Strange Bedfellows Fight Ethanol Subsidies 552
Reader Actual Reality sends us to Business Week for a tale of the strangest political coalition to be seen in a while — greens, hippies, libertarians, and livestock producers uniting to get ethanol subsidies reduced or killed. The demand for the alternative fuel is driving up corn prices and having big impacts on other parts of the economy. Not many other issues are capable of getting left-leaning economist Paul Krugman and the Cato Institute on the same side.
Business advice (Score:4, Insightful)
Start growing corn then.
Lobbies not environment (Score:5, Insightful)
Allow me to explain (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody is trying to end fossil-fuel dependence here. Nobody is subsidising ethanol production, except in a rather technical sense. If people wanted to end fossil-fuel dependenence and make ethanol production easier, they could fund, subsidize, and promote any number of solutions.
What IS going on here is another huge subsidy for the very powerful corn industry. This particular subsidy is wearing a paper hat that says 'ethanol', which is enough to fool:
0% of people who know anything about energy markets.
25% of lawmakers
95% of the public
100% of all the libertarian slashdotters who have already jumped in and gone 'OMG teh socialism sux lol!!'
Now, repeat after me: ETHANOL is one thing, ETHANOL FROM NORTH AMERICAN CORN is another thing. You want energy, subsidize the former. You want money for corn growers, subsidize the latter.
Let's not use alternative fuel... (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, Libertarians are against any and all forms of government subsidies, and it's rather obvious why if we're absolutely pro-free market. Nobody should read this article and say, "Wow, that's surprising that they're working together!" Rather, they should read it and really wonder why these different groups oppose subsidies for ethanol and whether or not ethanol is a viable choice for an alternative fuel.
After all, alternative != better.
Re:Libertarian speaking here (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Consumer Reports (Score:4, Insightful)
I think everyone getting screwed here is entitled to complain, and especially since the US and Brazil seem to be looking to form an ethanol monopoly not to mention use a more expensive and potently more polluting in the way of exhausted farm land and what ever they plan to burn to heat the still.
If we aren't careful we will end up slaves to new masters and little more.
Re:Libertarian speaking here (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Business advice (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that we may see a shift in the production of livestock in the United States. Much of the existing beef production takes place outside of Iowa, while much of the ethanol production takes place within the state. Iowa is also a major producer of pork - I expect that many of those operations will switch to feeding out cattle instead of hogs - especially if they can get distillers grains at a decent price compared to the corn that hogs require.
Re:Lobbies not environment (Score:2, Insightful)
And even where farmers don't want to grow GM corn, companies like Monsanto are using dirty tricks to get them to grow the GM corn anyway. And if that doesn't work, Monsanto heavies raid the farm and "find" GM corn that the farmer hasn't paid for (some of the things Monsanto heavies do would probably make the BSA look good)
Why do you think the US is the only country in the world that uses corn sweetener instead of sugar (beet or cane) in Coca-Cola?
Re:Allow me to explain (Score:5, Insightful)
Quoted for truth.
This is why a petroleum tax is the way to go. Government sucks at picking the winning technologies whereas markets are quite good at it. The solution? Ditch technology specific subsidies in favor of technology agnostic user fees that incentivize the desired goal, namely reduced petro use.
Now most people don't like taxes, but really it is the fairest way to let the market select the best renewable technology. If you tax petroleum, then biodiesel, ethanol, wind/pv plug-in HEVs, and transit all compete via market forces.
And before the libertarians get their panties in a bunch, we don't have anything close to a free market currently. The market is, and has been, slanted toward petroleum via foreign, domestic and tax policy for the the last 50-75 years. I'm just suggesting we use a petroleum tax to level the field a little.
Re:Libertarian speaking here (Score:5, Insightful)
Or energy
Deceptive disagreement (Score:5, Insightful)
Periodic ideological alignment is necessary to demonstrate that both "sides" are willing to engage in creative problem solving and aren't just part of an ideological game.
Re:Business advice (Score:4, Insightful)
How about if farmers just get off the welfare?
Re:Business advice (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Uh,...., left leaning Paul Krugman? (Score:2, Insightful)
I was going to comment on this also.. but in a slightly different way.
Are there any left-leaning economists? Economics is the study of choice, and the left hates choice. Economics is a science, with definite consequences when those who choose to ignore its principles craft policy. Willful igorance of economics is Leftist Politics 101. (Of course, the right has been following their lead for a while now
Don't forget the water (Score:4, Insightful)
This is on top of the propane used to make the fertilizer (corn is very hard on the soil), the natural gas to cook the mash, the electricity to turn the big drums, the diesel to run the tractors and combines, the diesel or gas to truck the corn to the still and transport (by train usually) the ethanol to (close to) the point of sale (it has to be mixed in locally, not at the refinery).
All in all, it makes slightly more sense than just paying the farmer not to grow the corn. It makes no sense whatsoever compared to bio-diesel (beans fix nitrogen), ethanol from sugar cane, or even burning through the cheap gas now while bringing more nuclear on line.
Re:Uh,...., left leaning Paul Krugman? (Score:3, Insightful)
Krugman changed after bush got elected, and he's now suffering from bush derangement syndrome. He's no longer nearly as reasonable as he once was.
From the wikipedia article you apparently read:
"A November 13, 2003 article in The Economist [2] reads: "A glance through his past columns reveals a growing tendency to attribute all the world's ills to George Bush...Even his economics is sometimes stretched...Overall, the effect is to give lay readers the illusion that Mr Krugman's perfectly respectable personal political beliefs can somehow be derived empirically from economic theory."
"Blogger Ken Waight uses a data analysis methodology at his Lying in Ponds website that ranks Krugman among the most partisan columnists."
Re:Libertarian speaking here (Score:4, Insightful)
And then, let's get rid of personal rights, since they hamper some businesses more than others.
I agree that most subsidies are not a good thing. However, in order to stimulate economic activity and the general welfare, sometimes it's necessary for government to aid industries. Note that the farm subsidies, for example, were intended to help the small family farmer, during times of low demand when the corporate farm economies of scale were killing them. I won't judge whether it's worth it for government to try to preserve "the American way of life," since that is what was intended.
Re:Consumer Reports (Score:3, Insightful)
Sigh... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Libertarian speaking here (Score:5, Insightful)
What an idiotic thing to say.
I grew up on a farm. My dad used to joke that "city people" think that food magically appears in the grocery store. I never realized how close to the truth that statement might be until I read your post and saw that it was modded up as insightful.
Corn's not good for cows (Score:5, Insightful)
As for human beings, the older among us can recall how much better food tasted when it was all sweetened with sugar rather than corn syrup. There are some pretty strong concerns about corn syrup not being so healthy for you either - although it's probably not as bad for us as corn is for cows.
Ethanol is a boondoggle, and I'll prefer any presidential candidate who stands firmly against subsidizing it. But corn too is subsidized - has been for decades - and that leads to it being used in other ways that are already seriously screwing things up. Plus, agriculture is not infinitely renewable, not the way we practice it. The US has lost something like half its agricultural topsoil, on average, over the last century or so. Long-term viability requires us to take more agricultural land out of production, rather than exploit our land more extensively for short-term gain. Over the long run, in many locations, agriculture is just another form of strip mining - at least until we develop technologies we don't currently have to replace millions of tons of topsoil that current practices have allowed to be washed away and otherwise depleted. Soil is more precious than oil.
There's no easy fix here. And corn shouldn't even be a candidate.
Re:Maybe you should complain (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Consumer Reports (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Business advice (Score:4, Insightful)
When I'm paying, I'll buy from whoever has the best price.
So, hell yes, let's buy the corn or beets or sugarcane or whatever grows locally. Biodiesel is another great use of fallow land.
Go ahead and buy some land and grow whatever you want and sell it on the free market. It's none of your business otherwise. Stealing money from people so that you're happy about the "great use" of some land is approximately the same as stealing money from people to buy yourself a luxury car -- just a little less honest.
Re:Is there intelligent life on Earth? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Consumer Reports (Score:4, Insightful)
Forcing people to pay for their own externalities is not socialism. Subsidizing certain activities by making others pay for the externalities is.
Re:Consumer Reports (Score:3, Insightful)
I have alway know gasohol (the old 15% methanol mixture)yielded less fuel economy and performance. People never believe me. Although, the car makers and engine makers have known this too. They have ways to tune the vehicles in order to mitigate these deficiencies. And because Ethanol is considered cleaner burning, they can actually increase performance and economy if the engine is designed to run it specifically.
But then you are talking about something that isn't on the mass market and something only newer cars are able to do.
Re:Libertarian speaking here (Score:3, Insightful)
Many countries have learned this lesson the hard way. In recent times, for example 30 years ago, Zaire was Africa's breas basket. They provided nearly a third of all food eaten on the continent. Then their current governmental mess started, Zaire collapsed, and now it can't even feed its own people, let alone the rest of the continent. The primary problem was that as reparations, farms - Zaire's primary export business system - were reposessed from their primarily white invader owners, and given to traditional people. However, the government used a crony system to determine who got the farms, rather than giving them out to those individuals who knew how to run farms, and everything predictably went straight to hell.
Many of the famines in Africa are a direct result of Zaire's collapse, and the policies of other nations leading them to complete external dependency. A government must be able to feed its own people even if every other country on Earth closes their borders, or they can be directly manipulated through sanctions and export treaties.
The United States' major foreign problems right now are a result of our dependancy on certain nations for their fuel reserves. Can you imagine how much worse it would be if it was the food supply?