The Treasury Department worked on the guidance alongside other agencies, including the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Energy (DOE).
“Sustainable aviation fuel is a critical tool for tackling the climate crisis,” Senior Adviser to the President for Clean Energy Innovation and Implementation John Podesta said of the guidelines. “Today’s guidance from Treasury provides certainty that multiple pathways are available to producers as they compete to decarbonize the aviation sector.”
The White House, the Treasury Department, the DOT and the DOE did not respond immediately to requests for comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
NICK POPE
CONTRIBUTOR
The Biden administration unveiled eligibility guidelines Friday for “sustainable aviation fuel” (SAF) subsidies, which stand as a victory for the powerful corn lobby.
The Treasury Department released the guidelines, which would allow biofuels that reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50% as determined by the federal “GREET” model to qualify for Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) tax credits. The ethanol and corn lobbies pushed hard for the guidelines to accept “GREET” as a model for determining eligibility, as it makes it easier for corn-based ethanol to be considered sufficiently “eco-friendly” as opposed to other frameworks, according to The Hill.
Notably, the federal government is planning to update the “GREET” model sometime by March 2024, according to the Treasury Department.
The Biden administration is aiming for SAFs to meet 100% of the country’s annual aviation fuel demand — a projected 35 billion gallons — by 2050, an effort intended to protect the environment and counter climate change. Corn-based ethanol SAF is primed to play a major role in meeting that target, but its status as a surefire way to help the environment is more complicated than the administration and other SAF proponents may suggest. (RELATED: EPA Released A Long-Delayed Report Showing Ethanol Hurts The Environment)
Big Corn is winning again https://t.co/pBhxhn7ZnK
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) April 30, 2023
With corn-based ethanol more likely to qualify for subsidies, American farmers are likely to significantly increase the amount of corn they grow to meet the higher demand for SAFs, experts previously told the Daily Caller News Foundation. That dynamic could have several impacts, including adding strain on groundwater aquifers in the heartland and increasing food costs for American consumers, according to Farm Aid.
Increased reliance on corn-based ethanol aviation fuel “is not going to do much for global warming, but it will do quite a lot to benefit the renewable fuel industry and it will also indirectly benefit corn prices,” Prof. C. Ford Runge, Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Applied Economics and Law at the University of Minnesota, previously told the DCNF.
The costs of corn-based ethanol aviation fuel will be “borne by consumers, taxpayers and the environment,” and “there’s no clear evidence that biofuels, especially corn ethanol, have an edge in reducing emissions,” Runge told the DCNF.
The Treasury Department worked on the guidance alongside other agencies, including the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Energy (DOE).
“Sustainable aviation fuel is a critical tool for tackling the climate crisis,” Senior Adviser to the President for Clean Energy Innovation and Implementation John Podesta said of the guidelines. “Today’s guidance from Treasury provides certainty that multiple pathways are available to producers as they compete to decarbonize the aviation sector.”
The White House, the Treasury Department, the DOT and the DOE did not respond immediately to requests for comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
SAF. Sustainable Aviation Fuel is the latest virtue signalling past time for the Global
Warmists.
To get some perspective. SAF emits the same amount of CO2 as Kerosene, the current jet fuel.
Chemically SAF and Kerosene are almost chemically identical. Not surprising as they both do the same job. Get heavy aircraft of the ground and fly to distant destinations.
Not sure growing food to put into aircraft fuel tanks is in any way desirable or sustainable.
It’ll work wonders for the bottom line for Big Green Agriculture though. Those massive farms will turn into bigger subsidy farms than Wind Farms.
Hey, perhaps Big Wind will capitalize by growing Corn in their Open Acreage surrounding the turbine masts
Massive farms? 90% of US farms & acreage is worked by families…It’s the buyers of corn that are the “Big Boy Corporations.”…Each yr, the US has roughly 90M ac in corn and another 90M ac in beans. You can’t grow corn just anywhere; not a lot of room left for expansion …Roughly 1/3rd of the corn crop goes to animal feed, 1/3rd for industrial use and 1/3rd for fuel….For perspective, the US consummes 3B gal of gasoline/yr & 12B+ of aviation fuel….I figure that if God wanted Man to fly, He’d have given us tickets.
Have a look at who is actually collecting those subsidies. It ain’t people like my grandparents who owned a 160 farm in central Missouri.
Small farmers do benefit from the higher prices for corn.
It takes 30 million acres of corn crops to displace 10% of US gasoline consumption with ethanol from corn.
The US has about 325 million acres of cropland for ALL crops
Where is all that extra cropland going to come from?
Biden is trying to do as much damage as possible before he croaks
God help us through 2024
Depopulating the earth is one of the goals, innit? The planet has too many, people, see? Most of them are the wrong type of people, too.
POLITICALLY INSPIRED, MARGINALLY EFFECTIVE, CORN-TO-ETHANOL PROGRAM
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/politically-inspired-marginally-effective-corn-to-ethanol-program
In the 2016/2017-crop year, the US had 85.8 million acres planted with corn, of which 31.4 million acres were planted to produce ethanol. The corn production was 14.440 billion bushels, of which 5.30 billion bushels were for corn to ethanol. The 169 bushels of each acre yielded 478 gallons of ethanol. Ethanol blended with gasoline was 14.80 billion gallon, about 10% of the gasohol fuel for vehicles. See table 1.
https://www.agmrc.org/renewable-energy/renewable-energy-climate-change-report/renewable-energy-climate-change-report/july-2016-report/looking-ahead-corn-usage-mandates-and-ethanol-production/
Below is a summary of US corn production for ethanol for 2016/2017.
MORE…..
REPLACING GASOLINE AND DIESEL FUEL WITH BIOFUELS
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/replacing-gasoline-and-diesel-fuel-with-biofuels
The main purpose of replacing gasoline and diesel fuel with biofuels is to reduce CO2eq emissions. This analysis found:
– Replacing gasoline with 100% ethanol reduces CO2eq from 1504 MMt to 1431 MMt, or 4.9%
– Replacing diesel fuel with 100% biofuel reduces CO2eq from 587 MMt to 234 MMt, or 60.1%.
These values are less than are usually stated, because upstream CO2eq emissions were included.
In case of ethanol, E100, the combustion CO2eq emissions are 12.754 lb/gal and upstream are 15.041 lb/gal. The combustion emissions are not counted, but upstream emissions are counted. See Appendix 1.
In case of biodiesel, B100, the combustion CO2eq emissions are 20.829 lb/gal and upstream are 10.524 lb/gal. The combustion emissions are not counted, but upstream emissions are counted. See Appendix 1.
NOTE: Politics is the only reason the ethanol from corn program exists. If the 32.214 million acres planted with corn for E100 in 2017 were instead planted with soybeans, there would be a (32.214, E100 + 10.857, B100)/10.857, B100 = 3.96 times increase in biofuel from soybeans and a far greater reduction in CO2eq. Politicians knew that, but set up the heavily subsidized ethanol from corn program anyway, at great cost to the public treasury.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/politically-inspired-marginally-effective-corn-to-ethanol-program
US Biodiesel Production
The US production of biodiesel, B100, from all feedstock sources increased 19.2% during the 2013 -2017 period. See table 1
https://www.agmrc.org/renewable-energy/renewable-energy-climate-change-report/renewable-energy-climate-change-report/april-2018-report/update-on-us-biodiesel-production-and-feedstocks-usage-in-2017/
MORE….
Also, just to be clear, the author of today’s post seems to be totally ignorant of the fact that corn grown for fuel, is toxic to man and animal. So, contrary to the author’s stupid idea that this will lower the price of food corn, it will raise the price of porridge to the same level as that of diesel.
…and because the toxic genetics have already been shown to pollute other plants, even other species, how long before your porridge becomes even more poisonous than the GMO’d, Roundup-drenched, atrophine-soaked dreck they currently shove down the kids’ throats?
Do you have any scientific references to support these claims?
You seem civil, I’ll answer you this way:
I own a website, which I very rarely link to here, because my target audience is waaay different. For that site, I do a huge amount of research. I tried to include a screensave of part of one file in a metafile called “Tagged Research”. I have the research handy, so why don’t I link? I don’t have the time to go look for any specific file, extract some sort of name or logo to search the internet for, (most saved web pages make this almost impossible!) find the information (if it has not been censored), copy the link….
Half an hour’s work to answer a stupid little twit like MarkW who below again spouts ad hominems in lieu of decency and common sense.
Or any of the other recti ad hominem’ing me for daring to point out that the altered genome in fuel corn produces proteins toxic to animals. So maybe I did not say it that way, but a grown-up should pick that up after the first two google links s/he follows. Links I do not even supply on my own site, nobody is paying me to maintain links, and if there is one thing on the interweb that p15535 me off, it’s people who publish dead links.
See if you can spot one or two files that may contain some information on Roundup below…
P.S. My credentials? Here’s a prediction I made years ago. Please note I do not blame the man, I merely pointed out what was about to happen. I saw it coming, because I actually try understand the things I read, unlike my fans here…
https://greenpets.co.za/index.php/en/globalism/107-prophecy-protocols-trump-and-the-swamp-not-draining
The corn is toxic? That’s a new one on me.
But also completely irrelevant if true. You are implying only toxic corn can be grown on that land. The land can’t be used to grow cattle feed or corn fit for human consumption? It’s either grow “toxic” corn or let the land lay unused? And it takes on water, fertilizer, pesticides, or energy to grow this toxic corn?
Please go to your school and ask your money back, they obviously did not teach you reading comprehansion. The corn is poisonous because the proteins produced by the mytochondria are toxic and unsuitable as food. Do you even know what Bt stands for? Do you know anything other than snark?
Ufken ground poisonous…geez Louise, another colour for my new rainbow…of stupidity. Or was blaming the ground your last psychological defense against the cognitive dissonance of finding out your sugar daddies have been feeding you poison sweeties?
FIrst off, what nut job told you that corn grown for alcohol is toxic. That isn’t true.
Secondly, even if it was toxic, the land it is grown on could be used to grow something else.
Thirdly, your paranoia regarding GMOs and Round-up, while cute, really makes you look even dumber than you already do.
While I am reluctant to get tangled up in this — I do, after all live in North Dakota — it should be pointed out that glyphosate (active ingredient in Round-Up) is quite nasty stuff. There really is no argument about it.
The concern is whether it enters the food chain by being absorbed into the corn or soy; it likely doesn’t, unlike for wheat, where it most certainly does.
GMOs…the genetic changes are required to make it glyphosate-resistant, obviously. But this form of ag doesn’t play out in the farm the way it does in the lab or demonstration plot. There are many negative externalities involved, which make less ‘industrial’ forms of growing row crops (e.g., regenerative) much more attractive. Of course, for the farmer who just bit off the 2023 green-and-yellow combine (starting somewhere around $750,000 without the corn header), maximizing short term revenue is a requirement.
Also Kerosene is a bio fuel as it comes from organic matter.
Break out the popcorn!
THey’ll be turning that into fuel next.
Already been done.
http://www.forgreenheat.org/technology/cornstoves.html
Under the new regulations popcorn will be strictly rationed to 1 small bag per person per year, unless you can source it from Ukraine. Good game, good game!
Wait. Popcorn gives off an explosive force when it pops. Dibs on Popcorn Energy!
Is the area to grow corn for Sustainable Aviation Fuel for all aircraft small enough to fit on the planet?
It is for private jets.
But only just!
Yes, us peasants won’t be allowed to fly.
CNN had an editorial last week urging the government to set a limit on how much foreign travel individuals will be allowed to have.
The second time I have Podesta mentioned as an advisor to the president on energy maters on this blog recently.
What the hell is this political hack doing he is the last person that should be advising the president on this they must be scraping the bottle of the barrel.
Want to know more about him go do a search for john podesta’s flat art , The P word comes to mind
John Podesta has certainly been a fixture of the democrat swamp for years and, while he is a political creature with useful connections, he is not the sharpest tool in the box. Journalists found out his mobile (private phone which he used for deniable political work) had the account locked with ‘password’ for the password; he then claimed to be the victim of hackers, possibly devious Russian hackers.
Of little or no doubt.
I thought John Kerry was focused on reducing the climate change impact of farming. I don’t see how this helps in that effort, or reducing CO2 emissions for that matter.
It’s fine so long as no one mentions that corn typically uses a lot of fertilizer produced via natural gas and of course its cultivation is heavily reliant on diesel, etc.
Newspeak will simply define growing for fuel as something other than farming so it will be outside the regulations that aim to destroy food supplies.
Bio-fuels:
A giant, regressive leap backwards to the 19th century when a large percentage of agricultural production was devoted to bio-fuels, i.e. feed for work animals.
An acre/hectare of land devoted to bio-fuels is an acre/hectare of land not used to feed people.
Feed people, not airplanes!
But the elites, say top 2%, will fly in airplanes, everyone else will walk/ride bicycles in 15 minute cities
Sidewalks are the new cars.
American Farmers are Rollin’ in the Rows.
Big market boost for corn, farmland, John Deere and Nitrogen fertilizer.
All at the same time they are attacking agriculture and fertilizers, this will reduce the availability of feed to eat even more
Food
That’s the idea !!!
Well no-one said they were intelligent.
The article is not well researched. While it is true that corn is among the several SAF proposed feedstocks (algae, oilseeds, waste wood biomass, …), it is not true that ethanol is among the Biden administration proposals. The reason is simple. Kerosene has 35MJ/L, ethanol only 21. So jets would not have the same range.
it is true that three national labs are working on SAF production methods. But none have anything working yet.
The Virgin Atlantic transatlantic green jetfuel stunt was made from used cooking oil (oilseeds). But there isn’t near enough used cooking oil in the world to power a small fraction of the commercial jet fleet.
Animal fat renderings are also a viable feed for making hydroprocessed fuels.
I used to think that Michael Moore would be good for a couple of hundred miles, but he’s actually lost a lot of weight. Chris Christie could stand to donate a few pounds to air travel.
We need to eat a lot more fried food to save the planet then? Right got it.
“So jets would not have the same range.”
We know, by analogy and simple observation of the endless promotion and subsidization of EVs that functionality has no place in this discussion.
“We will inconvenience you, and provide transportation alternatives that are more costly and less suitable than what you have today,” might as well be the motto for edicts like this.
Rid: Exactly, and you cannot just switch from kerosene to ethanol without a total redesign/replacement of engines, fuel lines, tanks, pumps, etc. Just the engineering, prototyping, testing and certification would take decades and be hugely expensive. I’ll file this idea under “green fantasies” until I see a serious cost/benefit analysis. Of course there won’t be one as the alarmists are violently allergic to economic reality.
Sorry… Rud. Spell check strikes again.
It’s true that ethanol has a much lower heating value than kerosene. But “Sustainable” aviation fuel does not mean burning ethanol directly in jet engines (which would probably ruin the engines).
It involves processing ethanol to produce fuel that is chemically similar to kerosene that is ordinarily distilled from petroleum (as pointed out by Rasa above). These processes require energy input, so that the net energy yield from synthetic kerosene (after accounting for the energy required to process the ethanol) is less than the net energy yield from kerosene obtained from petroleum.
The only reason that kerosene produced from corn ethanol is considered “sustainable” is that it comes from a renewable resource (corn) instead of petroleum, which is considered a finite resource that could conceivably run out in the distant future (circa AD 2500). Since kerosene from ethanol is chemically similar to kerosene from petroleum, when it is burned, the CO2 emissions from either type of kerosene are nearly identical, so there would be no impact on “climate change” either way.
Since petroleum-based fuels are needed to operate farm machinery needed to plant and harvest corn, it is unlikely that processing corn into ethanol and ethanol into kerosene actually saves the burning of petroleum very much. It does reduce the net food supply available to people and livestock, who can eat corn but cannot drink kerosene.
Are they required to tell us ahead of time which aircraft are burning these biofuels? I would like to know so I can avoid them.
They’ll be the ones that smell like a deep fried turkey.
That means I have to be checked in and at the airport before I know. That’s not soon enough.
Seems to me that Hunter Thompson’s ghost has come back
and is directing the climate change narrative.
Divert corn from becoming a food product, and other grains will increase in price. Decrease the availability of corn oil, and the price of other cooking oils will inflate. Margarine will increase, as well as the alternatives of lard and butter. And so on, and so on …..
Yep, basic foods will become a luxury item.
Basic foods already are a luxury item. Have you not grocery shopped lately?
While I agree with you, it should be noted that margarine is not suitable for human consumption. Synthetic oil is for automobiles.
Bolding added above
______________________________________________________________
1. More rain is not a problem.
2. Warmer weather is not a problem.
3. More arable land is not a problem.
4. Longer growing seasons is not a problem.
5. CO2 greening of the earth is not a problem.
6. There isn’t any Climate Crisis
As a retired forester- I continue to walk a lot- I keep looking around to see “the emergency” and “the crisis”. So far, no luck- just can’t seem to find it. An emergency is when you’re in a plane and you see an engine on fire. Or, your car just broke down in very heavy traffic. Or, you’re having a heart attack. If the alarmists only used correct language- describe something for what it is- if they said, “there is a very small warming in some areas”- that would be one thing- but to keep screaming that there is an emergency and crisis is extremely crazy.
Thanks for reminding me:
In 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes introduced the specter of a man falsely shouting “fire” in a theater into First Amendment law. Nearly one hundred years later, this remains the most enduring analogy in constitutional law. It has been relied on in hundreds of constitutional cases, and it has permeated popular discourse on the scope of individual rights. Source
So is screaming emergency and crisis a good analogy to shouting “fire” in Justice Holmes’ proverbial theater?
No, it has passed from just an “emergency”.
It is now an “existential crisis”!!
Why, “..just look out your window” per Drs Mann and Hayhoe.
Well, as of now, 11 AM, in Wokeachusetts, it’s now a balmy 62F and raining. If it was colder, it’d cost me more for oil for my furnace and it might be snowing instead. At 74, I’m tired of shoveling snow. I prefer rain.
Snowblowers are nice. When they actually work.
When I lived in Chicagoland, whether my snowblower worked to clear the driveway depended on the snow. 12 inches of ‘dry’ regular snow, no problem. 2 inches of the heavy wet stuff meant digging out with snow shovels. There was always a temptation to just let that stuff melt. But then if you got a hard freeze the driveway was 2 inches of solid ice.
We had a very comfortable (yet affordable) home – a log cabin – 15+ years ago on one of the “lesser” Finger Lakes (read “rural”). It included 15 acres, half of which were woods. Unfortunately the 100 yd paved driveway was on a steep slope towards the lake. Even a large snow blower with tracks and a 3 sided hood did not prevent me from deciding the NW section of South Carolina was more attractive for retirement.
The illustration is brilliant. Nothing sums up John Kerry and the O’Biden administration better than a giant Corn masquerading as a transport system.
but what about my corn-fed ribeye? ….Wait a second!
Have meat animals rebranded as aircraft. Deer and smaller animals can be called Cessna’s, up to Cows, which will be called the Boeing Airbus!
Kangaroos for island hopping.
Santa’s way ahead of you, my friend.
Will they feed corn to the maggots that replace beef?
I think they have to feed the maggots beef, then serve you the maggots.
Brazil can produce 2 drops of sugar cane per year….sugar cane is a more efficient crop to produce alcohol….and in the case of sugar cane the output can be sugar and/or alcohol according to market demand….but….alas….no sugar cane in Iowa. Some sugar cane is grown in Oz and it is highly mechanized with railroad tracks coming right into the farmland and mechanized harvesters and loaders.
Sugar Cane is highly water-intensive though – if you have a look at the Australian fields they all use automated but extensive irrigation systems. Many parts of the US would struggle to balance the needs of a sugar cane crop and household water usage, for example.
There used to be a lot of sugar cane grown in the Southern U.S., still is some in Louisiana and Florida, but it’s difficult to compete with Brazil.
I didn’t realise that it was a huge crop on Hawaii as well – lasted a bit longer but couldn’t compete with cheaper competition.
even with massive subsidies which keep the price up for all of us
Do you think we’re picking all this corn by hand?
We do not have a climate crisis, CO2 is not the control knob for our climate and we are not going to reach a tipping point and suffer run away global warming.
Government is a very poor choice to solve any problem. They rarely have a handle on what the problem is. They will throw boat loads of money at anything that is offered as a solution. They don’t listen to people who actually know what the problem is and when offered workable solutions turn their back. They are not problem solvers they are the problem.
I believe that nearly every major environmental catastrophe of the last two decades was the result of government policy. It is only with the power and influence of government that the ability to screw up on such a massive level is possible.
Every environmental and economic crisis.
This will all end in tears.
When the country goes bankrupt.
Not If, when.
Ethanol’s greatest strength is that Iowa is the biggest ethanol producer, and home to the Nation’s first presidential primary (technically caucus). No candidate from either Party can tell the truth about its economic and environmental disadvantages as doing so would immediately end the candidate’s campaign chance. A horrific first primary showing has never been “survivable”.
Yesterday, I was pleased to see US ethanol consumption had leveled off for the past eight years. I should have known the good news wouldn’t last. The democrat war against domestic oil and gas moves up another notch. I compliment my former employer Koch Industries for not fighting the ethanol mandate, and instead 15 years ago purchasing a large Iowa-based ethanol plant for all their Flint Hills refining requirements. I wonder how pleased the Koch hating democrats would be if they knew they were doing Koch a favor.
Ethanol has a dedicated political constituency that benefits from the misallocation of limited capital resources for their personal gain and it’s difficult to end the corruption.
Ethanol consumption hadn’t significantly increased over the past eight years, going from 14.8 million gallons to 15.8 million gallons. Tragically environmentally and economically destructive, but one percent per year more or less was “survivable”. Tripling use by adding 35 million gallons as a replacement for jet fuel, tragic. Hopefully, it will be just a 10% blend like gasoline. Regardless, today’s ethanol posting is another big ouch for the economy and the environment (But great news for the democrat presidential candidates).
“No candidate from either party can tell the truth “. We have reached the end of the road. The entire system( government, MSM military industrial complex , green industry industrial complex , big tech government industrial complex, big government war distraction complex etc etc. It is all corrupt , broken and or delusional beyond repair.
Add onto that a world full of enemies that are much more powerful and sophisticated than they were say 30+ years ago and want us gone! And all the leftist throughout the western nations are more than happy to help. And the leftist are too stupid to realize they personally won’t be spared either.
This is going to be a most unpleasant period in history coming very soon for all the western nations and probably civilization world wide. Worst of all it’s going to f. Up my retirement.
John, agree with you about everything, except worst of all it’s going to f. up your retirement, No worst of all it’s already f. up my retirement.
What? You can burn vegetable in your vehicle, to make it go somewhere?
Please don’t tell Mr. Trudeau, or he will put a carbon tax on vegetable oil also.
Homo Sapiens death spiral kicks up a gear.
nice
Not that anyone will notice, magical thinking zombies are like that. i.e. Completely blind and self-obsessed
All this shit will do is get people killed. Ethanol is not jet fuel.
Big Government, in its infinite wisdom says, “We will now pay you more to further damage the environment.”
This insane focus on extracting energy from feedstocks that are lacking in energy density will further increase the cultivation of corn on marginal land not suited to row crops, in areas where the climate is not suited to these crops and most tragic of all, further damage irreplaceable resources like the Oglala aquifer. This is insane, anti-environmental policy of the worst kind, institutionalized. Government may be able to print more money, but it can’t print more water.
The associated massive increase in demand for fertilizers manufactured from natural gas that will result obviously conflicts (from their anti-scientific perspective) with their insistence on reduced production and consumption of liquid fossil fuels; but the authors of this insanity are too ignorant to recognize the inconsistencies in their own policies and mandates.
Well who can argue with John Podesta’s scientific training and back ground? /sarc
With a large syncophantic staff with unlimited funds, a politician can easily say “Here’s the result I want; go out and find the justification.”
A bit like how the Left is now conducting “lawfare” against its oppenents..
This food for fuel horsecrap isn’t going away until Iowa stops being the first presidential nomination contests. Issues specific to Iowa, such as subsidies for Big Ag, get far too much attention. Shuffle the contest over and put Iowa farther back in the primary schedule and some candidates would be stumbling all over themselves to see who could be the first to promise to end ethanol subsidies.