Bloom off the Ethanol Rose?

[Wild Bill]

Here's the link:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119...4_20071228.html

Many of these problems were predicted at the start of all this by people who could think more than one chess move ahead at a time! Now Bush and his crew have got a bit of a problem, as well as all the "greens" who jumped too quickly as taking ethanol as an easy quick fix with little or no negative repercussions.

[Pliny]

Here's the link:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119...4_20071228.html

Many of these problems were predicted at the start of all this by people who could think more than one chess move ahead at a time! Now Bush and his crew have got a bit of a problem, as well as all the "greens" who jumped too quickly as taking ethanol as an easy quick fix with little or no negative repercussions.

Good post. I am glad we didn't do "too much" in the seventies to prevent the "global cooling" that was happening at the time. If we would have taken a more pro-active course "global-warming" would be a real problem right now.

[raz395]

Here's the link:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119...4_20071228.html

Many of these problems were predicted at the start of all this by people who could think more than one chess move ahead at a time! Now Bush and his crew have got a bit of a problem, as well as all the "greens" who jumped too quickly as taking ethanol as an easy quick fix with little or no negative repercussions.

It wasn't the 'greens' who jumped on the biofuels bandwagon. It was 'Bay St' with all of its HUGE SUV's, looking for an easy solution.

[Wild Bill]

It wasn't the 'greens' who jumped on the biofuels bandwagon. It was 'Bay St' with all of its HUGE SUV's, looking for an easy solution.

Well, I'm sure they had at least one noble goal! If ethanol could deprive the Arab world of all that oil money then maybe they couldn't afford as many guns...or nuclear bombs!

[jdobbin]

Here's the link:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119...4_20071228.html

Many of these problems were predicted at the start of all this by people who could think more than one chess move ahead at a time! Now Bush and his crew have got a bit of a problem, as well as all the "greens" who jumped too quickly as taking ethanol as an easy quick fix with little or no negative repercussions.

It was the Tories in Canada who announced the huge ethanol project.

I've opposed the big push in ethanol for the last few years and find that it is rural Tories who have told me they needed this to help them stay on the farms. My opposition was that ethanol was not going to do much for emissions because it takes a lot of energy to produce the product. I also pointed out that it makes food more expensive.

You can see the debates in these forums and the Tories who supported the initiative wholeheartedly.

Edited November 30, 2007 by jdobbin

[Canuck E Stan]

Just Tories?

Liberal Party site

Liberals also want to help farmers create new markets in the new sustainable economy, in areas such as ethanol, bio-fuels, low-till practices, wind power and other new technologies.

Liberal.ca

Deputy premier Clay Serby praised federal Liberal Leader Stephane Dion's target of 10 per cent ethanol content in gasoline by 2010 -- double what the federal Conservative government has promised.

But Ritz said Dion should have done more to advance the renewable fuels industry in Canada when the Liberals were in office.

"If 10 per cent (ethanol content) is doable, then why wasn't it done?" Ritz said.

He said the five per cent mandate is based on advice received from the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association and other industry and producer groups.

Some people belong to the wrong party.....

[jdobbin]

Just Tories?

Some people belong to the wrong party.....

The Tories announced the policy. The Liberals said they would up the promise. I opposed both of their initiatives in these forums for the reasons I stated above. I continue to lobby for an end to the initiative with the Liberal party. Perhaps you could do the same with the Tories.

[kengs333]

I'm "green" to a certain extent, but I could have told you that all this alternative fuel stuff is just an attempt to find alternatives for continuing along the same consumerist course as we are now--most people who are environmentally concious still don't want to give up the comforts of modern civilization. The sad thing is even if we went back to using horses there would still be serious problems, because the ultimate problem is the fact there are too many people on this planet.

[xul]

My opposition was that ethanol was not going to do much for emissions because it takes a lot of energy to produce the product.

This is right. And the raw material to produce ethanol is corn and the corn yield depends on how many chemical fertilizer is used, and chemical fertilizer is the production based on oil.The electric vehicles are just the ones which moves their exhaust pipes to a power plant. So whatever we fill into the tank of our car, we are burning oil.

[Moxie]

This is right. And the raw material to produce ethanol is corn and the corn yield depends on how many chemical fertilizer is used, and chemical fertilizer is the production based on oil.The electric vehicles are just the ones which moves their exhaust pipes to a power plant. So whatever we fill into the tank of our car, we are burning oil.

We were warned this would cause global food shortages and it would leave a bigger foot print on the planet. The far left screamed "Your killing this Planet" and global politicians bent over to appease the Politically Correct Eco Terrorist and Peaceniks with the green game. The Global Warming Cult gloated and children will starve. Peaceniks and Eco Terrorist are far more concerned with Mother Earth than the children who starve to death on it.

[jdobbin]

We were warned this would cause global food shortages and it would leave a bigger foot print on the planet. The far left screamed "Your killing this Planet" and global politicians bent over to appease the Politically Correct Eco Terrorist and Peaceniks with the green game. The Global Warming Cult gloated and children will starve. Peaceniks and Eco Terrorist are far more concerned with Mother Earth than the children who starve to death on it.

It has been a Republican government in the U.S. and the Conservative government in Canada that have instituted the present ethanol programs. It has been done more for the farmers benefits than for the environment.

[xul]

and global politicians bent over to appease the Politically Correct Eco Terrorist and Peaceniks with the green game.

Politicians want votes, environmental scientists want funds, enterprisers want new order forms, journalists want Pulitzer awards, everyone want to be the hero who save the earth.....

Should we wish the global warming issue to be a truth, or a cheat?

[blueblood]

Well now,

The manufacture of ethanol has boosted commodity prices of grains, which in turn boosts our economy as a whole, why would one not want a better economy.

Farmers are always going to grow huge crops no matter who buys them. Whether a miller buys it or it goes to an ethanol plant doesn't affect production numbers --> the same amount of greenhouse gas is going to be produced in crop production no matter what. The argument that it doesn't help the environment is proposterous. Look at it like an algebraic equation. Farmer has X land that yields Y bushells for P price which results in G gross income. The only variable is price. He will always grow max production to pay bills, for a while without ethanol he had a hard go at it.

Higher prices per bushell won't raise the price of bread as ridiculously as previously suggested. An increase in 2bucks a bushell means better returns for the farmer, but for the sheer volume of grain produced, the price of say a loaf of bread goes up a quarter tops. With Canadian prices as inflated as they are, if you are on a computer complaining about food prices a rise of a quarter isn't going to kill you. The rise in food prices is due to high transport costs due to sky high oil prices and with min. wage being 8 something an hour.

Ethanol helps the CWB be more competitive and more efficient. If it wants grain, it'll have to get it's act together.

It also helps out the real poor countries by eating up all of the waste grain the rich countries were dumping over there disguised as "charity". With less oversupply and higher grain prices, the farmers in poor countries can grow their own grain, become profitable, improve the economy of their country and improve living conditions, also by them producing more grain it would lower the price a little as well bringing it into balance.

It also helps the environment. for every X litres of ethanol, that's X litres of oil in the ground. Yes it takes energy to grow crops for fuel, but the crops are still going to be grown anyway, just the buyer changes that's all.

[bush_cheney2004]

It has been a Republican government in the U.S. and the Conservative government in Canada that have instituted the present ethanol programs. It has been done more for the farmers benefits than for the environment.

Ethanol programs in both countries pre-date the present Republican and Conservative governments. My state's ethanol subsidies (e.g. blender's tax credits) date back to at least 1980, and was largely driven by oxygenate content requirements in gasoline.

[jdobbin]

The manufacture of ethanol has boosted commodity prices of grains, which in turn boosts our economy as a whole, why would one not want a better economy.

It also helps out the real poor countries by eating up all of the waste grain the rich countries were dumping over there disguised as "charity". With less oversupply and higher grain prices, the farmers in poor countries can grow their own grain, become profitable, improve the economy of their country and improve living conditions, also by them producing more grain it would lower the price a little as well bringing it into balance.

It also helps the environment. for every X litres of ethanol, that's X litres of oil in the ground. Yes it takes energy to grow crops for fuel, but the crops are still going to be grown anyway, just the buyer changes that's all.

I realize from a farmer's point of view, ethanol has been great. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that if the objective is to reduce emissions, it is not every effective. Nor is it effective in reducing oil needs from foreign countries.

[bush_cheney2004]

I realize from a farmer's point of view, ethanol has been great. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that if the objective is to reduce emissions, it is not every effective. Nor is it effective in reducing oil needs from foreign countries.

Accordingly...maybe those are not the objectives. Emissions reduction has to compete with other economic interests, just like everything else.

[blueblood]

I realize from a farmer's point of view, ethanol has been great. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that if the objective is to reduce emissions, it is not every effective. Nor is it effective in reducing oil needs from foreign countries.

I don't care if ethanol reduces emissions or not, it eats up excess supply that was just being dumped into the market. But if it does reduce emissions even by a little bit then that's icing on the cake.

I also realize, that it won't reduce much emissions, but it will reduce them no matter how insignificant. If our energy consumption were to remain stagnant, then I would have to disagree with you in that it would reduce oil needs from other countries in that it would take some space; but since energy consumption worldwide continues to rise, then we will always rely on other countries for foreign oil; without ethanol though, it would be a little more.

I'm surprised you haven't argued about the plight of the livestock industry in relation to this. But in a few years the livestock market will correct itself. Packers will just realize they have to pay more for feed, and the cow/calf producers will learn how to survive in a hostile market as the grain guys have been for years.

[jdobbin]

I don't care if ethanol reduces emissions or not, it eats up excess supply that was just being dumped into the market. But if it does reduce emissions even by a little bit then that's icing on the cake.

I also realize, that it won't reduce much emissions, but it will reduce them no matter how insignificant. If our energy consumption were to remain stagnant, then I would have to disagree with you in that it would reduce oil needs from other countries in that it would take some space; but since energy consumption worldwide continues to rise, then we will always rely on other countries for foreign oil; without ethanol though, it would be a little more.

I'm surprised you haven't argued about the plight of the livestock industry in relation to this. But in a few years the livestock market will correct itself. Packers will just realize they have to pay more for feed, and the cow/calf producers will learn how to survive in a hostile market as the grain guys have been for years.

I was going to say that several completed studies and a few more underway conclude that more energy is used in producing ethanol than if just oil was used. It doesn't lower consumption of oil because of resources needed to produce ethanol. It apparently doesn't do much for emissions either. And to top it off, the government has to subsidize it in a major way.

I'm well aware that farmers are just happy with increased prices. The problem as you say is the displacement in feed grains, higher food prices for consumers, no reduction in emissions and no reduction on dependence in oil.

Overall, it is misplaced use of government resources.

[blueblood]

I was going to say that several completed studies and a few more underway conclude that more energy is used in producing ethanol than if just oil was used. It doesn't lower consumption of oil because of resources needed to produce ethanol. It apparently doesn't do much for emissions either. And to top it off, the government has to subsidize it in a major way.

I'm well aware that farmers are just happy with increased prices. The problem as you say is the displacement in feed grains, higher food prices for consumers, no reduction in emissions and no reduction on dependence in oil.

Overall, it is misplaced use of government resources.

If your talking about the energy used to grow a crop vs. drilling oil, well obviously more energy is needed to grow a crop. What I'm saying is that in the grand scheme of things, the energy growing the crop is being used up anyways, just the users are different. It's not like we started growing crops from scratch to compete with oil, it's more like hey we're already using X amt. of energy, lets use it for something constructive. And remember all those diesel engines used in growing crops will themselves be running on X amt of biofuel as well. So in time, yes it will lower consumption of oil, just not dramatically.

I wouldn't say the government subsidizes it, the government is investing in it. I can assure you that the gov't is getting a healthy return on it's investment through tax dollars in a healthy ag economy and with all the jobs being created with this.

I'd say the handouts to farmers over the years were misplaced use of government funds

The rises in food prices for consumers at the grocery stores is attributed more to higher transport costs than commodity prices due to the huge amount of grain grown.

[jdobbin]

If your talking about the energy used to grow a crop vs. drilling oil, well obviously more energy is needed to grow a crop. What I'm saying is that in the grand scheme of things, the energy growing the crop is being used up anyways, just the users are different. It's not like we started growing crops from scratch to compete with oil, it's more like hey we're already using X amt. of energy, lets use it for something constructive. And remember all those diesel engines used in growing crops will themselves be running on X amt of biofuel as well. So in time, yes it will lower consumption of oil, just not dramatically.

I wouldn't say the government subsidizes it, the government is investing in it. I can assure you that the gov't is getting a healthy return on it's investment through tax dollars in a healthy ag economy and with all the jobs being created with this.

I'd say the handouts to farmers over the years were misplaced use of government funds

The rises in food prices for consumers at the grocery stores is attributed more to higher transport costs than commodity prices due to the huge amount of grain grown.

The stats so far on lowering oil consumption by using ethanol have just not played out. I have no seen any recent figures to suggest they will.

It is a subsidy over one energy over another. Forcing consumers to use ethanol is a form of protection as well.

The prices on foods have a direct correlation to ethanol as some of the recent studies have shown.

[blueblood]

The stats so far on lowering oil consumption by using ethanol have just not played out. I have no seen any recent figures to suggest they will.

It is a subsidy over one energy over another. Forcing consumers to use ethanol is a form of protection as well.

The prices on foods have a direct correlation to ethanol as some of the recent studies have shown.

I don't think you can ever lower oil consumption. Energy demand far exceeds what ethanol would take away. I'd say ethanol fills in a gap a little bit more than anything.

It is protection, but this kind of protection is helping out the economy worldwide, that translates into tax dollars and a stronger economy. The only alternative to ethanol would be a massive land set-aside program and try and get that to work. Alberta had to be generous to get it's oil industry off and running, now that it's self sufficient, they can tax it a bit. Ethanol needs time to get self sufficient like Alberta oil has.

Of course food prices have a correlation to ethanol, ethanol came about because of high oil prices. High oil prices mean high transport prices which in turn are passed on to the consumer. A rise of a buck a bushell would be a negligible rise in food prices whereas a 20 cents a liter rise in gas prices sends food prices skyward.

[jdobbin]

It is protection, but this kind of protection is helping out the economy worldwide, that translates into tax dollars and a stronger economy. The only alternative to ethanol would be a massive land set-aside program and try and get that to work. Alberta had to be generous to get it's oil industry off and running, now that it's self sufficient, they can tax it a bit. Ethanol needs time to get self sufficient like Alberta oil has.

Of course food prices have a correlation to ethanol, ethanol came about because of high oil prices. High oil prices mean high transport prices which in turn are passed on to the consumer. A rise of a buck a bushell would be a negligible rise in food prices whereas a 20 cents a liter rise in gas prices sends food prices skyward.

I think that while this might support grains farmers, it is hurting others along the way. It is an expensive program and the reasons given for initiating it seems to have fallen well short of the goal.

[blueblood]

I think that while this might support grains farmers, it is hurting others along the way. It is an expensive program and the reasons given for initiating it seems to have fallen well short of the goal.

Was it not expensive giving subsidies to open up the Alberta oilfields when we could import it from elsewhere? Is it not expensive for other alternative energy resources? The ethanol industry is brand new, it is much too soon to judge if it fell short of some supposed goal, that's something that should be judged in 5-10 yrs. when it is self sufficient.

[jdobbin]

Was it not expensive giving subsidies to open up the Alberta oilfields when we could import it from elsewhere? Is it not expensive for other alternative energy resources? The ethanol industry is brand new, it is much too soon to judge if it fell short of some supposed goal, that's something that should be judged in 5-10 yrs. when it is self sufficient.

Oil continues to get a subsidy even after all these years.

I disagree with that subsidy as well. In fact, if all subsidies for resources ended, farmers might actually get a better price for what they grow.