The Issue of Ethanol

[Alta4ever]

Ethanol is subsidized and forced upon the consumer. It would not exist in the mainstream without the subsidy. The main beneficiaries are the farmers since they are the main suppliers.

Fuuny it existed before the government mandate.

[jdobbin]

Fuuny it existed before the government mandate.

I think mainstream means mainstream. Ethanol was not a main ingredient in everyone's fuel by law. It was basically too expensive to sell in markets distant to the ethanol plant. It still is without a subsidy.

[blueblood]

I'm afraid it is not debatable. Ethanol has a lower energy density and gets on average 30% less fuel efficiency. We were told that from the very beginning when ethanol was forced on us.

Citation on the U.S. dropping subsidies? They are still massive because they say they need them against the Europeans.

All the more reason to end subsidies for ethanol.

Will it affect all Argentina food prices? Citation and link, please.

Baloney on your figures with poorer mileage results.

I doubt you'd be happy with the costs of private health anymore than public. Ditto education.

And Canadians are getting hosed on taxes to make farmer rich for dubious carbon savings and terrible fuel consumption.

This is not a farm support program. Time for farmers to get off the dole.

Yes, higher food costs and worse gas mileage.

Why do you want to rip the taxpayers of for a program that doesn't reduce carbon and was never meant as a farm support?

Ethanol was not meant as a farm support program. Farmers are laughing all the way to the bank because they are forcing Canadians to subsidize ethanol and gives us no choice in buying it for any working vehicle. They don't care if it really helps the environment or not.

1 million barrels of oil a day is a million barrels of reduced carbon in the ground. It's saving taxpayers money by having cheaper (a little) energy prices. That one million barrels a day would take into account the lesser mileage.

Nobody is forcing you to drive or buy groceries. Burning gasoline and ethanol is our most profitable industries in Canada nowadays.

I'm happy with the private costs when it gets me immediate care instead of waiting in line. If doctors are so concerned about the poor, charge 10 bucks an hour so health care is cheaper tax wise and private wise. Ditto to the professors, thousands of students swimming in debt so they can live high on the hog. Why should they get to take advantage of poor people when farmers can't? Doctors and professors get to laugh all the way to the bank because we are forced to pay for them. It works both ways. Lets not get started with first nations.

Ethanol is helping out in a large way. The economy is getting better and there is more opportunity in western Canada. Is there only opportunity allowed in Winnipeg??

Argentina is one of the biggest ag exporters in the world, if they are sitting on their ass and not putting a crop in, it helps raise prices. Refer to Manitoba cooperator.

Canadians get hosed on their taxes as far as everything goes. As taxpayers who contribute a lot to the government coffers, don't we get a right to say where tax dollars go or are they only suppossed to go to urban areas? My Income tax, property tax, and the huge sales taxes on inputs aren't worth anything???

Governments helping get industries started is the smartest use of tax dollars, it has made Alberta and Saskatchewan rich. You view supporting ethanol as welfare, I view it as an investment.

[jdobbin]

1 million barrels of oil a day is a million barrels of reduced carbon in the ground. It's saving taxpayers money by having cheaper (a little) energy prices. That one million barrels a day would take into account the lesser mileage.

I'm sorry I don't believe your figures. Give me a citation. There has been no cheaper energy prices because of ethanol. Citation for that. Citation that it takes into account lesser mileage. Demand for oil is rising at 1.2 million barrels a day. Citation that it reduces carbon when clearing forests to produce it creates carbon?

To fill your SUV requires 450 pounds of corn. That's insane.

Nobody is forcing you to drive or buy groceries. Burning gasoline and ethanol is our most profitable industries in Canada nowadays.

Talk about high handed. You are forcing me to buy your product and telling me to stop buying food if I don't like it. How about we just cut off welfare farmers from collecting on ethanol?

I'm happy with the private costs when it gets me immediate care instead of waiting in line. If doctors are so concerned about the poor, charge 10 bucks an hour so health care is cheaper tax wise and private wise. Ditto to the professors, thousands of students swimming in debt so they can live high on the hog. Why should they get to take advantage of poor people when farmers can't? Doctors and professors get to laugh all the way to the bank because we are forced to pay for them. It works both ways. Lets not get started with first nations.

Baloney. Private care and waiting for ERs happens in the U.S. as well.

Some in the right wing are happy for privatization as long as they get subsidies themselves.

Ethanol is helping out in a large way. The economy is getting better and there is more opportunity in western Canada. Is there only opportunity allowed in Winnipeg??

Farmers are laughing all the way to the bank. Meanwhile, non-farmers continue to pay taxes for grain farmers on the dole.

Argentina is one of the biggest ag exporters in the world, if they are sitting on their ass and not putting a crop in, it helps raise prices. Refer to Manitoba cooperator.

No, you post it here. Let's see some actual citations.

Canadians get hosed on their taxes as far as everything goes. As taxpayers who contribute a lot to the government coffers, don't we get a right to say where tax dollars go or are they only suppossed to go to urban areas? My Income tax, property tax, and the huge sales taxes on inputs aren't worth anything???

The whining about getting susbsidies is getting unseemly. Things don't always go to urban areas. Rural people get lots of subsidies.

Governments helping get industries started is the smartest use of tax dollars, it has made Alberta and Saskatchewan rich. You view supporting ethanol as welfare, I view it as an investment.

I'm not surprised that some on the right wing think so. Farmer could care less if it is the best solution for the carbon reduction. It isn't. They only care if it is a farm support. If the subsidy went to actual waste bio-diesel like garbage, farmers would probably be opposed.

Edited June 5, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Biofuels continues to be debated internationally.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24972289/

Studies by international organizations, including the International Monetary Fund, show that the increased demand for biofuels is contributing by 15-30 percent to food price increases, said Frederic Mousseau, a policy adviser at aid agency Oxfam.

"In some cases, biofuel production is in competition with food supply," Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda told the summit. "We need to ensure that biofuel production is sustainable."

Fukuda said countries must speed up the research and introduction of second generation biofuels, which can make fuel out of various plants and not just food crops.

While agreeing that sustainability and innovation are needed, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer said biofuels contribute only 2 or 3 percent to a predicted 43 percent rise in prices this year.

Last month, Congress enacted a farm bill that reduced a tax credit for refiners by about 10 percent per gallon. The credit supports the blending of fuel with the corn-based additive. More money would go to cellulosic ethanol, made from plant matter.

The race for even more subsidies, tariffs, protection and the like all adds up to bad news for consumers and taxpayers. We get hit with high prices because of energy demand, subsidies to the ag industry, higher food prices and shortages and all of it done to fulfill dubious environmental benefits.

[Leafless]

To fill your SUV requires 450 pounds of corn. That's insane.

As well as the extra pollution:

Paul J. Crutzen, who won the 1995 Nobel prize for chemistry, estimates that biodiesel produced from rapeseed can result in up to 70 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels. Corn, the preferred biofuels crop in the US, results in 50 percent more emissions, Crutzen estimates.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe...,530550,00.html

[blueblood]

I'm sorry I don't believe your figures. Give me a citation. There has been no cheaper energy prices because of ethanol. Citation for that. Citation that it takes into account lesser mileage. Demand for oil is rising at 1.2 million barrels a day. Citation that it reduces carbon when clearing forests to produce it creates carbon?

To fill your SUV requires 450 pounds of corn. That's insane.

Talk about high handed. You are forcing me to buy your product and telling me to stop buying food if I don't like it. How about we just cut off welfare farmers from collecting on ethanol?

Baloney. Private care and waiting for ERs happens in the U.S. as well.

Some in the right wing are happy for privatization as long as they get subsidies themselves.

Farmers are laughing all the way to the bank. Meanwhile, non-farmers continue to pay taxes for grain farmers on the dole.

No, you post it here. Let's see some actual citations.

The whining about getting susbsidies is getting unseemly. Things don't always go to urban areas. Rural people get lots of subsidies.

I'm not surprised that some on the right wing think so. Farmer could care less if it is the best solution for the carbon reduction. It isn't. They only care if it is a farm support. If the subsidy went to actual waste bio-diesel like garbage, farmers would probably be opposed.

CNN <---Argentina Strike

Do you not get the logic behind saving 1 million barrells a day does to the price of oil/gas? I would more than love to provide the link, but I can't rip out a newspaper page and paste it on the computer screen.

This is the best link I could find at IEA

iea

High handed? I am not forcing you to buy gas or food at all, if the price concerns you so much buy hydroponics or rip up your lawn and grow your own food and not pay farmers at all. Or you can buy a bicycle and bike to work, if you want that luxury of driving to work or going to the supermarket, pay for it.

How about Doctors and Professors go through a similar policy that farmers did 2 yrs. ago and work for 10 bucks an hour when demand is high? My property taxes are bankrolling a tuition freeze, and those same professors are the champions of poor people, how about they get off the dole and get paid minimum wage so that they aren't forcing poor students into debt? Same goes for doctors, they can work for minimum wage and it's easier on everyone's taxes. How about all government workers work for minimum wage and no benefits so it's easier on everyone's taxes?

Alberta is one of the richest region's in the world due to their policy. Now Canadian farmers have a similar policy and rural Canada will be prosperous as well.

Why would I be opposed to garbage as biodiesel? With oil at 130 bucks a barell, anything to help offset costs is appreciated.

The only thing high handed is wanting a food supply and not paying for it, which is what your advocating. The Canadian gov't has realized foreign subsidies will not end and has taken action to improve our ag industry and economy as efficiently as possible and mission accomplished. It is not my responsibility to provide you with food when you will not pay for it. People didn't want to pay for a cheap food policy subsidy in Canada in the first place, then they don't have the right to complain when crop prices rice. Or would you like the things were like it was before with Farmers going out of business and land being turned into pasture to the point where we would have to import food (for a price)?

And from this tone, you are a proud supporter of Bill 17 as well.

[jdobbin]

CNN <---Argentina Strike

Since this strike seems to have little to do with ethanol and since Canada has never ever considered instituting an export tax, I don't see it having any relevance here.

Do you not get the logic behind saving 1 million barrells a day does to the price of oil/gas? I would more than love to provide the link, but I can't rip out a newspaper page and paste it on the computer screen.

Demand is rising at a billion barrels a day. The savings you are talking about is so small as to be insignificant. Even if every piece of land was used in the wold to grow fuel, it would only be a fraction of the energy needs.

High handed? I am not forcing you to buy gas or food at all, if the price concerns you so much buy hydroponics or rip up your lawn and grow your own food and not pay farmers at all. Or you can buy a bicycle and bike to work, if you want that luxury of driving to work or going to the supermarket, pay for it.

Gimme a break. There isn't a Canadian alive who doesn't need energy for their homes even if they don't drive a car. Farmers are trying to tie the price to of their crop to energy and force Canadians to buy it. Then they are saying to grow your own food even though they have protectionist policies to keep people who are non-residents from buying their land.

How about Doctors and Professors go through a similar policy that farmers did 2 yrs. ago and work for 10 bucks an hour when demand is high? My property taxes are bankrolling a tuition freeze, and those same professors are the champions of poor people, how about they get off the dole and get paid minimum wage so that they aren't forcing poor students into debt? Same goes for doctors, they can work for minimum wage and it's easier on everyone's taxes. How about all government workers work for minimum wage and no benefits so it's easier on everyone's taxes?

Bring it up at your next Conservative party meeting.

Alberta is one of the richest region's in the world due to their policy. Now Canadian farmers have a similar policy and rural Canada will be prosperous as well.

Alberta is rich because of world-wide demand not because subsidies propped them up.

Why would I be opposed to garbage as biodiesel? With oil at 130 bucks a barell, anything to help offset costs is appreciated.

But you would be opposed to the subsidy being removed for grain ethanol to support garbage, I'm sure.

The only thing high handed is wanting a food supply and not paying for it, which is what your advocating. The Canadian gov't has realized foreign subsidies will not end and has taken action to improve our ag industry and economy as efficiently as possible and mission accomplished. It is not my responsibility to provide you with food when you will not pay for it. People didn't want to pay for a cheap food policy subsidy in Canada in the first place, then they don't have the right to complain when crop prices rice. Or would you like the things were like it was before with Farmers going out of business and land being turned into pasture to the point where we would have to import food (for a price)?

It's not our responsibility to support farmers with policies meant for the environment. If those policies actually produce more carbon, then they need to be abandoned.

And from this tone, you are a proud supporter of Bill 17 as well.

I'm opposed to more subsidies going to support the hob industry. I have no problems if they expand so long as they meet local and provincial environmental laws and regulations.

More and more Canadians are going to come to the same conclusion about ethanol as the law forces consumers to buy even of the product with no real benefit for the environment.

Edited June 6, 2008 by jdobbin

[blueblood]

Since this strike seems to have little to do with ethanol and since Canada has never ever considered instituting an export tax, I don't see it having any relevance here.

Demand is rising at a billion barrels a day. The savings you are talking about is so small as to be insignificant. Even if every piece of land was used in the wold to grow fuel, it would only be a fraction of the energy needs.

Gimme a break. There isn't a Canadian alive who doesn't need energy for their homes even if they don't drive a car. Farmers are trying to tie the price to of their crop to energy and force Canadians to buy it. Then they are saying to grow your own food even though they have protectionist policies to keep people who are non-residents from buying their land.

Bring it up at your next Conservative party meeting.

Alberta is rich because of world-wide demand not because subsidies propped them up.

But you would be opposed to the subsidy being removed for grain ethanol to support garbage, I'm sure.

It's not our responsibility to support farmers with policies meant for the environment. If those policies actually produce more carbon, then they need to be abandoned.

I'm opposed to more subsidies going to support the hob industry. I have no problems if they expand so long as they meet local and provincial environmental laws and regulations.

More and more Canadians are going to come to the same conclusion about ethanol as the law forces consumers to buy even of the product with no real benefit for the environment.

The strike has relevance in showing what happens when urban people go too far in policy which hurts their ag sector.

There are energy choices in Manitoba, there's hydro, coal, don't want to pay high oil prices, take out the oil furnace. Or you can live like some individuals on documentaries when they don't use any energy. It's still a choice. On the other hand, Manitobans are forced to use Hydro from the provincial gov't. The non-resident comment doesn't make sense. If you want, go buy a quarter section and never worry about food costs again. There's lots of cheap land in the world the non-residents can go buy some. Non-residents can't buy land because of the failed Soviet experiment during their regime with massive underproductive farms. By having that law in place, the gov't is making sure production is up. On the other hand, your view of agriculture supports that non-residents buy out local producers, I hope you enjoy cartel style pricing with that policy. My priority is to make money, not give my food away to middle eastern countries.

No, I'll bring up the doctor/professor comment with you, apparently you like to pick and choose who gets ahead on taxpayers dollars and hurts the poor and who doesn't. I would support the subsidy on garbage, it provides jobs, boosts the economy, and gets cheaper fuel.

science

Looks like ethanol is good for everyone and the environment. 20-30% of fuel turned to ethanol, imagine what the price of fuel would be if it was only fossil fuels...

Canadians also realize that having profitable industries that provide jobs and dollars is a good thing, they also realize that anything that helps cool off oil prices and helps our economy more is a good thing.

Albertan's are rich because of good government policy, not because of demand. Demand is high, why isn't the average venezuelan as rich as the average albertan?

[jdobbin]

The strike has relevance in showing what happens when urban people go too far in policy which hurts their ag sector.

As if that is even close to what is happening in North America. Misdirection on the part of the right wing.

There are energy choices in Manitoba, there's hydro, coal, don't want to pay high oil prices, take out the oil furnace. Or you can live like some individuals on documentaries when they don't use any energy. It's still a choice. On the other hand, Manitobans are forced to use Hydro from the provincial gov't. The non-resident comment doesn't make sense. If you want, go buy a quarter section and never worry about food costs again. There's lots of cheap land in the world the non-residents can go buy some. Non-residents can't buy land because of the failed Soviet experiment during their regime with massive underproductive farms. By having that law in place, the gov't is making sure production is up. On the other hand, your view of agriculture supports that non-residents buy out local producers, I hope you enjoy cartel style pricing with that policy. My priority is to make money, not give my food away to middle eastern countries.

Nobody forces you to be a farmer. Stop begging to supported by ethanol money.

No, I'll bring up the doctor/professor comment with you, apparently you like to pick and choose who gets ahead on taxpayers dollars and hurts the poor and who doesn't. I would support the subsidy on garbage, it provides jobs, boosts the economy, and gets cheaper fuel.

Fine, ask your Conservatives to privatize everything. You can start with ethanol.

Looks like ethanol is good for everyone and the environment. 20-30% of fuel turned to ethanol, imagine what the price of fuel would be if it was only fossil fuels...

2006 news is now outdated on the ethanol front.

From your own website, here is new news.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80216142159.htm

But there are a few catches, particularly regarding biofuels like corn-based ethanol: the more corn is used in ethanol production, the less is available for food--a reality that partly accounts for the recent run-up in world food prices. Moreover, most of the 6 billion gallons of ethanol produced annually in the United States comes from corn, but there's not enough corn available to make it a viable long-term source.

Food for fuel is a stupid policy.

Canadians also realize that having profitable industries that provide jobs and dollars is a good thing, they also realize that anything that helps cool off oil prices and helps our economy more is a good thing.

Ethanol does nothing to reduce demand and does nothing to reduce carbon. It is just a farm support program and not a very good one.

Albertan's are rich because of good government policy, not because of demand. Demand is high, why isn't the average venezuelan as rich as the average albertan?

What a crock.

Edited June 7, 2008 by jdobbin

[blueblood]

As if that is even close to what is happening in North America. Misdirection on the part of the right wing.

Nobody forces you to be a farmer. Stop begging to supported by ethanol money.

Fine, ask your Conservatives to privatize everything. You can start with ethanol.

2006 news is now outdated on the ethanol front.

From your own website, here is new news.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80216142159.htm

Food for fuel is a stupid policy.

Ethanol does nothing to reduce demand and does nothing to reduce carbon. It is just a farm support program and not a very good one.

What a crock.

It could happen in North America, there has been machinery parades in Ottawa.

I pay taxes, I and others like me have a right to suggest where tax dollars go.

I'm not saying privatize everything, I was merely pointing out that if doctors and professors want to put the kibosh on a booming prairie economy for the sake of the poor, they can put their money where their mouth is.

Overproducing food for people and not being paid for it is an even stupider policy.

Alright, go down to the states and shut down all the ethanol plants and see how much gas rises.

Yes the Venezuelan policy of not supporting their private industries is a crock and look at the mess their country is in. Newfoundland has just started to come around, as much as I like the NL premier, when he was trying to gouge the oil companies, they backed away from the table.

The Albertans have it right, they support their industries and the average albertan is better off than the average manitoban.

[jdobbin]

It could happen in North America, there has been machinery parades in Ottawa.

Highly doubtful.

I pay taxes, I and others like me have a right to suggest where tax dollars go.

Sure you do. Bring it up with the Tories if you want teachers and other cut off.

I'm not saying privatize everything, I was merely pointing out that if doctors and professors want to put the kibosh on a booming prairie economy for the sake of the poor, they can put their money where their mouth is.

Demand is already going up. It doesn't any help from ethanol.

Overproducing food for people and not being paid for it is an even stupider policy.

Then stop overproducing.

Alright, go down to the states and shut down all the ethanol plants and see how much gas rises.

The government has already clipped ethanol subsidies in the last budget in the U.S. because too much was going into gas tanks. The effect on price has more to do with world demand and oil companies fixing prices than ethanol.

Yes the Venezuelan policy of not supporting their private industries is a crock and look at the mess their country is in. Newfoundland has just started to come around, as much as I like the NL premier, when he was trying to gouge the oil companies, they backed away from the table.

They backed away from the table because oil was $63 a barrel last year versus $138 this year. The oil companies caved in.

The Albertans have it right, they support their industries and the average albertan is better off than the average manitoban.

It isn't because of oil subsides.

Are you trying to suggest that if we give farmer even more subsidies through ethanol that we'll be rich in Manitoba?

[blueblood]

Highly doubtful.

Sure you do. Bring it up with the Tories if you want teachers and other cut off.

Demand is already going up. It doesn't any help from ethanol.

Then stop overproducing.

The government has already clipped ethanol subsidies in the last budget in the U.S. because too much was going into gas tanks. The effect on price has more to do with world demand and oil companies fixing prices than ethanol.

They backed away from the table because oil was $63 a barrel last year versus $138 this year. The oil companies caved in.

It isn't because of oil subsides.

Are you trying to suggest that if we give farmer even more subsidies through ethanol that we'll be rich in Manitoba?

I'm saying they can cut themselves off, if they are preaching about taking advantage of the poor, they can put their money where their mouth is

Already taken care of overproducing, ethanol and people growing hay have done the trick, especially ethanol.

The U.S. government still is putting hundreds of billions of ethanol/farm subsidies. If too much was going into the gas tanks, wouldn't they can the program and blow up the plants?

I thought Williams had compromised as well, there wasn't much reporting on it anyway. Fact of the matter is Alberta is still much more advanced than Newfoundland as far as the oil biz goes.

Look at Alberta vs. Saskatchewan, business friendly vs. non-business friendly (prior to this year) Alberta is leaps and bounds ahead of Saskatchewan.

Considering that agriculture/agribusiness is the third largest employer in the country and that ag is a vital component of the Manitoba economy, I'd say yes. Land values increase which net higher prop. tax, more jobs in the ethanol plants. Farmers spending money on more and more things than not spending as was the case. The Russians able to keep Buhler industries going in Manitoba due to increased demand. Some Farms able to afford to pay their workers and increase their wage. People who invest in agribusiness companies getting higher stock values because the companies are doing better. In a nutshell, much the same as Alberta, who subsidized the production of oil and all the people who were involved did very well on it, which resulted in all of alberta doing well.

[jdobbin]

I'm saying they can cut themselves off, if they are preaching about taking advantage of the poor, they can put their money where their mouth is

What you are seeing there is not repeated in North America and won't be.

Already taken care of overproducing, ethanol and people growing hay have done the trick, especially ethanol.

Farmer are just using the subsidy as a crutch. As more information comes up that shows it doesn't do anything on carbon, farmers are going to resist losing the cruthc.

The U.S. government still is putting hundreds of billions of ethanol/farm subsidies. If too much was going into the gas tanks, wouldn't they can the program and blow up the plants?

They are already starting to see the problems already of one third and more of the corn crop going into gas tanks.

I thought Williams had compromised as well, there wasn't much reporting on it anyway. Fact of the matter is Alberta is still much more advanced than Newfoundland as far as the oil biz goes.

Oil business is older in Alberta. Albertans are realizing that if they give away the farm to have oil drill, they lose future money for other investments. It isn't like it is a renewable resource. It is why people are wondering why oil companies need huge subsidies when they make billions in profits.

Look at Alberta vs. Saskatchewan, business friendly vs. non-business friendly (prior to this year) Alberta is leaps and bounds ahead of Saskatchewan.

Saskatchewan was booming even before this year. The right wing might not like that but that is the truth.

They haven't boomed because they are giving away the farm.

Considering that agriculture/agribusiness is the third largest employer in the country and that ag is a vital component of the Manitoba economy, I'd say yes. Land values increase which net higher prop. tax, more jobs in the ethanol plants. Farmers spending money on more and more things than not spending as was the case. The Russians able to keep Buhler industries going in Manitoba due to increased demand. Some Farms able to afford to pay their workers and increase their wage. People who invest in agribusiness companies getting higher stock values because the companies are doing better. In a nutshell, much the same as Alberta, who subsidized the production of oil and all the people who were involved did very well on it, which resulted in all of alberta doing well.

I figured as much. What sort of right wing is this that wants to cut teachers and the like but to pay subsidies out the ear to farmers?

[blueblood]

What you are seeing there is not repeated in North America and won't be.

Farmer are just using the subsidy as a crutch. As more information comes up that shows it doesn't do anything on carbon, farmers are going to resist losing the cruthc.

They are already starting to see the problems already of one third and more of the corn crop going into gas tanks.

Oil business is older in Alberta. Albertans are realizing that if they give away the farm to have oil drill, they lose future money for other investments. It isn't like it is a renewable resource. It is why people are wondering why oil companies need huge subsidies when they make billions in profits.

Saskatchewan was booming even before this year. The right wing might not like that but that is the truth.

They haven't boomed because they are giving away the farm.

I figured as much. What sort of right wing is this that wants to cut teachers and the like but to pay subsidies out the ear to farmers?

I'm not saying the gov't should cut teachers, I'm saying it's frustrating when a University prof. of ethics writes an editorial in the western producer slamming the ag sector for taking advantage of poor people and ethanol subsidies, when at the same time he enjoys a tuition freeze and a cushy job. If this professor wants to bring back when food was in high demand yet cheap and Canadian farmers were going broke due to subsidies from the U.S./Europe, that same professor can work for minimum wage and then give farmers what for.

If you watch CNN, they are complaining about high fuel costs more than food prices. Take out ethanol, and watch the price of oil and gas really take off. There is enough info supporting biofuel as there is denouncing it.

The economy of Western Canada and now atlantic Canada is enjoying success due to higher oil prices, the same is now happening with farming. Shall we go back to the 80's and early 90's when commodities were in the tank???

If Saskatchewan was "booming" why did the NDP get the boot and a right wing gov't took over???

Oil companies need the subsidies to set up infrastructure and get their operations started, they are always starting new operations. One needs to compare Alberta and Saskatchewan in the NDP era.

[jdobbin]

I'm not saying the gov't should cut teachers, I'm saying it's frustrating when a University prof. of ethics writes an editorial in the western producer slamming the ag sector for taking advantage of poor people and ethanol subsidies, when at the same time he enjoys a tuition freeze and a cushy job. If this professor wants to bring back when food was in high demand yet cheap and Canadian farmers were going broke due to subsidies from the U.S./Europe, that same professor can work for minimum wage and then give farmers what for.

If you don't want to cut teachers and doctors, stop threatening it. It makes people think that is what the right wing agenda is. To privatize everything...except farmers, of course.

If you watch CNN, they are complaining about high fuel costs more than food prices. Take out ethanol, and watch the price of oil and gas really take off. There is enough info supporting biofuel as there is denouncing it.

I'm afraid that isn't what research is showing now. Food for fuel support is dropping like a stone and experts are saying that they never supported subsidies at this level to tie grain and corn to the price of energy and have it compete for food supply.

Dropping ethanol subsidies won't result in a big surge of oil prices. Producing ethanol consumes more of that resource anyway.

The economy of Western Canada and now atlantic Canada is enjoying success due to higher oil prices, the same is now happening with farming. Shall we go back to the 80's and early 90's when commodities were in the tank???

Commodities are going up due to demand. Ethanol subsidies are not needed. Farmers will still do well.

If Saskatchewan was "booming" why did the NDP get the boot and a right wing gov't took over???

You obviously haven't read anything post script on the election. The NDP were tossed out because Saskatchewan people were feeling confident and were looking for change. They were not tossed out for a bad economy.

Oil companies need the subsidies to set up infrastructure and get their operations started, they are always starting new operations. One needs to compare Alberta and Saskatchewan in the NDP era.

Oh please. When oil companies are making billions, they go to governments who are only to willing to help defer the costs. It isn't needed when demand is this high.

Any true right winger would see that.

[blueblood]

If you don't want to cut teachers and doctors, stop threatening it. It makes people think that is what the right wing agenda is. To privatize everything...except farmers, of course.

I'm afraid that isn't what research is showing now. Food for fuel support is dropping like a stone and experts are saying that they never supported subsidies at this level to tie grain and corn to the price of energy and have it compete for food supply.

Dropping ethanol subsidies won't result in a big surge of oil prices. Producing ethanol consumes more of that resource anyway.

Commodities are going up due to demand. Ethanol subsidies are not needed. Farmers will still do well.

You obviously haven't read anything post script on the election. The NDP were tossed out because Saskatchewan people were feeling confident and were looking for change. They were not tossed out for a bad economy.

Oh please. When oil companies are making billions, they go to governments who are only to willing to help defer the costs. It isn't needed when demand is this high.

Any true right winger would see that.

Stop threatening what. The Agribusiness and Agriculture sector is not allowed to have an opinion where there tax dollars go? Elitists dictating that we must grow grain for food and that we must not have a business friendly environment, but they get to have all the goodies? That's what the particular ethics professor thinks.

I've seen research shown me that a little tiny portion is used to manufacture ethanol, which gets used anyways in agricultural overproduction.

Farmers and the economy of Western Canada will do better with ethanol, and with ethanol it takes some uncertainty out of the market. Plus with the higher values of food, people in poor countries will be encouraged to grow their own food, I think they should be allowed to make a living instead of living on a subsidized lifestyle.

The NDP in Saskatchewan were tossed out because they saw a well run machine next door and didn't want to be held back. If that logic is true, why have the tories been in power for 30 plus years in Alberta.

The logic of not helping out corporations is why they look outside of Canada for doing their business. High demand or not. Don't take my word for it, Alberta helped out billion dollar American corporations set up shop there, and they are much better off. Had they not, those companies would have went elsewhere and our economy would be in worse shape than it is, we'd be where NFLD is, just starting to get going instead of doing well for a long time.

A true right winger knows that there is no problem spending one dollar to get two so to speak.

Edited June 10, 2008 by blueblood

[jdobbin]

Stop threatening what. The Agribusiness and Agriculture sector is not allowed to have an opinion where there tax dollars go? Elitists dictating that we must grow grain for food and that we must not have a business friendly environment, but they get to have all the goodies? That's what the particular ethics professor thinks.

You just said you didn't mean that you wanted privatization of medicine and education. I guess that is what you really meant.

I've seen research shown me that a little tiny portion is used to manufacture ethanol, which gets used anyways in agricultural overproduction.

Citation? I keep showing you the opposite. Not that some farmers are interested. This is seen as a farm support system.

Farmers and the economy of Western Canada will do better with ethanol, and with ethanol it takes some uncertainty out of the market. Plus with the higher values of food, people in poor countries will be encouraged to grow their own food, I think they should be allowed to make a living instead of living on a subsidized lifestyle.

People in poor countries will be encouraged to grow food for fuel. The west has shown the way.

The NDP in Saskatchewan were tossed out because they saw a well run machine next door and didn't want to be held back.

Totally bogus. What right wing tripe.

If that logic is true, why have the tories been in power for 30 plus years in Alberta.

Because they have a history of running as a one party state for decades.

The logic of not helping out corporations is why they look outside of Canada for doing their business. High demand or not. Don't take my word for it, Alberta helped out billion dollar American corporations set up shop there, and they are much better off. Had they not, those companies would have went elsewhere and our economy would be in worse shape than it is, we'd be where NFLD is, just starting to get going instead of doing well for a long time.

Baloney. Texas has higher royalties than Alberta. Does that drive the industry out of Texas?

Is it funny watching the right wing deception.

A true right winger knows that there is no problem spending one dollar to get two so to speak.

More baloney. We pay a subsidy and are forced to buy ethanol in our gas despite the increase in demand world-wide. Then we say an increase in food prices because food is being used for fuel. We get taxed and pay a higher price for fuel and for food? Tell me how the consumer or the taxpayer wins?

And then farmers say this all good for the environment despite mounting evidence that it results in more oil based fertilizer, more use of farm equipment, more transportation costs to take product to ethanol plants and more carbon than if people just used gas.

[Wild Bill]

Because they have a history of running as a one party state for decades.

I realize that we're talking provincial parties here but wouldn't the tarnishing of the Liberal brand with Trudeau's NEP be even a TINY factor?

When you hurt so many people so deeply it can take generations before they forget. I don't think those of us who live outside of Alberta can understand beyond an abstract intellectual level how they feel towards the Liberal name.

It will take another 20-25 years before enough old folks die off to change the demographics. Assuming the aversion to Liberals has not become entrenched as a matter of self-sustaining culture.

[jdobbin]

I realize that we're talking provincial parties here but wouldn't the tarnishing of the Liberal brand with Trudeau's NEP be even a TINY factor?

We are talking provincial parties here. The Liberals of B.C. and Quebec are different from their federal counterparts in many ways.

We are also talking about something unique to Alberta politics. Once they are done with a political party, they don't seem to go back to that party. And the one they do go to another party, they stick around with for decades.

When you hurt so many people so deeply it can take generations before they forget. I don't think those of us who live outside of Alberta can understand beyond an abstract intellectual level how they feel towards the Liberal name.

It will take another 20-25 years before enough old folks die off to change the demographics. Assuming the aversion to Liberals has not become entrenched as a matter of self-sustaining culture.

I think most Albertans know that the provincial Liberal party didn't set up the NEP. They also know that the provincial PCs were not the ones to screw the west on the CF-18 and didn't abandon the party provincially as did their federal counterparts.

In any event, the provincial Liberals were not so tarnished in the 1990s. Just ten or so years after NEP they made a run for power. Only the populist support of Klein probably kept the PCs in power at that time.

If the Liberals had not self destructed out of their own accord and forced Laurence Decore out, who knows? A rematch might have caught Klein when he was vulnerable on several personal and political fronts. Decore's death in 1999 ended any hope of that.

It seems the provincial Liberals have struggled as an organization ever since.

In any event, Alberta has a history on one party staying in power a very long time. It seems to have very little to do with what happens in Ottawa.

[blueblood]

You just said you didn't mean that you wanted privatization of medicine and education. I guess that is what you really meant.

Citation? I keep showing you the opposite. Not that some farmers are interested. This is seen as a farm support system.

People in poor countries will be encouraged to grow food for fuel. The west has shown the way.

Totally bogus. What right wing tripe.

Because they have a history of running as a one party state for decades.

Baloney. Texas has higher royalties than Alberta. Does that drive the industry out of Texas?

Is it funny watching the right wing deception.

More baloney. We pay a subsidy and are forced to buy ethanol in our gas despite the increase in demand world-wide. Then we say an increase in food prices because food is being used for fuel. We get taxed and pay a higher price for fuel and for food? Tell me how the consumer or the taxpayer wins?

And then farmers say this all good for the environment despite mounting evidence that it results in more oil based fertilizer, more use of farm equipment, more transportation costs to take product to ethanol plants and more carbon than if people just used gas.

I'm saying I want that prof to put his money where his mouth is. If he feels the poor are so oppressed, he can voluntarily take a pay cut and help out.

I gave you a citiation on that a couple of posts ago.

People in poor countries might be able to earn a living growing food and fuel, how horrible.

The NDP has enjoyed long terms of power in Saskatchewan on two seperate occasions.

Texas also has quicker access to the markets. Texas has also been oil producing much longer than Alberta has, I'd like to see what the royalty rates were when the oil industry was in it's infancy there. Also the royalty rates are fairly generous in other parts of the world, that's why U.S. companies are setting up shop there instead of draining texas dry.

It's also funny watching left wing deception, ---> I'm allowed to make money and your not.

I'm not forcing anyone to buy gas or food. An urban lifestyle has its costs, if it's too much, live in the bush. It's also funny the left wing having to resort to fear tactics to make an argument against biofuels, fear tactics generally don't work.

That last part is pure baloney. Farmers have been using machinery like crazy in order to maximize land use to try and get every little bit out of their land for garbage prices. The more product they sell the more money they get. They don't get paid a wage. If they did get paid a wage, then maybe they'd set aside some land. I've used the same amt. of fertilizer for the last ten years. There's also an increase in demand of fuel worldwide that apparently is more valued than food dollarwise, policy makers realize this and are able to cool off prices somewhat, help the environment, provide jobs, and strengthen the economy. When a country is a net exporter of a commodity, higher prices are a good thing.

The economy of Manitoba doesn't stop at the perimeter highway.

[jdobbin]

I'm saying I want that prof to put his money where his mouth is. If he feels the poor are so oppressed, he can voluntarily take a pay cut and help out.

This is just the right wing attacking public funding on things they don't like such as education and health.

I gave you a citiation on that a couple of posts ago.

And I have given you several more recent studies that counter.

People in poor countries might be able to earn a living growing food and fuel, how horrible.

And lead to starvation when their crops end up in fuel tanks rather than feeding even their farmers.

The NDP has enjoyed long terms of power in Saskatchewan on two seperate occasions.

Usually rebuilding from conservative mismanagement.

Texas also has quicker access to the markets. Texas has also been oil producing much longer than Alberta has, I'd like to see what the royalty rates were when the oil industry was in it's infancy there. Also the royalty rates are fairly generous in other parts of the world, that's why U.S. companies are setting up shop there instead of draining texas dry.

Canada has among the lowest royalty rates in the world. Even Albertans realized that they were giving away the farm. They realized that with a dwindling resource, it is important to set aside money otherwise they risk becoming a ghost town in the future.

It's also funny watching left wing deception, ---> I'm allowed to make money and your not.

The right wing deception is that this is fiscally responsible as well as good for the environment.

I'm not forcing anyone to buy gas or food. An urban lifestyle has its costs, if it's too much, live in the bush. It's also funny the left wing having to resort to fear tactics to make an argument against biofuels, fear tactics generally don't work.

What a totally disingenuous remark. Of course you are forcing people to buy your product. Food and gas is an urban lifestyle?

The right wing bully boy tactic of forcing people to pay for their product and making them may twice for it in higher prices and taxes is a crock.

That last part is pure baloney. Farmers have been using machinery like crazy in order to maximize land use to try and get every little bit out of their land for garbage prices. The more product they sell the more money they get. They don't get paid a wage. If they did get paid a wage, then maybe they'd set aside some land. I've used the same amt. of fertilizer for the last ten years. There's also an increase in demand of fuel worldwide that apparently is more valued than food dollarwise, policy makers realize this and are able to cool off prices somewhat, help the environment, provide jobs, and strengthen the economy. When a country is a net exporter of a commodity, higher prices are a good thing.

I have no problem farmers getting paid for their work. Right now ethanol is turning food into fuel and some on the right wing think that is a great thing. It isn't.

This was supposed to be an environmental program. It isn't a very good one and for that alone, it should end.

The economy of Manitoba doesn't stop at the perimeter highway.

No, it doesn't. However, ethanol using food for fuel is a bad program for all people no matter where they live.

[blueblood]

This is just the right wing attacking public funding on things they don't like such as education and health.

And I have given you several more recent studies that counter.

And lead to starvation when their crops end up in fuel tanks rather than feeding even their farmers.

Usually rebuilding from conservative mismanagement.

Canada has among the lowest royalty rates in the world. Even Albertans realized that they were giving away the farm. They realized that with a dwindling resource, it is important to set aside money otherwise they risk becoming a ghost town in the future.

The right wing deception is that this is fiscally responsible as well as good for the environment.

What a totally disingenuous remark. Of course you are forcing people to buy your product. Food and gas is an urban lifestyle?

The right wing bully boy tactic of forcing people to pay for their product and making them may twice for it in higher prices and taxes is a crock.

I have no problem farmers getting paid for their work. Right now ethanol is turning food into fuel and some on the right wing think that is a great thing. It isn't.

This was supposed to be an environmental program. It isn't a very good one and for that alone, it should end.

No, it doesn't. However, ethanol using food for fuel is a bad program for all people no matter where they live.

Your attacking public funding of things you don't like. You don't want to use public funds to guarantee a supply of cheap food years ago and now you don't want public funds to support industries. We're in the same boat as we want public funds going to some things and not others.

People have been starving for years. A land set aside program would cause people to starve, so do incredibly low prices in the 90's and early part of this decade causing farmers to let their land go, seed it to hay (beef to expensive for 3rd world), or growing trees instead of food. Then there's industrial crops, should hemp and canola and flax not be grown?

They needed the low rates to get the industry going in the first place. Hard to attract business when it costs a lot of money to do business. Ireland knows this strategy real well.

How am I forcing you to buy my product, am I going to go to your house and trash your garden if you wanted to grow your own vegetables. Am I going to take a bat to your knees so you can't shoot a moose or go fishing? Am I going to burn your house down if you popped up a windmill and used solar power all over? Would I throw your bicycle in the lake?

You'd be fine with farmers getting paid a wage, I wouldn't mind that too, but who's going to pay that wage? I don't get a wage, I get paid for what I sell. In the early part of this decade farmers weren't getting paid fairly; demand was high and prices were low due to European subsidies. In Canada the farmer has to make money or nothing gets grown, there are two ways this was going to happen; production gets cut and less grain gets sent out rising prices to profitability and poor people end up paying more, or ethanol plants come in and offer an alternative market, overproduction gets used up, prices rice to profitability, jobs are created, and it helps the environment, and yes poor people end up paying more. We have tried the way you support in the 90's and early part of this decade and it is unsustainable and doesn't benefit anyone, time for a change.

Canada is the 5th largest grain exporter of the world and was going out of business due to the U.S. and E.U. Imagine what that would do to food prices if Canada went out of business. Ethanol is a no-brainer.

[jdobbin]

Your attacking public funding of things you don't like. You don't want to use public funds to guarantee a supply of cheap food years ago and now you don't want public funds to support industries. We're in the same boat as we want public funds going to some things and not others.

I am against public funding things that do more harm than good. Ethanol falls into that category. It is bad for the environment and produces more carbon than it saves.

People have been starving for years. A land set aside program would cause people to starve, so do incredibly low prices in the 90's and early part of this decade causing farmers to let their land go, seed it to hay (beef to expensive for 3rd world), or growing trees instead of food. Then there's industrial crops, should hemp and canola and flax not be grown?

If they have to be subsidized to support them and harm the environment, no.

They needed the low rates to get the industry going in the first place. Hard to attract business when it costs a lot of money to do business. Ireland knows this strategy real well.

Low taxation is not the same as direct subsidies to industry.

How am I forcing you to buy my product, am I going to go to your house and trash your garden if you wanted to grow your own vegetables. Am I going to take a bat to your knees so you can't shoot a moose or go fishing? Am I going to burn your house down if you popped up a windmill and used solar power all over? Would I throw your bicycle in the lake?

Gimme a break. This is your answer? How about we just pull the plug on ethanol subsidy and you can grow what you want based on actual market prices?

You'd be fine with farmers getting paid a wage, I wouldn't mind that too, but who's going to pay that wage? I don't get a wage, I get paid for what I sell. In the early part of this decade farmers weren't getting paid fairly; demand was high and prices were low due to European subsidies. In Canada the farmer has to make money or nothing gets grown, there are two ways this was going to happen; production gets cut and less grain gets sent out rising prices to profitability and poor people end up paying more, or ethanol plants come in and offer an alternative market, overproduction gets used up, prices rice to profitability, jobs are created, and it helps the environment, and yes poor people end up paying more. We have tried the way you support in the 90's and early part of this decade and it is unsustainable and doesn't benefit anyone, time for a change.

It doesn't help the environment. That claims is totally bogus and more and more people are starting to realize that food for fuel hurts more people than helps.

Canada is the 5th largest grain exporter of the world and was going out of business due to the U.S. and E.U. Imagine what that would do to food prices if Canada went out of business. Ethanol is a no-brainer.

Ethanol is not going to be a solution for farmers long term prospects. It certainly doesn't help the environment and link after link is showing that. Food for fuel is terrible plan and one that politicians will soon abandon when prices start hurting other parts of the economy.

Just today John McCain said that ethanol subsidies should end.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stor...09/daily52.html

Shares of Pacific Ethanol plummeted almost 6 percent in trading Wednesday, a day after the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported a lower-than-expected corn harvest and Republican presidential candidate John McCain said the federal government should end ethanol subsidies.

Does this mean farmers will now support Barack Obama?

The U.S. government is saying that gas prices would be 20 to 35 cents higher without ethanol but the damage it is doing to major production companies is influencing the election campaign. Tyson, Kellog and Pilgrim Pride are protesting ethanol.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/govt...&dist=msr_1

Corn-based ethanol has become a lightning rod of controversy, with food makers Pilgrim's Pride, Tyson Foods Inc. and Kellogg among those criticizing government policies.

More and more polling is showing both Americans and Canadians reducing their support for ethanol.

[CoachCartman]

Overall, consumer prices for food consumed at home in Canada have risen only 1.2% in the 12 months ending in April 2008....Statcan

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/080612/d080612a.htm

I don't see what the big deal is