally mild and ‘soft’ climate where the wind doesn’t blow all that vigorously or frequently and those same UK politicians insist that wind power is sensible! Then I get the news while I am away in these furrin parts that politicians in my own little corner of the world back home have voted in an ETS bill! I know a few politicians there and at least one of them is an actual scientist; the current Speaker of the House in NZ has a Phd in a branch of agricultural science and breeds prize winning bulls, so what is going on with the world’s pollies?
Sadly, reading about Al Gore’s callous disregard for almost all of the human race from farmers to the world’s poor, is it just politicians as a breed that seem to think that being wildly untruthful with their electorates and gouging what they can steal for themselves is acceptable? What happened to the old ideals of honour, truth and service to one’s fellow man? Or am I just old and operating from a set of values that only applied back when I went to Sunday School?
I guess these are rhetorical questions that I already know the answer to, but I can say without a shadow of doubt that I am so sick and tired of self-aggrandizing idiots putting their hands in my pockets.
Alexander K:
“Then I shifted to the UK. Guess what? UK politicians are even dumber than the US variety. As an example, the UK has a generally mild and ‘soft’ climate where the wind doesn’t blow all that vigorously or frequently and those same UK politicians insist that wind power is sensible!”
Too true. I’ve corresponded with the UK Energy Minister and it’s clear that he doesn’t understand the basics of how this sort of technology works. We are set to spend Billions subsidising green energy which will make little or no contribution to either power supply or carbon reductions.
As far as Gore is concerned, it’s interesting to hear that his policies and rhetoric have been promoted purely for his own benefit and political ambition. Not a hint of an apology though.
Gore: “It’s hard once such a programme is put in place to deal with the lobbies that keep it going.” In other words politicians are unable to stop what they start due to influential lobby groups looking after their own interests. It sort of explains why the likes of WWF, Friends Of The Earth spend so much time with politicians – it’s not to discuss government policy, it’s to instruct cowardly politicians what to do next.
Very revealing.
re post by: Curiousgeorge says: November 22, 2010 at 11:44 am
RE: your no-till question…..
Thank you for the info Curiousgeorge!
I don’t like Ethanol for 2-cycle engines but, for 4-cycle engines, it works. 2-cycle engines don’t seem to warm up right. I absolutely love the idea that some of that grain actually goes to livestock and grain-fed meat is wonderful.
I’m not a “climate disruption” person, but I do like the idea of Ethanol. It sucks the moisture out of your gas tank in the winter.
E10 also is great winterizer for small engines. Since using it in my mowers and dirt bike and 4 wheeler I have no problems starting them in the spring after sitting for 6 months. You folks do realize don’t you that “heat” is mostly all ethanol therefore stablizing the gasoline and preventing the buildup of varnish on the fuel system. Ethanol also puts any water in your system into suspension and takes it out of the tank, unlike regular gasoline. Ray B better find another product to blame for his gas line splitting in the winter, and the corrosion which was more than likely a result of the water in his gas. Oh, and comparing 93 octane versus 87 is not a fair comparison by any stretch of the imagination.
Another point is that ethanol came to be an industry because the price of corn was less than $2.00/bushel and the producer was being subsidised for those prices that cheaper than corn was in the 30’s. Yes, I will say it again, corn was cheaper in the 1990’s than it was in the 1930’s. If you were to adjust the price of corn for inflation it should be over $12.00/bushel not the $5.00 it is today. Farmers have done a terrific job of becoming more efficient in producing a bushel of corn using improved management and better genetics.
The blenders credit which is the subsidy everyone talks about goes to those corporations that blend the fuel, ie mostly the oil industry and is supposed to be passed onto the consumer, which most of it is not. Rack prices for ethanol generally follow the price of gasoline rack prices and are lower because of the differences in btu’s. The ethanol plants will do fine without the subsidy as long as the oil industry is mandated to use a certain percentage, which they don’t like since it is their competition.
Another point in regards to food prices relating to ethanol. Which will have more impact on prices, the price of oil or the price of corn??? $140/barrel oil is what caused the food price increases, ethanol just became everyones favorite whipping boy, or excuse. For example the highest price for dairy producers for milk was @ur momisugly$20.00/hundred pounds. Milk sold for well over $3.00/ gallon of which on a per gallon basis the dairy got less than $1.50. Milk today at the dairy is less than $15.00/hundred, do you think maybe supply demand is at work here?
Manfred,
You have repeated various myths about Ethanol,
Myth: Ethanol is Great (Video) (5min) (ABC News)
Wrong,
Ethanol And Biodiesel From Crops Not Worth The Energy (Cornell University)
In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that:
* corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
* switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and
* wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
There is no shortage of liquid fuels, there is only a restriction on development of hydrocarbon energy sources by governments. Corn Ethanol is not market competitive with oil and simply makes gasoline more expensive.
Energy independence is a myth repeated by propagandists who financially benefit from exploiting the American consumer through government mandates and subsidies.
5 Myths About Breaking Our Foreign Oil Habit (The Washington Post)
Coal liquidification is a better option (should the price allow) than burning food.
LMAO, no it hasn’t it has enriched corporations like ADM at the taxpayer’s expense,
Ethanol Keeps ADM Drunk On Tax Dollars (Cato Institute)
Ethanol subsidies is government welfare for US Farmers and affiliated workers.
Fascinating this thread is attracting all the government welfare farmers and their economic illiterate positions on free trade and emotional nonsense like “fair pricing”.