Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
07.02.2008 5:04 pm

Study calls ethanol mandate a billion-dollar mistake

St. Louis Post-Dispatch
  • Email this
  • Print this

Sarah Steelman’s about-face on ethanol makes this a good time to look at the costs and benefits of the E-10 mandate that Missouuri enacted in 2006. As it happens, both the Missouri Corn Merchandising Council and the Show-Me Institute have studied the issue recently.

Predictably, the corn folks say the mandate has benefited Missourians — to the tune of $285 million this year and more than $2 billion over a decade. Show-Me’s Justin Hauke and David Stokes, however, say those figures omit some very large negatives. Specifically, they say the corn promoters are leaving out the cost to taxpayers, and they’re ignoring the fact that ethanol has a lower energy content than gasoline. Their bottom line is much different:

We find that accounting for these costs significantly impacts the MCMC savings projections and would result in a net loss to Missouri consumers of almost $1 billion during the next decade. If one were to consider the additional impact of the E-10 mandate on higher food prices and CO2 gas emissions, these costs would be even higher.

The ethanol mandates, they conclude, are merely another form of special-interest legislation:

Missouri should adopt energy policies that benefit all Missorians, not just those who happen to be on the winning end of a corporate subsidy.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (3 votes, average: 4.33 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...
11 comments

Comments are closed.

Even better, how about having a national energy policy that recognizes that the revenue losses to government from any sort of subsidies must be made up by higher taxes somewhere else? That should be obvious to anyone who can do simple arithmetic.

What is less obvious is that subsidies cause economic distortions that make most people worse off, for the sake of gains to a politically-favored minority. The ethanol subsidy fiasco is becoming a case history of that effect, considering its contribution to raising the price of grain — and everything made from grain — on markets throughout the world. (The increased price of oil has probably contributed even more to this price surge, but it’s doubtful that the increased ethanol production has done much to alleviate the increase in the price of oil.)

— Ted44
6:17 pm July 2nd, 2008

Convert our foodstocks to fuel our transportation, now that is damn foolish on its face. Did we kill and eat all of the horses and mules when the first internal combustion engine fired up? On the other hand, if we would have rid ourselves of jackasses, we would not be getting the kind of energy votes out of Washington D.C. that we are seeing this days.

— Don Deters
7:18 am July 3rd, 2008

I love the idea of producing our own fuel.

The subsidies and cost of food are an issue. I wonder, with the mandate for more ethanol, has there been a decrease in the amount of land that the government pays farmers to not farm?

— theDude
12:24 pm July 3rd, 2008

Clearly these studies are designed to support each group’s position, so neither should be taken at face-value. The real issue is OIL and our complete dependence on it. Since the US imports over 60% of our supply, with every jump in price we are sending more of our hard-earned wages overseas, and don’t think the $30 billion we spend as a nation to protect the shipping lanes of the middle east is not also coming out of our pockets. And this doesn’t count the cost of the Irag war!

There is no free energy and we are not going to transition away from imported oil without some distruptions. Ethanol employs Americans to make energy for America. It is one of the few bright spots in the manufacturing sector that also helps rural economies.

— Harrison
5:32 pm July 3rd, 2008

As an individual whose family derives its livelihood from my employment with a major ETOH producer I ask you folks, would you rather pay your money to me, an USA citizen, the USA company I work for, and subsidize the product that is produced via an USA produced product, or continue to send your money to support / subsidize / enrich the Middle East / Russia / Nigeria, etc? At some point in the near future ethanol will be produced from organic material that has nothing to do with out food supply. Additionally, the fiber from the field corn that is used in Ethanol production at our facility is mixed with other by products and has been shipped (for years)to cattle lots where it has completely replaced corn as feed for about 2 million head of cattle. There is so much propaganda on both sides of this issue that is impossible for the average American citizen to take a reasonable position. The biggest winners of a huge corporate subsidy in our country today is the oil producers & refiners….just look at the profits they have enjoyed, at our expense, over the last several years…….who do you want to give your money too?

— jd
9:28 am July 4th, 2008

ROTFL.

Truly… the readers of the Post Dispatch deserve better than this.

So… Sarah Steelman turns out to be yet another stealth Libertarian candidate? That article sure makes it sound like it. After reading this article I’ve decided to give Kenny Hulsof’s campaign a call Monday morning and volunteer my time to make sure that this poseur never knows what the inside of the Governor’s mansion looks like.

In fact… I’m going to watch the next time she’s up for treasurer, and volunteer my time for whichever Democratic canditate is trying to unseat her as well.

From the article :

State Treasurer Sarah Steelman, (Rep. Kenny) Hulshof’s Republican primary opponent, supports the mandate but has some reservations about government manipulation of the economy

Too bad she doesn’t have any reservations about the soulless speculators that are driving up energy and food prices through outright market manipulation.

As an economist, I am very concerned about the use of mandates in a free market system

And I’m very concerned about an “economist” who doesn’t understand how the price of oil and energy is actually set. Like most libertarian poseurs, she’s long on mouth and short on knowledge.

And… staggeringly predictable as usual… Nicklaus trots out a bunch of drek from a Libertarian think tank to try to sell Missourian’s the idea that it’s that dad-gummed ETHANOL demon that’s driving up prices instead of the soulless speculators that are using a loophole in the CFMA-2K that was created by (get this) ENRON LOBBYISTS using something widely known as the ENRON LOOPHOLE.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/congress-seeks.html

Steelman and Nicklaus would rather see our energy dollars going to unstable and anti-American regimes in the middle east than to hard working Missouri farmers.

I’m sick of Libertarians cloaking themselves in Republican garb because they can’t get so much as a dog catcher elected under their own banner. I’m willing to volunteer my time to make sure their faces never bask in the flourescent glow of a capitol office building.

Mac
http://www.brownsludge.com

— Mac
9:09 am July 5th, 2008

And here is a REAL eye opener for Steelman and others who just don’t “get it”.

ROTFL. Wrap your heads around this :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaDelhvtQ98

As an (AUTHENTIC) Republican myself, I can tell you that we (Republicans) are going down to a LANDSLIDE defeat in November. And nothing could make me happier. When these people and the Libertarian poseurs are ran out of office - then it will be time for REAL conservatives to take stock - and take back their party.

Mac

— Mac
9:22 am July 5th, 2008

I always love how the true science of ethanol production is left out of this gush of emotional goo which is really a fight for money and marketshare, with little or no concern for the plight of energy needs.

1) Ethanol is produced from the cellulose in corn skins, the part no one can digest. The remainder is put back into the “food stream”
2) That “food stream” is for animals, not human beings. This is always left out because of course, it wouldn’t make ethanol the “enemy” of people who should blindly rely on the oil industry to selflessly serve your energy needs.
3) Ethanol does indeed produce less energy than gasoline, it also takes less energy to produce. It is NOT a solution for the energy crisis, it is a stop gas measure until we find a blend of solutions that work.

Wake up people and look at the facts and the science, rather than propoganda funded by the Grocery Manufacurer’s Association to blame ethanol for the rising price of food…check Senator Chuck Grassley’s website for more on that….

— Mike
11:44 pm July 5th, 2008

Mac,

Go to MSNBC.com to the “Answer Desk” page and find the article about oil speculation so you can unlearn the trash you spew here.

As for ethanol - sugar beets can be grown in a large part of the continental U.S. and are far superior to corn when producing ethanol. The “sugar” in corn has to be converted from the starch first, and then it can be made into alcohol. Sugar beets have a much higher sugar content and they can be squeezed and processed straight away, without starch conversion.

The corn lobby in this country has a ridiculous strangehold on ethanol development in America. One day Big Corn is going to replace Big Oil. Why do so many people trust the corn lobby when it is clearly in their best interest to promote corn over any other crop, even if that crop is inferior to sugar beets?

Give me nuclear power plants and wind generated electricity and run everything on electrons instead of grain alcohols…

— Tim
11:32 am July 7th, 2008

The whole ethanol mandate nationwide is trash. I read an article in the Wall Street Journal which said that it takes 10,000 liters of water to create 5 liters of ethanol. What a waste of a precious resource which is a necessity for human existence to fund a bunch of government special interest groups. There is no upside to this fraud except higher food and water prices again let on the back of the American people. The savings is miminal at the pump and hardly worth the billions taxpayers will be forced to pay to subsidize this program. We need a revolution in this country to throw out all the elected officials and lobbyist in Washington. We are bleeding ourselves to death with out of control wasteful spending.

— tmhusf
11:17 pm July 8th, 2008

tmhusf said :

I read an article in the Wall Street Journal which said that it takes 10,000 liters of water to create 5 liters of ethanol.

ROTFL.

It takes 3 gallons of water to make 1 gallon of ethanol.

And the “OH MY GOD ETHANOL WILL USE ALL THE WATER ON THE PLANET” argument is as old as my grandma’s toes and twice as corny. It’s also just about the most intellectually dishonest argument I’ve ever heard for anything.

You need a doctor with a rubber glove and a flashlight to discover where your “10,000 to 5″ figure came from. Unlike you who just pulled a figure from their somewhere… I’ll post the link to backup my facts.

http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=3988

Mac
http://www.brownsludge.com

— Mac
7:28 am July 9th, 2008