Well, that's certainly true - but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that. Less than 20% of the US is in poverty, but it doesn't mean we should eliminate all poverty programs. Less than 20% of the US is in retirement, but it doesn't mean we should get rid of SS/Medicare/etc. Many things government does is directly related to a minority of the population - that in itself doesn't mean its good or bad. But I'm not arguing on the merits - I'm opposed to everything associated with ethanol. I'm just explaining why there's basically 100% agreement on this board on the issue.
Even thumbs and glynch agree with each other. And, there's no political will to change anything. This is unprecedented (the former) and completely ridiculous (the latter) at the same time. The interest group is smaller than that even. There are plenty of people in agriculture who don't benefit from it at all or even are hurt by the mandate (like ranchers who have to pay higher rates for feed). But companies that do profit care about it a lot, and everyone else cares only a little bit. People who care a lot will contribute money to campaigns, form PACs, and deliver votes for the politcians who will perpetuate the mandate whereas those who care little won't bother to organize, give money, or allow the issue to change their voting behavior. To kill the mandate, you'd have to make it a real issue fpr everybody, and not just the interest groups. If you could show ethanol actually increased pump prices, it could probably get traction (since food riots in other countries doesn't do the trick).
Wow, something we can all seem to agree with. Ethanol in fuel was a terrible idea. The mandate needs to go.
I guess loaded contextual commentary doesn't mesh well with crazy. The writer in the OP/ED puts the blame on the president because of his executive authority stemming from the EPA which is supremely ironic considering the history between conservatives and the EPA plus the history between cons and the president regarding tactics that bypass congressional authority, king-like maybe? But he does have a valid point, that I mainly address, which is why doesn't Obama use EPA authority and bypass your lucky charm? Maybe its because the Iowa primary gave him the first break in what became an incredible presidential run, which he'll still need in the coming months. Lastly, lighten up dude. You might be new here posting in the jungle, but it sounds like you're one step away from sticking something in a tailpipe and smoking it.
There is no ethanol mandate. There is a ban on MTBE. There are incentives (tariffs, taxes, etc) to replace MTBE with ethanol. This has been ongoing for years. Sell your truck. Buy an effecient car. Move closer to work. Drive at a fuel effecient speed. Take public transit. Funny how a folks across the country (not too long ago) were lauding biofuels as a medium to replace petrol gasoline...actually, no, it is not funny.
States may be trying to make this happen: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...14_1_ethanol-severe-economic-harm-corn-prices Arkansas, N. Carolina ask EPA to waive ethanol mandate WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The governors of North Carolina and Arkansas joined two of their Northeast peers on Tuesday in asking the federal government to temporarily suspend the ethanol quota, piling pressure on President Barack Obama to make a tough choice months before the election. The worst drought in 50 years has sent corn prices to record levels, straining meat and dairy producers that use the grain as feed. Governors Mike Beebe from Arkansas and Beverly Purdue from North Carolina sent the requests in letters to the Environmental Protection Agency. Not who the Northeastern governors are, but these two include a Dem and GOPer, so it's a bipartisan thing at the state level too.
Biofuels should still continue to play a role in reducing carbon emissions. It's just that corn or anything 'used for'/'contributes to' the food supply (including algae) is not the way to go. No throwing the baby out of bathwater here...
I am not sure about algae at this moment, but I know researchers that are working on converting corn stalks, leafs, grass, etc into bio fuel, currently the yield is too low. If this works, that could really help the economy.
Is there anybody who still supports the ethanol mandate. Hey everyone makes mistakes-- even government and big corporations? Enron or Citibank for instance. Let's don't do a Koch Brothers/Fox News thing that therefore all environmental regulations are worthless.
