Corn Ethanol – Will Obama Cave To Yet Another Special Interest Group?
Despite the soaring rhetoric to the contrary, President Obama has amassed an impressive record of caving to every Democratic special interest group in America. Not once, has he stood up to the special interests. The critical question is - will he find his manhood before he gives away the national store?
We were promised shovel ready infrastructure projects by President Obama, but only a miserly 8% of the $787 billion stimulus plan was allocated to this use, and very little of that will be spent in 2009. The left of his party held sway and President Obama sheepishly, albeit with great fanfare, signed on.
With great oratorical flourish we were introduced to President Obama’s choice for Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, the man who would bring real change to a failing inner-city education system. On the first challenge to this inspirational call for change President Obama cow-towed to the Teachers Unions and stood idle while Congress killed the Washington DC school voucher program.
President Obama boldly promised that everyone would make sacrifices in the Chrysler bankruptcy, everybody that is except the UAW. The payoff for his political supporters, the UAW - a majority, 55%, stake in the new Chrysler-FIAT consortium. By turning bankruptcy law on its head President Obama reversed the pecking order, the unions, which are at the bottom of Chrysler’s capital structure, got nearly full recovery value for their $10.6 billion retiree health-care claims, while the secured creditors at the top of the hierarchy received about 30 cents on the dollar. President Obama indignantly castigated the 20 or so senior-secured lenders who were opposed his payoff plan as “a small group of speculators”. I guess the new standard at the White House is to encourage financial firms to ignore their fiduciary responsibility to the “widows and orphans” pension plans they manage, if it gets in the way of Obama, Chicago style political payola.
Finally we get to the brewing battle on corn alcohol. We will have science, President Obama proudly proclaims, but science may become more malleable after he counts the Corn State votes needed for his 2012 reelection. Lets examine the science and economics of the corn alcohol issue:
At the moment the United States is utilizing 25-33% of our most important food stock, corn, to produce ethanol for transportation. The energy inputs in the ethanol cultivation and production process are so high that there is little if any reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Whatever burning ethanol in a motor vehicle saves is more than offset by CO2 creation during the growing and manufacturing process.
The logic of using corn ethanol, which increases the volatility of gasoline, seems to be, to put it mildly, flawed. Due to its volatility, ethanol significantly increases air pollution when added to gasoline specifically, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and NOx (nitrogen oxides). When NOx and (VOCs) react in the presence of sunlight, they form photochemical smog. This well-known form of air pollution is especially prevalent in the summer. Children, people with lung diseases, like asthma, and those who work or exercise outside, are susceptible to the adverse effects of smog, notably damage to lung tissue and reduction in lung function. NOx is a green house gas and makes an additional independent contribution to global warming.
If that’s not bad enough, NOx and sulfur dioxide react with other substances in the air to form acids, which fall to earth as acid rain. If that doesn’t leave you scratching your head think about this: Large quantities of scarce fresh water are needed to produce corn-based ethanol - as much as 200 gallons for every gallon of ethanol produced. Fresh potable water may be the most precious resource we have and we appear to be wasting large quantities on an inefficient solution to our energy problem.
As the barker in old television commercials has been heard to utter - so you say you want more? Corn ethanol is an economic disaster A) Corn production is subsidized: B) Ethanol production is subsidized (mce_marker.51 per gallon federal blenders credit): C) The most insidious tax results from the fact that 25% of the U.S. corn crop in 2008 will be used to produce ethanol thereby, driving up the cost not only of corn, but all of the food products derived from corn feed such as chicken and cattle. (Corn is also an ingredient in 75% of processed food.)
This tax on foods prices is further exacerbated by the double incentive for farmers to grow corn and thus allocate less acreage to wheat and as a consequence driving up the price of bread. The result is “food inflation on steroids”. Apologists for corn ethanol point out that the protein fraction of corn is not used in the manufacturing process thus; it is available to feed livestock. However, corn is a high-energy, low-protein food source. Typically, corn contains 70% starch and only 11% protein. Newer varieties contain up to 18% protein but that would make them less desirable as a source of ethanol.
In addition, if a foreigner wants to sell us ethanol made from more efficient sugar cane we tack on an additional $.54 a gallon in import duties. What better way to stick it to the American consumer? What accounts for this foolishness? There are 21 corn states and thus, 42 senators who pander to corn farmers who benefit from this fleecing of the nation! To paraphrase Winston Churchill; never have so many… paid so much… for so little… to so few.
The only thing worse than continuing to promote a policy that centers on corn ethanol would be to encourage the production of ethanol made from the even less efficient “fuel stock” switch grass. Even with improvements in enzyme degradation and manufacturing process 1 BTU of input is likely to result in only 0.5 BTU of output.
President Obama’s rhetoric continues to soar but it would appear he has not as yet found the courage to stand up to a single Democratic special interest group. We can only hope he finds his manhood and stands up to the corn lobby.
Great blog here, I just stumbled upon it when I saw your story ”My Son the Socialist”. I am a new blogger as well, added you to my blogroll, do me a favor and take a look at mine too.
LCR
May 5th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
[...] See the rest here: Corn Ethanol - Will Obama Cave To Yet Another Special Interest Group [...]
May 5th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Much of this hits the ethanol debacle where it counts. Ethanol production, subsidies, taxes….. are nothing more than political payola. Vote-getters. The very best estimates, indicate that the energy balance for ethanol is a “wash”. Most indicate ethanol is an energy loser.
As a small point, I don’t believe NOx is a greenhouse gas, but it does result in the formation of ground-level ozone, which is a much more obvious and serious problem than (alleged) Anthropogenic Global Warming. The addition of ethanol to gasoline results in a significant increase in ground level ozone because it burns less efficiently.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:30 am
Superb analysis of the issues! Keep up the good work.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
On point and hard hitting; keep up the good work, with any luck you’ll reach a large audience and people will start seeing what Obama is really about.
What amazes me most though is that he sold himself as someone who would clean up corruption and not cave to special interests yet he is obviously very corrupt and, as you so elequantly pointed out, catering to every special interest group that pays into the Democratic party. Why do people keep giving him a pass, where is just a portion of some of the outrage that these people showed when Bush would so much as fart in an elevator.
May 8th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
When we have American energy independence ethanol as fuel will become a moot point. At least you know for the time being farmers will have some kind of fuel for agricultural purposes when and not if opec resumes it’s version of socialist welfare statist assault on western energy dependent economies. The actual real benefit is when per gallon fuel prices increase to drive food prices up. Up to that point you are correct sir: it has to add some costs; but please realize that previously the unsold corn was shipped to China at prices that were inane, and, worse, they also made fuel from it. They had been doing this for a considerable time. So about the same effects are seen here not China; those effects which you describe. The farmers should be able to produce a fair priced crop at high fuel prices, thus keeping us all in buisness. Either drill here and drill now or use liquid coal/gassified or LPG or hydrogen or what ever else and in what ever combinations or expect no free markets at all. With no free markets don’t expect to eat so well.
May 17th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Bologna? Very close to Baloney!! Your arrogance is only surpassed by your inability to have a clue about the bigger picture. Might I suggest that you find some other way to spend your free time.
Yours truly,
A red state survivor
June 6th, 2009 at 6:57 am
Who in the heck wrote this crap. Look at he facts first there boy genius. It does not take 200 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of ethanol fuel. 10 years ago it took time, it was a wet grind plant. Now there are dry grind plants, not nearly the water usage.
June 14th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
@John,
You forgot the most important ingredient, corn. It is agriculture that is the largest consumer of water. Growing the corn requires huge quantities of water - that is why one gallon of corn ethanol requires that we expend 200 gallons of water.
June 14th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
the energy to mass ratio of ethanol is so poor a semi truck will have used more fuel than its carrying after 5o miles. Also, the move towards biofuels is responsible for mass deforestation, taking countries like Indonesia from one of the lowest polluters per capita to somewhere around the 3rd largest producer of CO2-from the deforestation techniques. The caving to ethanol isnt simply an obama thing, there are alot of corn growing states with alot of lobby power and from what I’ve heard from politicians who know that ethanol is bull, it doesnt matter, the clout is there, no matter whos in office its going to happen unless serious popular resistance stops it.That said, all this Obamas a left socialist tripe,his healthcare bill is an insurance companies capitalist dream, hes central/right with left rhetoric.Its not that he doesnt have guts, hes just a well articulated capitalist right wing democrat. he killed the kyoto protocol more effectively than bush, pharmaceutical stocks are rising-guess who contributed more to any other democrat in the past?Who saved Bush and friends from prosecution?Just because the repubs are proficient at taking advantage of low learning curve of this country (which in itself is insulting,”as long as you’ll believe anything we’ll call you smart”) and yell the loudest doesnt make them right, and for the left, ha ha, good luck finding a politician that doesnt deify the market, that realizes its supposed to be a description of our actions, not a prescription on how to act.
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Also, the whole “teachers unions” are ruining our education system is less than accurate to say the least. There are so many problems with our education system one is hard pressed to find a place to start, but unions arent it, as a matter o fact if the unions would get some guts of there own they could fix it-but that would mean challenging the curriculum, as well as the state itself. Our school systems were designed to promote obedience and submission, to literally weed out critical thinkers. The methods our schools use are based after an old prussian education system with a smattering of inspiration from places like India, who at the time utilized its educational system to internalize their caste system. Until the agenda of the early 1900’s is changed (it was revised in the 1970’s,but kept to the original mission)then nothing will. It may actually get worse if you eliminate unions, without worker solidarity teachers could be fired for the slightest deviation from curriculum; and thats what we need, serious deviation away from curriculum. Most teachers that I’ve talked to are frustrated because they are forced to teach in a manner that punishes critical creative thought, or, by the time they get into teaching its already been destroyed. thats not from bad teachers, that is state curriculum. We could have an educational system that has children reading at a college level and doing advanced math by 13-14, and then beginning to explore trades and academics, by the time they are ready for college or the workforce they’d already have a good idea of what they are good at and what they enjoy. Union power could make that happen if it had the support of the community-its all about communication and face to face participation, everything else lacks the subtly and sophistication of reality,lowering the learning curve of the average joe.
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:27 am