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.
The rhetoric of the “independent farmer” sounds nostalgic just like the mom and pop stores in “small towns” until the public wants to actually purchase something and they choose to go for the best price for their dollar and shop at Walmart Supercenters and Home Depot. The average person doesn’t care if their food comes from an inefficient “independent farmer” or a farm corporation. Thus all agricultural regulations should be repealed and all agricultural subsidies abolished. The American consumer can decide on how to spend their dollars best.
anyone remembering the other “additive GORE Pushed for…the one that turned out to be really toxic…. and was banned, MB…something…?
and he was tied into profits from that too from memory of a post I once read.
Poptech,
All of your so called myth articles are so wrong in thier conclusions it is laughable. Never mind that the newest article is over 5 years old, with one over 10 years old, talking about the blenders credit and ADM. Your sources are so biased I feel sorry for you if you believe they are spouting anything close to the truth. Lies and distortions of the facts are a waste of everyones’ time including yours.
I cannot believe the ignorance that I am seeing here. I expected more from this forum. It just goes to show that people who are skeptical of CAGW can be just as stupid as CAGW people I guess. I would post more, but posters like Cropdoc and Larry L have pretty much said what needs to be said.
Your (Anthony) election math, while feasible, is akin to those seeing the republicans gain control of the senate this year. It just wont happen. The democrats have over 2/3rds of the seats to defend in 12, many in states that are not blue. So they expect to lose some (perhaps not many). In order to recover to their 09 level, they would have to win all but 4 (that is one, two, three, four! ) of the senate seats up for grags in 12.
So even if they take back the house, the idea they will win 29 seats in 12 is feasible, but highly improbable. Even with an Obama win in the Presidential election, democrats will be hard pressed to keep a majority in the senate.
A question to all the “farmers” posting here who are on the government dole,
Does the American consumer not have the right to purchase the most economically viable (cheapest) source of transportation fuel?
Why does the U.S. Ethanol industry need to exploit the U.S. consumer?
Why are you in favor of contributing to world hunger by burning food?
Poptech says:
November 23, 2010 at 5:42 am
“…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.”
_________________________________________________________
Another myth is that it has enriched American farmers. The true winners are Monsanto who sold the seed and chemicals at fixed prices to the farmers and the Grain Traders like ADM, and Cargill who set the wholesale price paid to the farmers (monopsony). I have yet to meet an independent farmer who actually makes his living farming and I went to an Ag school, Prudue in the late 60s. All the farmers I know had outside jobs.
This is backed up by the USDA Ag survey:
Gross Sales ( not net salary)
up to $25,000 – .1,519,209
$25 – $100,000 – 298,385
Over $100,000 – 311,388
The number grossing over $500,000 is only 70,642
Most of those farmers never see a dime from the US government.
“…In fact, seventy percent of S.C. farmers receive absolutely no taxpayer-funded assistance whatsoever, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Meanwhile, the top ten percent of farmers received $1.17 billion – or 72 percent of the handout total…
Obviously, the government likes to portray farm subsidies as helping alleviate farmer poverty, but the reality is that they are helping fund takeovers of family farms by large agribusiness concerns.
“Lawmakers would be hard-pressed to enact a set of policies that are more destructive to farmers, taxpayers, and consumers than the current farm policies,” wrote Heritage Foundation budget expert Brian Riedl in a 2007 report. “Farm subsidies are intended to help struggling family farmers. Instead, they harm them by excluding them from most subsidies, financing the consolidation of family farms, and raising land values to levels that prevent young people from entering farming.”” http://www.fitsnews.com/2010/07/24/sc-farm-subsidies-whos-cashing-in/
Seems every where you turn black is white and white is black and the perpetual motion machine moves wealth from the poor to the rich, while the propaganda says the oposite.
Crop Doc,
If you are correct then the solution is simple…..remove subsidies and allow ethanol to compete on its own merit. If it can, then more power to it. Absent the CO2 “mania” there is no societal gain from its use, except those that can be realized by the free market, and subsidies are not justified.
Cropdoc,
Nothing in the articles is wrong. The Washington Post Article is from 2008. I realize you are here to protect your government pork at the taxpayers expense but none of your emotional positions changes the reality about Ethanol not being economically viable. The only lies and distortions are those coming out of the Ethanol lobby to keep the American people duped about handing over their tax money to them.
Here is a recent article for you,
The Ethanol Tax Credit — It’s Worse Than You Think (Cato Institute)
You can keep your corn based religion, I will use what is the most economically viable fuel thank you.
Me too that is why I use E85 that costs me 10 cents per mile instead of gasoline that costs me 13 cents per mile to drive. Not to mention I get much better performance, lower emissions and less engine deposits.
You can believe the propaganda promoting gasoline all you want but ethanol blended with gasoline is a far better fuel in every respect.
Well with one exception — E85 is not nearly as good at over heating an engine as gasoline. In fact I needed to put a higher temperature thermostat in my car to get it to properly warm up in the winter time. Stock thermostat for my car on gasoline was a 172 deg F thermostat. On E85 it did not reach normal operating temperatures until I put a 190 deg F thermostat in.
Larry
LMAO, then it would not need government mandates and subsidies (welfare) to keep it afloat. The American consumer are not the fools you take them for.
You repeated various myths including “better” performance. I don’t consider lower MPG “better” performance,
E85-ready cars: Gasoline vs. ethanol operating-cost comparison (Consumer Reports)
Lets look at the Real price of Ethanol, the BTU and subsidy adjusted price,
E85 BTU Adjusted Price (AAA)
$2.870 Regular Gasoline
$3.318 E85 MPG/BTU adjusted price
+0.450 – Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (Subsidy)
$3.768 – Actual Price of Ethanol Per Gallon
I’ll take AAA and Consumer Reports over the Ethanol Lobby that is scamming the American taxpayer out of their money.
Larry,
Surprised as I am that the ethanol “industry” (I’ll remove the quotes when they stop taking tax dollars) would find no problems with ethanol mileage, I’ll trust my own observations. It isn’t as though it’s hard to tell the difference between 215-220 miles before gas light comes on and 185 to 190 miles before light comes on. I don’t exactly need significant figures to see the difference in 25 to 30 miles per fill-up.
I’m not the only one who has noticed it, either:
http://5xracing.com/p-1057-mazdarx8projectmpg.html
E10 ethanol gas KILLS your fuel economy in an RX-8! There is no worse mpg killer than E10 with the full 10% of ethanol added, stay away from it if at all possible. You can smell when the fuel has a high concentration of ethanol, it doesn’t smell like gas. If you can find a station that offers ethanol free fuel, use it and you will see more consistent mpg ratings. After all the stations went to the “10% or less ethanol added” fuel, our gas mileage was all over the place. Sometimes it would be the same (21 mpg average) and sometimes it would be really bad (19 mpg average). We believe that we lost about 30 miles or so to a tank when using E10 fuel, even our 2001 Mustang GT lost about 30 miles to a tank when ethanol was used, so it is universal that this stuff kills fuel mileage.
Ethanol is crap, and the fact that we have to waste out money, and risk our fuel systems (especially boaters and small engine owners) to enrich a handful of deadbeat ag conglomerates is nothing short of scandalous.
I’ve had enough eco-tyranny and crony capitalism.
Ray B says:
November 23, 2010 at 12:34 am
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.
**************************
Hahahahaha! An ethanol-water azeotrope freezes at sub-zero temperatures how? Where do you drive your car, on Mars at night during the winter?
Poptech, I agree get the GD government out of our faces. And no I have never taken a dime from the government. Most of those dollars have some pretty nasty strings attached. but you have to look real hard to find them.
Please remember there are 1.5 million people out their raising food that you eat and making less than minimum wage if you look at profit vs hours worked. “Just ten percent of America’s largest and richest farms collect almost three-fourths of federal farm subsidies…” http://www.ewg.org/farmsubsidies
Who Are the VEETC’s Real Winners?
Since the ethanol industry got off the ground, its lobbies have defended the tax credit and the RFS mandate by stressing the positive local economic benefits of ethanol production and plant ownership.12 It’s worth taking a hard look at those claims, too…..
Notice who didn’t get mentioned? Not a word about local farmers, rural communities or consumers? The Association leaves no doubt what its priorities are.
The Association’s Urbanchuk also likes to talk about local farmer ownership of ethanol plants. In 2007, he said “farmer-owned ethanol plants account for half of U.S. fuel ethanol plants and almost 40 percent of industry capacity.” At best, that’s an embellishment. Only 43 percent of U.S. ethanol plants were farmer-owned that year, and today the percentage is just 19 percent. And the share total ethanol production capacity that comes from farmer-owned plants is down to 16 percent….”
http://www.ewg.org/report/Will-the-Real-Ethanol-Beneficiaries-Please-Stand-Up
I strongly suggest you read History, HACCP and the Food Safety Con Job, it is a well researched piece.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/History-HACCP-and-the-Foo-by-Nicole-Johnson-090906-229.html
Also the Pew Report: http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Industrial_Agriculture/PCIFAP_FINAL.pdf
And finally 2007 Farm Policy by Food and Water Watch
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/agricultural-policy/us-farmbill/Farm%20Bill%20April%202007.pdf
You might also want to read one of my articles: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Russian-response-to-the-ne-by-gail-combs-090321-728.html
Climategate and carbon taxes, yet another violation of our rights. Add it to the list of gov’t violations of our right:
They violate the 1st Amendment by placing protesters in cages, banning books like “America Deceived II” and censoring the internet.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns.
They violate the 4th and 5th Amendment by molesting airline passengers.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting undeclared wars for foreign countries.
Impeach Obama and sweep out the Congress, except Ron Paul.
(Last link of Banned Book):
America Deceived II (book)</a
Energy storage. That is the holy grail. Find something with the same amount of energy as a barrel of oil with relatively the same dimensions, that can be stored for the same amount of time, and then you have my full attention. It’s hard to beat nature isn’t it?
The Gore-tanic
is anchored ashore.
Never again to sail the green and bountiful seas. (UN-fettered?)
She’s afraid Climategate has more
In store.
Friends:
Anybody who studied the subject could have predicted that introduction of biofuels would be a serious mistake. And I did predict it. So, nobody can claim their promotion of adoptionof biofuels was other than a serious error.
In August 2006 I wrote a paper that made several predictions concerning probable effects that would result if biofuels were introduced in the US and EU as was then being suggested. It can be read at
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/courtney_082006.pdf
Later, in December 2008 I provided an assessment of those predictions following the introduction of biofuels, and that assessment can be read at
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/biofuel_issues.pdf
The synopsis of the assessment says:
“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.”
Al Gore now admits,
“It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for (U.S.) first generation ethanol”
and
“It’s hard once such a programme is put in place to deal with the lobbies that keep it going.”
I have nothing printable to say in response to these admissions from Mr Gore.
Richard
Larry
I drive consistently over the same route. I know my vehicle. I know exactly what to expect from a tank of fuel. My car has a small tank, so keeping track of it isn’t very hard. Furthermore it isn’t something I just tried one time to see what might happen. I watched it for some time, and noted the patterns.
See when my gas light comes on, I go to the gas (now, with ethanol filler) station, and buy more, and the little pump tells me how much of it I bought. My light is quite consistent based on my fuel purchases, but I do check it against those purchases, and I can usually guess how much it will hold to within a 5th of a gallon or so.
In all honesty, I didn’t really have an opinion on ethanol until I realized what an impact it had on my mileage. Now I hate it with a passion.
The point of the mileage difference is moot now anyway as consumers have no choice, at least until the Feds start to force 15 or 20 percent on us (when I’ll be desperate for E10, I suppose).
Poptech,
I am not a farmer, only involved with agriculture and do not receive subsidies of any kind. As far as corn ethanol having any impact on world hunger, where is the proof of that assertion?? When you start to complain about the millions of acres in the CRP (conservation reserve program), or the millions of acres that grow cotton and also contribute nothing to the food chain then you may have some credibility.
You ethanol bashers do realize that nearly half of the USDA budget goes for food stamps?? Most farmers would prefer that there be no farm subsidies, as those payments come with strings attached and hoops to junp through dictated by the government agencies that run those programs.
Ethanol will survive as a competitive fuel if given a fair chance in the market place as it has been operating profitably even with $5.00/bushel corn. The rack price of ethanol is @ur momisugly2.25/gallon and 2.9 gallon is produced/bushel. That makes the income from ethanol $6.50/bushel. The value of the 18 pounds of DDGs’ is @ur momisugly$1.00/bushel which goes to livestock feed making the total revenue $7.50/bushel. Currently the net margin after expenses is $.20-.30/gallon depending on the efficiencies of any particular plant which equals $.57-.87/bushel or a return on investment of 10-20%. As you recall the blenders credit goes primarily to oil companies who blend the final product.
For Richard S. Courtney
How pray tell does ethanol dictate the price of fuel?? I had no idea that a product that comprises less than 10% of the supply could be the regulating factor in the price of energy. Is that why natural gas is 1/3 the price today that it was in 2008, while the price of oil has gone from $50/b yarrel to over $80/barrel??? Most ethanol plants use natural gas as their fuel source.
By the way, the Ford model T was designed to burn ethanol as its’ primary fuel.
When the oil industry that is over 100 years old, then you can stop the blenders credit that goes to them anyway, not the ethanol plants or the individuals that own them.
Another myth being spewed here is all the bunk about corporate industries in the business of farming. The vast majority of crop production, over 95% of product then is run by family farms. If you want to talk about livestock, the vast majority of chickens are raised and marketed by the Tyson’s of the world and they really want cheap corn subsidised by the government to feed along with the corporate cattle feeders and hog corporations, eggs also.
hotrod (Larry L),
The EPA tested just about every FFV being sold in 2011 and they all have reduced MPG and driving range when using crappy E85,
2011 Fuel Economy Guide
(PDF) (EPA)
“At current prices of $3.09 for premium fuel (which my car requires) “
No one who is seriously discussing fuel economy talks about premium fuel which is only required on a very small percentage of automobiles (mainly sports cars).
The price of E85 is artificially low thanks to the .45 cent a gallon subsidy disregarding the BTU adjustment (which is legitimate) and other subsidies that effect the price of Ethanol.
Cropdoc,
There is plenty of proof,
Biofuel use ‘increasing poverty’ (BBC, June 25, 2008)
Secret report: biofuel caused food crisis (The Guardian, UK, July 3, 2008)
“Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% – far more than previously estimated – according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian.”
But who care about the poor right? Let them eat Ethanol!
Corn prices touch 2-year high – Climb adds to concerns of another food crisis (CBC, December 12, 2010)
“The USDA estimated that, in 2010-11, the ethanol industry will consume 4.7 billion bushels, more than a third of the crop. Barclays Capital analysts said in a report issued Monday that U.S. corn production is on track for the third-highest level on record. At the same time, high consumption levels and demand for corn exports are taking U.S. corn supplies to their lowest levels in 14 years. “The global corn market … suddenly finds itself on thin ice,” the report concluded. Traders worry prices could return to $6 a bushel, a level not seen since the food crisis of 2007 and 2008, which triggered riots in poor countries.”
Good for those on the dole, bad for the starving masses.
I don’t support the CRP in any way as I want all government regulation and subsidies over the U.S. agriculture industry abolished. Your cotton argument is a strawman as it has nothing to do with burning food.
There is no such thing as a “fair” chance. There is simply a chance of which it cannot survive because it is not economically viable with oil without the government mandates and subsidies. All your pricing is government distorted and do not represent true market pricing.
Lets risk our firefighter’s lives too just to keep the Ethanol Lobby well fed with American tax dollars,
Ethanol Fuels Fire Concerns (Fox News)
“The nation’s drive to use more alternative fuel carries a danger many communities have been slow to recognize: Ethanol fires are harder to put out than gasoline ones and require a special type of firefighting foam.
Many fire departments around the country don’t have the foam, don’t have enough of it, or are not well-trained in how to apply it, firefighting experts say. It is also more expensive than conventional foam.
The problem is that water doesn’t put out ethanol fires, and the foam that has been used since the 1960s to smother ordinary gasoline blazes doesn’t work well against the grain-alcohol fuel.
Wrecks involving ordinary cars and trucks are not the major concern. They carry modest amounts of fuel, and it is typically a low-concentration, 10 percent blend of ethanol and gasoline. A large amount of conventional foam can usually extinguish such fires.
Instead, the real danger involves the many tanker trucks and railcars that are rolling out of the Corn Belt with huge quantities of 85 or 95 percent ethanol and carrying it to parts of the country unaccustomed to dealing with it.
The risk is more than theoretical. Over the past several years, ethanol accidents on highways, along railroads and in storehouses and refineries have triggered evacuations and fires from Texas to Minnesota, injuring several people and killing at least one person.
Water is not used against gasoline fires, because it can spread the blaze and cause the flames to run down into drains and sewers. Instead, foam is used to form a blanket on top of the burning gasoline and snuff out of the flames. But ethanol _ a type of grain alcohol often distilled from corn _ eats through that foam and continues to burn.
Such fires require a special alcohol-resistant foam that relies on long-chain molecules known as polymers to smother the flames. Industry officials say the special foam costs about 30 percent more than the standard product, at around $90 to $115 for a five-gallon container.”