Are
ethanol subsidies making Earth a better place?
Not exact matches
Corn
ethanol would have never been able to
make it on its thermodynamic merits, and w / o
subsidies would have been dead in the water years ago *.
I don't see how our
subsidies for
making ethanol from corn, for example, spill over to the production of high fructose corn syrup.
He's terrible on trade, supporting maintenance of the tariff on imported Brazilian
ethanol made from sugarcane, and has pushed for a dramatic expansion of the
subsidies for
ethanol production in this country.
The efforts we've
made to criminalize the act of checking out are scandalous and in a different world, one without
ethanol subsidies or ear marks, we might see an end to it.
We should phase out
subsidies for corn
ethanol as cellulose and other forms for
making alternate fuels come on line.
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand that there are natural cycles and that they milk them to scare us so they can tax and control us and get us to pay
subsidies and allow tax credits so they, and their contributors can get rich off of windmills, solar panels,
ethanol and whatever schemes they have to save the world from a
made up problem that does not exist.
But the models fail to account for dynamic reactions to a corn crop reduction (in this case a simple and very cost efficient response would be to end corn
ethanol subsidies, thus redirecting corn to food rather than fuel, ending an inefficient industry and encouraging
ethanol industries in tropical nations using sugar cane, which
makes a lot more sense than corn
ethanol).
There's money to be
made in developing alternative energy — even when it's not so green, like the
ethanol industry that has been collecting
subsidies for decades.
And the fuel is much cheaper, because the shipping cost of locally
made ethanol is much lower, and because part of the 51 cent per gallon
ethanol blending
subsidy is being passed on to consumers.
But a farmer can grow more corn, or less cattle, and send corn to an
ethanol plant, and still
make money, especially if there's a
subsidy.
But dropping the
subsidy makes Brazil's cane sugar
ethanol more viable on the market — and that is a more environmentally sound fuel.
... Many people argue that
making corn - based
ethanol is more of an agricultural
subsidy for farmers than it is a sound environmental policy.Things get even dodgier for biofuels when you look at the land area that would be needed to grow fuel crops.
Even
subsidies that seem quite good at first usually later turn out to be bad (corn
ethanol) because of the law of unintended consequences, and governments are very bad at picking the right technologies because of political interference, pressure by special interests and multi-year lag in decision -
making.
In today's speech, Mr. Bloomberg called for four key measures on climate change: a vast increase in energy - related research and development; an end to certain agricultural
subsidies, especially that of corn - based
ethanol; an increase in federal fuel efficiency standards for vehicles; and laws to
make pollution more expensive for companies.
Corn -
ethanol will continue to be produced if it
makes economic sense, without tax
subsidies.
Does it ever
make sense for the government to select one «winner», such as corn
ethanol, for
subsidies?