Letter to the Editor
Watts Up With That?
23rd July 2012
Nothing illustrates the anti-human ethos of the Greens better than their support for “biofuels”.
That trendy name cannot hide the fact that encouraging and mandating the burning of food for motor fuel creates nothing but negatives for the environment and for human welfare, but will have no effect on climate.
The biofuel scheme relies on taxpayer subsidies and legislated market-sharing. It wastes land, fuel, fertiliser, water and financial resources to produce ethanol from sterile monocultures of corn, soya beans, palm oil and sugar cane. Most of the land used was cultivation that once produced food. Some is stolen from peasant landowners or obtained by ploughing natural grasslands or clearing virgin forests. The distilling process produces good alcohol but an inferior motor spirit that can damage some engines and has only 70% of the energy of petrol and diesel.
The biofuel schemes have already inflated world food prices. Shortages and famines will increase. This food-burning policy is taking us back to the hungry years before tractors, harvesters, trucks and diesel fuel when teams of draft horses, working bullocks, stock horses and farm labourers consumed 80% of farm output. Some may like to return to those bucolic days, but then most city populations would not find food on their supermarket shelves. In trendy green jargon, big cities would be “unsustainable”.
Here is a new slogan which is kind to humans AND the environment:
“Don’t Burn Food for Fuel”.
Viv Forbes,
Rosewood Qld Australia
I am happy for my email address to be published.
I blame this genocidice-promoting idiot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich
for the Green’s love of biofuels.
Ban ethanol production, ban wind farm subsidies, let Mother Nature take its course and relax. Cheaper food, fuel and avoid polluting the planet any more than a volcanic eruption or forest fire does. Eliminate subsidies on electric vehicles and let the motor industry produce ever more efficient engines that avoid rare earth metals and stop this madness that is Global Disruption/Warming/Climate Change as we ignored Witches, Fools Gold, Tulip Trading and the South Sea Bubble and Papal Indulgences. For Hansen, Gore, Mann, Trenberth, Jones, the BBC and all Media there doesn’t seem to be any difference.
Would hemp be a profitable crop? That’s the simplest way of asking the associated questions, would hemp products be consumed, would U.S. farmers grow hemp, would hemp replace other biofuels crops, would hemp be used in biofuels, would hemp…well, you get the idea.
Most of these discussions are raw speculation, including the discussions about ethanol and corn usage, as long as subsidies and mandates are present, for subsidies and mandates obscure the simple question, would production be profitable, absent those subsidies and mandates?
So, drop the subsidies and mandates, including the mandate against hemp production, and let producers produce. The profit motive will determine their actions and we won’t have to spend endless hours speculating on whether ethanol production makes sense, or on whether hemp products would replace existing products.
Our time would be better spent discussing how to protect the constitutional form of government bestowed upon us by our Founders. Getting the government out of farming would be a start. Bring on the next Earl Butz. (For those of you too young to remember, after getting the government to sell off it’s agricultural surplus, he then sold the government storage bins for good measure.)
I want to know what the health effects are of rising ethanol levels in city air. And will the policy masters allow me to find out?
_Jim says:
July 22, 2012 at 5:13 pm
“an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process.” – http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html?pagewanted=all
It gets worst. If you want the real price of gasoline read this – http://www.progress.org/gasoline.htm
If the current high price of corn is due to the ethanol mandate, please explain why the current corn price on an inflation adjusted basis is almost identical to its price in 1983 long before any ethanol mandates existed.
Please note that in 1983 many of the same other market forces did exist, like crappy economy, crop failures in other countries and high oil prices.
The only “aggravating factor” that did not exist in both 1983 and today is an ethanol mandate and a significant fuel ethanol industry.
Using the same logic you folks apply to the climate debate, “correlation does not indicate causation”, your looking under the wrong rock.
Larry
dalyplanet says:
July 22, 2012 at 9:50 pm
philincalifornia,
The document you link overestimate by an order of magnitude the barrels of petroleum that an acre of corn can produce over a 21 year contract….
________________________
Nicely put. The other point that is overlooked is the manufacture of fertilizer, herbicides, insecticides and the mining, smelting and fabrication of all the farming and transport equipment, storage silos and processing facilities.
Biofuel is a money boondoggle just like Windmills and solar farms.
@rgbatduke
“You are perfectly within your rights to argue for or against the public policy decision that encourages farmers to grow crops that can be turned into fuel, but if you are going to claim that people are starving because of it, you’ll have to show me the people, and if you claim that world food prices are increasing, you’ll also have to show that the would be being propped up at this “increased” level without the benefit of fuel production otherwise.”
The ramping in food prices started when US regulators allowed open speculation in the food futures market. That was in 2008, right? and look at the result: price instability in the food supply chain.
The same thing has been taking place in oil – remember the first time it went to $150? Nothing to do with supply or demand, just speculators. The reason food speculation was banned in the past was for the very reason people are getting excited now: price fluctuations that profit speculators, not farmers or consumers. Now, anything goes. You get what you allow.
When food is expensive and the farmer is not getting that money, there is something systemically wrong. The same observation applies to fuel. Food is energy, and at present, people eat oil, indirectly. The oil-energy : food-energy analyses are not as bad as the oil-energy : ethanol-energy analyses.
Who will profit monetarily from the current drought? Well it will not be the farmers, that’s for sure, nor the consumers.
PS Remember there is a super drought predicted for 2018.
Khwarizmi says:
July 22, 2012 at 10:37 pm
Gail Coombs
Pot is not hemp. They are two different plants.
…The plant’s distant relation to Cannabis
Pot is hemp. Cannabis is hemp. There are not different.
_____________________________________
Same family but different “Varieties” if you will.
Ray says:
July 22, 2012 at 3:34 pm
Viv Forbes says:
July 22, 2012 at 2:25 pm
“I don’t care who makes ethanol from what, as long as it does not rely on legislated markets, subsidies, price controls, tax breaks or deceptive or coercive marketing. Get government out of the equation and then we will see what works.
Viv Forbes
—————————–
This is exactly what they also do for the petroleum industry. If they also did what you wish for around the petroleum market you would see the prices at pumps sky-rocket.”
This subsidization of the petroleum industry is a load of bull. Oil and gas and metal mining get a depletion allowance – tax reduction on wasting assets (shrinking reserves) to recognize that the resource has to be replaced by further expenditure (it already cost a helluva lot just to get reserves in the first place). Ordinary business can depreciate vehicles and equipment, office machines, and even buildings because they have to be replaced and are readily replaceable. .
Unlike getting a new car, though, the resource industry can’t simply go an buy one with 100% certainty. They will drill a lot of holes that have no oil or minerals, or build giant platforms that might do the same. Taxation has to consider the risk. The obscene give-aways to the solar and other “renewable” industry (which depend on abundant fuels and metals by the way for their manufacture and installation) which essentially underwrites over a hundred percent of the risk is in a league all its own, Don’t parrot the propaganda, educate yourself on it.
Joe Guerk says:
July 23, 2012 at 4:46 am
Yes, but unless the US government is insane, it will not allow so much wheat/corn/soybeans to be exported that prices will become high enough in the US that Americans will suffer financially in order to buy food.
___________________________
The US Government is INSANE or rather the government is OWNED by those who do not give a rat’s behind if we all starve.
All you have to do is look at the US balance of trade since NAFTA (1993) WTO (1995) and the entry of China in the WTO (2001) and see the export of US jobs to understand our politicians are more interested in “Global Governance” and the welfare of “International Corporations” than in the USA.
US Balance of Trade 1992 to 2012 notice the chart starts at $0 at the top and goes into the red (neg balance)
Chart of Real Unemployment Rate
change in federal withholding payroll taxes
This is worth a look and shows the USA has become a “service” economy – (store clerks, truck drivers and burger flippers) link The top chart shows the ONLY employment sector to gain is Education and Health all other sectors esp. manufacturing and construction have lost jobs
So a lot of those work statistics and payroll tax information is related to H-1b work visas foreigners and not working US citizens. Ask any computer type how many in the office are from India or China, that is if you can still find an American working in the building.
Chasing after shareholder return and “performance bonuses,” US corporations deserted their American workforce. The consequences can be seen everywhere.
Remember to thank Clinton for pushing through NAFTA, WTO and China’s entry into the World Trade Organization.
Bio fuels are insanity to the nth degree. Plowing, fertilizing, planting, weed spraying, bug spraying, harvesting, & hauling the biomass all require either deisel or gasoline fuel. Then the fuels used for processing into alcohol and shipping to the refinery for blending. End result, MORE carbon in the atmosphere not less, poorer gas mileage & higher food prices. Alcohol when burned=water vapor, a more effective GHG than CO2, not that any of it will change the climate compared to ongoing natural processes. Purely a greenie boondogle to obtain popular handouts for the agricultural vote and potentially make some ignorant people feel “green”. Here in WY, a very conservative state, I cannot find any gasoline that does not have ethanol in it! Is this law or the commercial interests bowing to the green god?
Ray says: July 23, 2012 at 7:49 am
Ray, letting a corporation or individual keep their own money through a “tax break” instead of confiscating that money through a tax is not a subsidy. A subsidy requires the government to give money to the entity subsidized. A tax credit is only a subsidy if the credit exceeds the tax owed and the government actually pays the difference to the taxpayer. If the credit can only be applied to taxes owed, it is not a subsidy.
In Alabama, at least, you can buy 100% gas or the up to 10% mix, which is more variable in ethanol percentage as estimated by the strength of the fruity odor noted when purchasing ethanol blends. The 100% gas is a bit higher in price and the E85 is a bit lower in price at the pump.
Oh I forgot to mention one thing, Alabama is a Coal producer, a Natural Gas producer, an Oil producer, a Wheat producer, a Cotton producer, a Soybean producer, a Peanut producer, a Corn producer, a Pine Tree producer, …. you get the picture 🙂 and yes in my lifetime the local temperatures have generally gone down a bit.
Gale Combs says:
July 23, 2012 at 8:26 am
dalyplanet says:
July 22, 2012 at 9:50 pm
philincalifornia,
The document you link overestimate by an order of magnitude the barrels of petroleum that an acre of corn can produce over a 21 year contract….
________________________
Nicely put. The other point that is overlooked is the manufacture of fertilizer, herbicides, insecticides and the mining, smelting and fabrication of all the farming and transport equipment, storage silos and processing facilities.
Biofuel is a money boondoggle just like Windmills and solar farms.
==================
Probably getting a bit off the main topic Daly, but I agree that the numbers used are on the extremely optimistic side. Even so, knocking down by a ratio like yours, still gives US sugar/fuel reserves around the size of the oil reserves of Iran (later slide). This is a tangible US asset (unless the climate changes dramatically through some kind of climate disruption, ha ha).
Gale, all of your parameters are included in the capital and operating expenses leading to a price/gallon of around $2.70, so I’m not sure what your point is ? …. unless you’re arguing carbon dioxide here, which I’m not.
Also:
Streetcred says: something that reduces his street cred a bit. I was joking dude !!!!!
July 22, 2012 at 11:38 pm
cui bono says:
July 22, 2012 at 2:58 pm
“Time to subsidise pond scum?”
We already do. They are called politicians.
Larry Ledwick (hotrod) says:
July 23, 2012 at 7:52 am
“If the current high price of corn is due to the ethanol mandate, please explain why the current corn price on an inflation adjusted basis is almost identical to its price in 1983 long before any ethanol mandates existed.
Please note that in 1983 many of the same other market forces did exist, like crappy economy, crop failures in other countries and high oil prices.
The only “aggravating factor” that did not exist in both 1983 and today is an ethanol mandate and a significant fuel ethanol industry.
Using the same logic you folks apply to the climate debate, “correlation does not indicate causation”, your looking under the wrong rock.
Larry”
None of that matters. If there was no mandate demand would be less and corn prices would be less. Supply and demand. The regulating factor is good farm land. If less corn were planted more soybeans or wheat would be planted. So, even if as demand went down and so did supply, other crops would be planted. Burning crops for fuel hits prices across a variety of crops and, as noted by most here on this site, produces no benefit other than to the politicians who receive donations from the beneficiaries of the legislation .
A. Scott says:
“Total turf acres are larger than corn acres used for ethanol – which it appears was the intended point albeit not what he said.”
Ah. I’m supposed to be a mind reader. Got it.
Some interesting facts on corn, sorghum, oats, barley, and wheat from the USDA comparing years 2005/2006 to 2011/2012. References are to acres planted.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/feed-grains-database/feed-grains-yearbook-tables.aspx#26766
Reference year 2011/2012 for the following:
Corn: acreage planted increased from 81.78 to 91.92 million acre, an increase of 10.14 million acres (12.4%) while the price increased 210% above the price of year 2005/2006. That actually reads that the price is more than triple the 2005/2006 price.
Sorghum: acreage planted decreased from 6.45 to 5.48 million acre, a decrease of .97 million acres (15%) while the price increased 228% above the price of year 2005/2006. That actually reads that the price is more than triple the 2005/2006 price.
Oats: acreage planted decreased from 4.25 to 2.5 million acre, a decrease of 1.75 million acres (41%) while the price increased 114% above the price of year 2005/2006. That actually reads that the price is more than double the 2005/2006 price.
Barley: acreage planted decreased from 3.88 to 2.5 million acre, a decrease of 1.38 million acres (36%) while the price increased 38% above the price of year 2005/2006.
Wheat: acreage planted decreased from 57.21 to 54.41 million acres, a decrease of 2.8 million acres (5%) while the price increased 112% above the price of year 2005/2006. That actually reads that the price is over double the 2005/2006 price.
Something has caused a lot of cropland to be diverted to growing corn. Something has caused a sizable increase in the price of grains. What happened between year 2005/2006 and year 2011/2012 to cause such a change? This is unbelievable change. This is not the kind of change I can believe in.
Not worth the effort Larry … these folks are all experts – they know what they know and aren’t interested in any type real facts or data – no matter how many times they’ve been peer reviewed. .
If the current corn price is due to ethanol perhaps eyesonu and some of the others can explain why the price of corn skyrockected from Jun 2010 thru Jun 2011? Ethanol production didn’t change – if anything it went down slightly.
And eyesonu and others claimed corn prices increased from 2006 to 2008 because of ethanol production ramping up – while ignoring that wheat, soybeans, barely and most other commodities increased faster and higher during the same time.
In the last go around on this eyesonu tried to make claims about planted acres – that corn acreage took over other commodities acreage – which was proven equally incorrect.
But hey a “model” showed that corn prices increased 30% because of ethanol … despite that a simple review of the real world numbers at places like indexmundi shows ALL commodities rose vitually in unison at that time. Its funny too, as these same people all berate the use of similarly flawed models when it comes to AGW yet blindly accept them when it supports their beliefs and agendas.
The best part is when pressed to prove or support their claims they never do – you get an adhominem attack in response – but rarely if ever support for their claims. And when they do provide links – take _Jim for example – the stories they link to are nothing but promo puffery from interest groups – often not a shred of real data or science to support their positions.
Cool – eyesonu at least makes an effort again … you get a gold star … conclusions make little sense, when I have a little time later I will reply
That all sounds good in theory but that is not how the world really works.
For decades corn farmers were selling corn at or near the cost of production.
Big corporations like Tyson foods got subsidized indirectly with corn livestock feed that was far cheaper than the true value of the crop. Now they are whining because they have to pay the true cost of production and the farmers are actually making a living on their crop instead of squeaking by on price supports and crop insurance etc. and losing money or breaking even on the crop, often working a second job to pay the bills in addition to their farm income.
It is in the strategic interest of the country to have strong vibrant farm economy and to be able to be self sufficient in food and industrial crop production.
The equation of farm production and food production is orders of magnitude more complex than your simplistic model.
Food for export is an important part of foreign policy also, not to mention defense and security so the government has a vested interest in “managing” farm production for that and other reasons such as farm land set aside programs to try to prevent the sort of land abuse that resulted in the dust bowl.
A totally free market farm economy inevitably results in a boom bust commodity market.
Much of what you folks are blaming ethanol for has occurred multiple times when ethanol was not even on the table. It is obviously not the “cause”.
And if the Federal government did not have regulations against untaxed alcohol, we would be awash in alcohol and it would be the highest profit margin product of many farms (read a bit of history about the whiskey rebellion). The market is already manipulated and controlled on multiple layers long before fuel ethanol boom of recent years.
In fact fuel alcohol was the dominant fuel for autos until they were driven out of business due to Federal regulations over small home alcohol production (prohibition) and market manipulation by major businesses who wanted a market to sell their “waste product” gasoline, drove them out of the market.
Folks whine about alcohol subsidies yet the blenders tax credit and the tariff on foreign ethanol was eliminated the first of the year. Everyone here predicted the ethanol market would crash and it would disappear. Didn’t happen.
In spite of that, well run outlets are selling E85 fuel at $2.75/gallon vs local gasoline prices of $3.54 for regular gasoline. Locally it sells for $3.09 per gallon compared to $3.59 for regualr.
If ethanol is such a losing proposition financially and energy wise without subsidies, how can they accomplish that with no direct artificial cost incentive at the pump?
The farmers are making a fair return on corn production (for the first time in about 30 years) well run fuel ethanol production operations can compete heads up against gasoline in mature markets which do not have punitive local regulations such as minimum mark up laws that make it illegal to sell fuel ethanol at its fair market value.
We have already discussed this issue in depth on at least 3 threads over the last year or so, the facts have not changed and fuel ethanol is still moving forward. In spite of all the bogus information, there is a strong market for E85 in areas that understand it and it has a mature distribution network so it has some economy of scale.
It is a highly desirable fuel in E85 for some car owners, and is highly valuable as an octane enhancer allowing more oil to be turned into gasoline. It also effectively converts other forms of energy that are less useful as transportation fuels in to a useful fuel commodity (ie most of the energy for production comes from natural gas and coal, effectively converting them to a motor fue).
It is not going away any time soon.
Larry
A. Scott says:
July 23, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Cool – eyesonu at least makes an effort again … you get a gold star … conclusions make little sense, when I have a little time later I will reply
=====================
Keep your star.
Can you say price of oil and total supply?
“I can make more money selling corn than wheat which should I plant?”
That has to be the biggest Duh question of the year, any farmer that was not brain dead would plant the crop that will make him the best return on his investment, just like a book publisher publishes the books that people want to by or car makers build the cars people want to drive.
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/images/charts/Oil/Inflation_Adj_Oil_Prices_Chart.htm
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_articles/Corn_Inflation.asp
Most of the cost of food products at the store and cost of grains at the dock is energy costs to grow and transport them — Hmmm same sort of thing happened when we had peak corn prices in the early 1980’s sudden increase in energy cost and a screwed up economy. The peak in 1995/96 was due to low projected end of year stocks and evaporated with good crops the following year. Production shortages are not caused by predictable increases in demand (that drives increasing production) but by sudden crop losses due to weather or other factors.
Corn production by year
1993 160986 (1000 MT) -33.12 %
1994 255295 (1000 MT) 58.58 %
1995 187970 (1000 MT) -26.37 %
1996 234518 (1000 MT) 24.76 %
http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country=us&commodity=corn&graph=production
Now if we still had strategic food reserves to level out the humps????
Larry