The Issue of Ethanol

[blueblood]

That says food for fuel is good? I think not. Farmers can't seriously think that 1/3 of the corn crop going to fuel tanks is a good thing. The pressure to go that route in Canada is increasing.

Who says consumers don't want to pay? It is farmers that keep asking for help. Help with insurance, help with cheap water, help with exports.

Farmers remain protected from buy outs by various laws. That hasn't changed. I still believe there are sellers for the right price but that farm lobbies would prevent it.

Ethanol jobs come at too high a price. You would get far more jobs from a tax cut.

If prices are going up regardless, we can get rid of the ethanol subsidy.

If 1/3 of corn was just going to sit in a pile than it is a good thing.

Have you not seen demonstrations in Italy, they live in a first world country and are wanting cheap food made at a loss. If there was no cheap food policy without subsidies we wouldn't need help.

There may be sellers, but there is not so much now, especially when it is lucarative.

Favorable tax policies and favorable industrial policies produce the most job, refer to Alberta.

Don't worry, the subsidy will be gone when the industry is established.

[jdobbin]

If 1/3 of corn was just going to sit in a pile than it is a good thing.

Citation for that?

Have you not seen demonstrations in Italy, they live in a first world country and are wanting cheap food made at a loss. If there was no cheap food policy without subsidies we wouldn't need help.

There are no demonstrations in Canada but there are people wondering why there is a subsidy for ethanol if it doesn't do what it is supposed to do which is be better for the environment. It was never meant as a farmer welfare system.

There may be sellers, but there is not so much now, especially when it is lucarative.

Then the restrictions on farm land should end. I'll bet cattle and hog ranchers would sell in a red hot minute and then the new corporate owners could grow grain for ethanol.

Favorable tax policies and favorable industrial policies produce the most job, refer to Alberta.

Great. Let's lower taxes then instead of subsidizing an industry with a dubious environmental objective.

Don't worry, the subsidy will be gone when the industry is established.

Just like the oil subsidies?

We have corporate and farmer subsidies and all it does is skew the market even when it isn't necessary.

[JB Globe]

Maybe it works for the densly populated areas around toronto, but it will not work here. There is not the population base to be able to pay for it, or to make it worth while. I can tell you that I will not be biking 3 hours to work everyday. The situtation really changes once you get outside of urbanized Ontario

Let's be clear I was talking about suburban areas. They drain the most energy out of any lifestyle. I'm sure that all of rural Canada doesn't come close to using the same amount of energy (I'm talking gas, electricity, everything combined) as even one medium sized-suburb of Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver.

And that's why we need a national land-use strategy. One that enforces sustainability and efficiency, while leaving the provinces with enough wiggle room to adapt the policy to their specific needs.

I believe there is no practical reason to still be building traditional-style suburbs (think cul-de-sacs and power-centres). They are incredible energy hogs, they're money-pits because it takes much more cash to give such a low-density area adequate services, and they eat up grade A farmland which will become increasingly valuable in a world where we're seeing increasing food shortages.

Every city in Canada can and should be doing more to develop in a way that can support things like transit, and it's even possible to redevelop suburbs, there just has to be enough political will to do the work and stand up to the developers.

[blueblood]

Citation for that?

There are no demonstrations in Canada but there are people wondering why there is a subsidy for ethanol if it doesn't do what it is supposed to do which is be better for the environment. It was never meant as a farmer welfare system.

Then the restrictions on farm land should end. I'll bet cattle and hog ranchers would sell in a red hot minute and then the new corporate owners could grow grain for ethanol.

Great. Let's lower taxes then instead of subsidizing an industry with a dubious environmental objective.

Just like the oil subsidies?

We have corporate and farmer subsidies and all it does is skew the market even when it isn't necessary.

Whether or not it is better for the environment is debatable. It's more than a farmer welfare system. There is a cheap food policy in the industrialized world and food is heavily subsidized, The Liberal Party of Canada beat that system by getting cheap food and not having to pay for it, thankfully they were thrown out of office. Now with this in place everyone in rural Canada is doing better, and the economy of Manitoba is stronger than it was 5 yrs. ago. The Canadian biofuel plan, and I emphasize Canadian is the most efficient way at delivering somewhat a cheaper food policy, and at the same time paying a fair price for it also providing spin of jobs as a consequence, you cannot say Manitoba is worse off with this. The already much higher valued land is music to the ears of the provincial government. Just wait till second gen. biofuel comes in, Winnipeg won't have to worry about stubble burning and it would be of economic benefit to clean up the algae on Lake Winnipeg.

Corporate owners won't buy land for grain farming, it's too risky and they can't grow as much product as many farmers running their own. They "farm the farmers" and have been doing so for years.

Wait a minute, taxes are already being lowered. By creating a market that is friendly to do business in, it boosts the economy of the area and makes its inhabitants richer. Alberta isn't certainly poorer off with its oil subsidies and is the best economic region on the continent. If the government has to spend 100 dollars in order to get 200 back, then why not?

[jdobbin]

Whether or not it is better for the environment is debatable. It's more than a farmer welfare system. There is a cheap food policy in the industrialized world and food is heavily subsidized, The Liberal Party of Canada beat that system by getting cheap food and not having to pay for it, thankfully they were thrown out of office. Now with this in place everyone in rural Canada is doing better, and the economy of Manitoba is stronger than it was 5 yrs. ago. The Canadian biofuel plan, and I emphasize Canadian is the most efficient way at delivering somewhat a cheaper food policy, and at the same time paying a fair price for it also providing spin of jobs as a consequence, you cannot say Manitoba is worse off with this. The already much higher valued land is music to the ears of the provincial government. Just wait till second gen. biofuel comes in, Winnipeg won't have to worry about stubble burning and it would be of economic benefit to clean up the algae on Lake Winnipeg.

By your words it is an expensive food system that the Tories support. Commodity prices are going up regardless due to demand aside from ethanol.

Ethanol is a subsidy for farmers that is not needed. And given the mounting evidence that it doesn't help the environment, the whole thing should be re-thought.

If the Tories want to get booted out quick, they will will not let the ethanol subsidy lead to food inflation and shortages.

Corporate owners won't buy land for grain farming, it's too risky and they can't grow as much product as many farmers running their own. They "farm the farmers" and have been doing so for years.

Corporate farming is growing and to deny it is to be blind to what is happening around the world. If you don't believe that farmers won't sell, remove the protection farmers have from people buying their land.

Wait a minute, taxes are already being lowered. By creating a market that is friendly to do business in, it boosts the economy of the area and makes its inhabitants richer. Alberta isn't certainly poorer off with its oil subsidies and is the best economic region on the continent. If the government has to spend 100 dollars in order to get 200 back, then why not?

Citation that they are paying that much to get that much back?

There are no need for more subsidies for oil companies when they are already make substantial profits. The oil subsidy is making even some Albertans wonder if it is a good thing now when demand is high.

Perhaps farmers could get off the subsidy as well since they say demand is high anyways.

[Bonam]

Ethanol, and other biofuels, are a disaster. Anyone who has any technical, rather than political, background should be able to realize this instantly.

Biofuels are grown on the soil. They take the resources away from the soil, and are then burnt into gases in the atmosphere, which cannot be recovered. How is the soil replenished to allow crop after crop for use in biofuels to be grown? Artificial fertilizers. How are artificial fertilizers made? Using lots and lots of oil, energy, and chemicals.

People have been using "biofuels" for thousands of years. It was called burning wood. Look what happened to Europe's forests using that method. Deforestation and destruction of useable farmland are obvious effects of using biofuels, that should have been apparent to anyone proposing them.

Similarly, electric vehicles have a similar problem, another environmental issue that, while prominent in the 90s, has been forgotten in the 21st century, as all focus went to global warming. Millions upon millions of enormous, highly toxic NiMH or Lithium-Ion or Lithium-Polymer batteries that become depleted after several years of operation will need to be disposed continually if we use electric vehicles. Batteries have never been produced of and disposed on a comparable scale before, and the toxins and chemicals that will enter the environment as a result of the disposal of these batteries are a huge issue that is rarely mentioned.

Yes, global warming is an environmental issue, but people seem to have forgotten about all the other issues in their zeal to do something about global warming. Remember the deforestation that was a huge issue in the 90s, remember the loss of farmland due to unsustainable farming techniques, remember the toxic chemicals that flow into the environment, remember the particulate matter in the air, etc.

A new technology for vehicles needs to not only produce less emissions, but also not burn things that take a lot of biological resources to produce, and not use up large amounts of highly toxic components (batteries) over short timescales. Some types of fuel cells are a possible solution, some types of nuclear power sources are a possible solution, but biofuels clearly are not.

Edited April 29, 2008 by Bonam

[jdobbin]

Ethanol, and other biofuels, are a disaster. Anyone who has any technical, rather than political, background should be able to realize this instantly.

The only way I see it working is if it uses actual straw waste or other bio-mass waste products. Using actual grain and corn for the task and trying to call it waste is just not accurate.

This program is a farm subsidy rather than an environmental program.

[blueblood]

By your words it is an expensive food system that the Tories support. Commodity prices are going up regardless due to demand aside from ethanol.

Ethanol is a subsidy for farmers that is not needed. And given the mounting evidence that it doesn't help the environment, the whole thing should be re-thought.

If the Tories want to get booted out quick, they will will not let the ethanol subsidy lead to food inflation and shortages.

Corporate farming is growing and to deny it is to be blind to what is happening around the world. If you don't believe that farmers won't sell, remove the protection farmers have from people buying their land.

Citation that they are paying that much to get that much back?

There are no need for more subsidies for oil companies when they are already make substantial profits. The oil subsidy is making even some Albertans wonder if it is a good thing now when demand is high.

Perhaps farmers could get off the subsidy as well since they say demand is high anyways.

If commodity prices are going up besides from ethanol, than it isn't a problem then. The tories do not want expensive food, when they thought the biofuel strategy, they put in low numbers needed so that there is still food availible.

The Canadian ethanol plan wasn't needed?, I sure don't want to go back to the days of half assed Liberal ag policy and a gutted rural and Manitoba economy thank you very much.

So those adds for land for sale are false? Any one person can buy land.

If the oil company subsidies were so bad, how come the Albertans elected another Conservative government with a larger majority. Oh those Albertans, the few and far between who voted otherwise.

Look the biofuel plan has had a very positive impact on the economy of Manitoba and people are getting richer because of it. It's bad when people have to resort to fear tactics so that their cheap food doesn't go away. Cheap food being produced at below cost is unsustainable, non efficient agriculture. The Tories have found the perfect balance of producing affordable food, cleaning up the environment, and rejuvenating the rural economy and the economy of Canada as a whole. The tories aren't going anywhere, and anyone who runs against this ag policy will lose. Scare tactics didn't work the last time, and they won't work for this.

The Liberal ag policy of having western canadian farmers as peasants who are forced to give away their crops and not get paid for them while farmers in other countries do is finally gone. And the Liberals wonder why Western Canadians hate them...

[blueblood]

Ethanol, and other biofuels, are a disaster. Anyone who has any technical, rather than political, background should be able to realize this instantly.

Biofuels are grown on the soil. They take the resources away from the soil, and are then burnt into gases in the atmosphere, which cannot be recovered. How is the soil replenished to allow crop after crop for use in biofuels to be grown? Artificial fertilizers. How are artificial fertilizers made? Using lots and lots of oil, energy, and chemicals.

People have been using "biofuels" for thousands of years. It was called burning wood. Look what happened to Europe's forests using that method. Deforestation and destruction of useable farmland are obvious effects of using biofuels, that should have been apparent to anyone proposing them.

Similarly, electric vehicles have a similar problem, another environmental issue that, while prominent in the 90s, has been forgotten in the 21st century, as all focus went to global warming. Millions upon millions of enormous, highly toxic NiMH or Lithium-Ion or Lithium-Polymer batteries that become depleted after several years of operation will need to be disposed continually if we use electric vehicles. Batteries have never been produced of and disposed on a comparable scale before, and the toxins and chemicals that will enter the environment as a result of the disposal of these batteries are a huge issue that is rarely mentioned.

Yes, global warming is an environmental issue, but people seem to have forgotten about all the other issues in their zeal to do something about global warming. Remember the deforestation that was a huge issue in the 90s, remember the loss of farmland due to unsustainable farming techniques, remember the toxic chemicals that flow into the environment, remember the particulate matter in the air, etc.

A new technology for vehicles needs to not only produce less emissions, but also not burn things that take a lot of biological resources to produce, and not use up large amounts of highly toxic components (batteries) over short timescales. Some types of fuel cells are a possible solution, some types of nuclear power sources are a possible solution, but biofuels clearly are not.

The cheap food policy forcing farmers in 3rd world countries out of business is a much bigger disaster.

If people don't want grain going into biofuels, by all means you can pay for it yourselves and do what you want with it.

Modern farming practices have been around longer than biofuels, your argument makes as much sense as Greenpeace trying to ban the GMO's; Greenpeace likes seeing little Asian kids running around blind I suppose.

If all the farmers adopted this hippie farming style nonsense, there would be much more food shortage problems than there are now.

[jdobbin]

If commodity prices are going up besides from ethanol, than it isn't a problem then. The tories do not want expensive food, when they thought the biofuel strategy, they put in low numbers needed so that there is still food availible.

Citation for low numbers? It keeps growing each year.

The Canadian ethanol plan wasn't needed?, I sure don't want to go back to the days of half assed Liberal ag policy and a gutted rural and Manitoba economy thank you very much.

I don't know how many times it has to be told to farmers. Ethanol was not supposed to be a farm support system for farmers.

So those adds for land for sale are false? Any one person can buy land.

The Manitoba Farm Lands Act forbids sales to people outside Manitoba.

http://www.manitobafarmland.com/purchasing.aspx

This Act places restrictions on non-resident ownership of Manitoba farm land. Acquisitions of farm land by Eligible Individuals or Qualified Immigrants is permitted.

An Eligible Individual is defined as meaning a citizen of Canada or a permanent resident of Canada within the meaning of The Immigration Act. If the Purchaser obtains a visa, immigrates to Canada and establishes a permanent residence here, the Purchaser will be an Eligible Individual.

This is open land policy?

If the oil company subsidies were so bad, how come the Albertans elected another Conservative government with a larger majority. Oh those Albertans, the few and far between who voted otherwise.

Only 40% voted at all. And it wasn't about the subsidies. Most Albertans believe royalties are too low according to polls. It amounts to a subsidy. Then there are the direct subsidies and many Albertans think those should end too.

A majority was elected for the NDP in Manitoba. They must get support for all their policies too, right?

Look the biofuel plan has had a very positive impact on the economy of Manitoba and people are getting richer because of it. It's bad when people have to resort to fear tactics so that their cheap food doesn't go away. Cheap food being produced at below cost is unsustainable, non efficient agriculture. The Tories have found the perfect balance of producing affordable food, cleaning up the environment, and rejuvenating the rural economy and the economy of Canada as a whole. The tories aren't going anywhere, and anyone who runs against this ag policy will lose. Scare tactics didn't work the last time, and they won't work for this.

This was not meant to be an expensive food policy. The evidence grows daily that growing food for fuel is a poor policy. It is not a good environment policy but it seems many farmers don't care about that.

The Liberal ag policy of having western canadian farmers as peasants who are forced to give away their crops and not get paid for them while farmers in other countries do is finally gone. And the Liberals wonder why Western Canadians hate them...

What utter bunk. The policy on ethanol started with the Liberals and the present Liberal policy is to enrich the policy even more. If you really cared about ethanol, you would support the Liberals since their policy on ethanol is even greater than the Tory one.

I happen to disagree with all the parties on ethanol and I think it is just a matter of time before one of the parties breaks from the policy of using grain for fuel.

Edited April 29, 2008 by jdobbin

[White Doors]

The cheap food policy forcing farmers in 3rd world countries out of business is a much bigger disaster.

If people don't want grain going into biofuels, by all means you can pay for it yourselves and do what you want with it.

Modern farming practices have been around longer than biofuels, your argument makes as much sense as Greenpeace trying to ban the GMO's; Greenpeace likes seeing little Asian kids running around blind I suppose.

If all the farmers adopted this hippie farming style nonsense, there would be much more food shortage problems than there are now.

exactly, and if grain prices keep going up, guess what? more grain will be grown. such foolishness.

Typical of liberal supporters to look to the government or the UN to bail them out of a decision that they made and put the blame on others.

lol

[jdobbin]

exactly, and if grain prices keep going up, guess what? more grain will be grown. such foolishness.

Yes, we've noted that more grain will be grown in Canada and more corn in the U.S. and cane in Brazil. In North America, it means plowing under grasslands, cutting areas were forest has been grown over and filling in marshland. And all of this to support ethanol?

Typical of liberal supporters to look to the government or the UN to bail them out of a decision that they made and put the blame on others.

Typical of right wing supporters to support Liberal programs even when they're no good.

[speaker]

It is true that many farmers see ethanol and biodiesel as a fix for what were, up til a few months ago, a thirty year devastation of lousy prices. I think that a lot of farmers also recognize that very unsustainable practices like ethanol can't be carried on. With concerns like peak oil, climate change, economics that are tanking etc., there may be a bit of an attitude of if the world is going to hell in a handbasket the least I can do is hold on to the land as long as possible. And if that means growing fuel instead of food so be it.

That said, there is the option of growing fuel crops sustainably. Not with massive use of existing oil and gas stocks in fertilizers and pesticides and tractor fuel, though some will be needed. However it requires using manure and green manure to keep the soil from getting depleted. It would mean that more land would be needed per bushel of grain or litre of fuel.

That is going to take even more away from food production.

I agree with Bonam, we need more efficiency, not just in vehicles but all our energy uses. We need vehicles that generate their own fuel, (solar), or consumers who get their own fuel from nature, wind, solar, geothermal, wave, what have you?

Edited April 30, 2008 by speaker

[blueblood]

Citation for low numbers? It keeps growing each year.

I don't know how many times it has to be told to farmers. Ethanol was not supposed to be a farm support system for farmers.

The Manitoba Farm Lands Act forbids sales to people outside Manitoba.

http://www.manitobafarmland.com/purchasing.aspx

This is open land policy?

Only 40% voted at all. And it wasn't about the subsidies. Most Albertans believe royalties are too low according to polls. It amounts to a subsidy. Then there are the direct subsidies and many Albertans think those should end too.

A majority was elected for the NDP in Manitoba. They must get support for all their policies too, right?

This was not meant to be an expensive food policy. The evidence grows daily that growing food for fuel is a poor policy. It is not a good environment policy but it seems many farmers don't care about that.

What utter bunk. The policy on ethanol started with the Liberals and the present Liberal policy is to enrich the policy even more. If you really cared about ethanol, you would support the Liberals since their policy on ethanol is even greater than the Tory one.

I happen to disagree with all the parties on ethanol and I think it is just a matter of time before one of the parties breaks from the policy of using grain for fuel.

So the head honcho for JRI can't buy farmland? Or members of the board for Viterra?

The biofuel policy started with the Liberals? THAT is total bunk, they had 13 years of low prices to implement it and did nothing except watch farmers go broke and laugh that they don't have to pay subsidies for a ridiculous cheap food policy. The Tories after 2 years implemented it, and we now have a booming rural economy and the country as a whole is richer and better off.

Don't worry, your Liberals jumped ship on the ethanol plan. They must not like getting elected in Western Canada.

[jdobbin]

So the head honcho for JRI can't buy farmland? Or members of the board for Viterra?

The policy is pretty clear: a non-resident can't buy the land. The is protectionism and it still exists today.

The biofuel policy started with the Liberals? THAT is total bunk, they had 13 years of low prices to implement it and did nothing except watch farmers go broke and laugh that they don't have to pay subsidies for a ridiculous cheap food policy. The Tories after 2 years implemented it, and we now have a booming rural economy and the country as a whole is richer and better off.

Yes, it started with the Liberals. Or don't you remember who allocated money to the ethanol plant in Minnedosa in 2005.

http://www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/media/newcom/.../200553-eng.php

A new ethanol plant in Minnedosa will help Canada address climate change by increasing the supply of this cleaner, renewable fuel, the Honourable Reg Alcock, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, announced today. Husky Oil Marketing Company has been allocated $10.4 million from the Government of Canada's Ethanol Expansion Program (EEP) to help build the plant. Minister Alcock made the announcement on behalf of the Honourable R. John Efford, Minister of Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), and the Honourable Andy Mitchell, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

The right wing has a hazy memory in regards to this. There were four other projects started at the same time as this.

Don't worry, your Liberals jumped ship on the ethanol plan. They must not like getting elected in Western Canada.

Funny, how the Tories were saying today that there might have to be a re-think on food for fuel. That's what reported on CBC News tonight.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...NStory/National

OTTAWA — When the Harper government made support for biofuels its biggest environmental policy, the aggressive push to produce gasoline from farmers' crops received broad support from opposition parties. A year later, that political consensus in favour of biofuels is suddenly breaking down on Parliament Hill.

At $2.2-billion, federal support for Canadian biofuels is the government's most expensive environmental program. It had also been the least controversial. But a series of high-profile international attacks on the use of food crops for fuel has some MPs questioning the impact of biofuels on rising food prices and social havoc among the world's poor.

"Canada should put a moratorium on subsidizing biofuels and should advocate that other Western countries follow suit," said Liberal MP Keith Martin, his party's critic for international development.

So if the Tories reduce the ethanol program will they go down to defeat in western Canada?

The U.S. farm bill last week reduced their ethanol subsidy and might do even more in the next months.

Edited May 1, 2008 by jdobbin

[scribblet]

Check this one out today:

Commons expected to boost ethanol output

Mike De Souza, The Ottawa Citizen

Published: Thursday, May 01, 2008

The House of Commons is expected to give the green light in coming days to legislation that could boost Canadian production of ethanol.

--snip-

Liberal environment critic David McGuinty said he is open to reviewing the policies on a regular basis, but he disagrees with critics who believe ethanol production is causing a global food crisis.

"It's overly simplistic to draw a causal connection directly between the production of biofuels, chiefly ethanol, and food shortages.

There are a number of factors at play here," Mr. McGuinty said. "This notion that Canadian ethanol production is leading to world starvation and food shortages, I just think it's leftist rhetoric and not productive."

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black, boosting output right now IMO is plain crazy...

[jdobbin]

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black, boosting output right now IMO is plain crazy...

There is a battle right now about ethanol and all major parties are going to have to deal with the outcome. Dion's promise to double output could escalate prices to the point of leaving the most vulnerable with less.

The fact that ethanol could possibly be more carbon intensive than just staying with gas needs to be examined and the government seems unwilling to alter course.

[blueblood]

Check this one out today:

Commons expected to boost ethanol output

Mike De Souza, The Ottawa Citizen

Published: Thursday, May 01, 2008

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black, boosting output right now IMO is plain crazy...

McGuinty also said on TV that he was shifting heavily towards cellulosic biofuels which is alright too. Mind you that was on CBC and they didn't mention your article.

Why did the Libs wait until 05 when they were in a minority government. I'd bet there was significant influence from the tories there, but I'm speculating.

If there was another large right wing party that supported biofuels and the Tories didn't (which they do support, according to CBC last night and the enviro minister in QP). The tories could get in hot water.

I seriously think Dion's promise is like a lot of politician's promises, full of hot air. The tories only implemented a small portion of our crops to biofuel because they crunched the numbers and Canada could only sustain 5% ethanol and 2% biodiesel. The overproduction is used up, farm machinery dealers are sold out, jobs are made, and food is still affordable. People in Canada are winning. Layton has pretty much written off his rural supporters.

JRI already owns a test farm south of Winnipeg, what's stopping them from buying everyone out? Probably because they can make the most money by being the middle man instead of producing their own.

If you pick up a copy of this week's Manitoba Cooperator, there are a few articles in there that outline the ethanol debate. The prof of agricultural economics at the U of M, and the columnist who writes the crop markets column agree with me.

[jdobbin]

McGuinty also said on TV that he was shifting heavily towards cellulosic biofuels which is alright too. Mind you that was on CBC and they didn't mention your article.

That could be ten years down the road before it is viable as a consumer product.

Why did the Libs wait until 05 when they were in a minority government. I'd bet there was significant influence from the tories there, but I'm speculating.

What a load of hogwash. They didn't even have it listed as a policy in 2004.

Some of the first commercially viable ethanol plants came on stream in 2004. It required a number of changes as you well know. First, the provinces had to be convinced to mandate ethanol blended gas. The oil companies resisted this every step of way. The next step was to subsidize production.

If you don't believe that ethanol was a low priority for the federal Tories, just look up their policy book for the last election.

If there was another large right wing party that supported biofuels and the Tories didn't (which they do support, according to CBC last night and the enviro minister in QP). The tories could get in hot water.

Baird yesterday said that the government was going to push harder for cellulosic fuels. He is getting pressure from the Liberals to actually double ethanol production. For ethanol loving farmers, they should be all over that except somehow they are convinced that the first ethanol plants came from the Tories. We now know that isn't true.

I seriously think Dion's promise is like a lot of politician's promises, full of hot air. The tories only implemented a small portion of our crops to biofuel because they crunched the numbers and Canada could only sustain 5% ethanol and 2% biodiesel. The overproduction is used up, farm machinery dealers are sold out, jobs are made, and food is still affordable. People in Canada are winning. Layton has pretty much written off his rural supporters.

Well, we do know the Liberals were the ones to start ethanol as a federal program. That was a promise that kept. How is that for hot air?

Citation on the numbers crunched by the Tories?

JRI already owns a test farm south of Winnipeg, what's stopping them from buying everyone out? Probably because they can make the most money by being the middle man instead of producing their own.

Richardson doesn't buy land. Foreign companies are interested in buying land but are forbidden by provincial laws. If you say there is no one interested in buying the land, why keep the restrictions? It is easy to say no one is interested when farmers block the sale of their farms to non-residents.

If you pick up a copy of this week's Manitoba Cooperator, there are a few articles in there that outline the ethanol debate. The prof of agricultural economics at the U of M, and the columnist who writes the crop markets column agree with me.

The first political parties are already starting to break on the ethanol debate. The U.S. already reduced its funding for ethanol last week. Others around thre world are as well.

This was never meant as an expensive food policy to support farmers. It was meant to serve an environmental goal and it looks like it is doing a poor job of that.

Edited May 2, 2008 by jdobbin

[blueblood]

That could be ten years down the road before it is viable as a consumer product.

What a load of hogwash. They didn't even have it listed as a policy in 2004.

Some of the first commercially viable ethanol plants came on stream in 2004. It required a number of changes as you well know. First, the provinces had to be convinced to mandate ethanol blended gas. The oil companies resisted this every step of way. The next step was to subsidize production.

If you don't believe that ethanol was a low priority for the federal Tories, just look up their policy book for the last election.

[q

Baird yesterday said that the government was going to push harder for cellulosic fuels. He is getting pressure from the Liberals to actually double ethanol production. For ethanol loving farmers, they should be all over that except somehow they are convinced that the first ethanol plants came from the Tories. We now know that isn't true.

Well, we do know the Liberals were the ones to start ethanol as a federal program. That was a promise that kept. How is that for hot air?

Citation on the numbers crunched by the Tories?

Richardson doesn't buy land. Foreign companies are interested in buying land but are forbidden by provincial laws. If you say there is no one interested in buying the land, why keep the restrictions? It is easy to say no one is interested when farmers block the sale of their farms to non-residents.

The first political parties are already starting to break on the ethanol debate. The U.S. already reduced its funding for ethanol last week. Others around thre world are as well.

This was never meant as an expensive food policy to support farmers. It was meant to serve an environmental goal and it looks like it is doing a poor job of that.

Low priority for the tories, their handbook says in black and white they wanted 5%, plus they had a video on their website during their 06 political campaign.

Husky is an oil company, why do they have ethanol plants?

I have no problem with cellulosic ethanol, I'd like to get paid for my straw and be rid of those weedy poplar trees. CBC said that McGuinty was pushing hard for cellulosic. Shell Canada is investing heavily into cellulosic ethanol as well.

Richardson can still buy land can he not? If he sets up land, Pioneer grain can corner primary ag production and you would have what would resemble a corporate farm, he hasn't done that due to economic reasons.

It's doing alright as an environmental goal if you accept that farmers have been using modern machinery for the last 20 years.

[jdobbin]

Low priority for the tories, their handbook says in black and white they wanted 5%, plus they had a video on their website during their 06 political campaign.

You forgot to add: By 2010. The Liberal plan was for 5% years earlier and now they are saying 10%.

Husky is an oil company, why do they have ethanol plants?

Because the federal government under the Liberals helped them build them. That was in the link I sent you.

I have no problem with cellulosic ethanol, I'd like to get paid for my straw and be rid of those weedy poplar trees. CBC said that McGuinty was pushing hard for cellulosic. Shell Canada is investing heavily into cellulosic ethanol as well.

I have no problem with bio-mass waste. I do have a problem when people say grain and corn are waste. Using what one person could eat in a year of corn to fill an SUV tank is absurd.

Richardson can still buy land can he not? If he sets up land, Pioneer grain can corner primary ag production and you would have what would resemble a corporate farm, he hasn't done that due to economic reasons.

The Richardsons can't buy land in Ssakatchewan and Alberta because they are non-residents. They already have land in Manitoba which they use for research in neutraceuticals. The reason they don't buy land as a producer has probably more to do with their business ethic than economics.

If you don't believe that non-residents would buy farm land if they could, why is the restriction in place?

It's doing alright as an environmental goal if you accept that farmers have been using modern machinery for the last 20 years.

It's not meeting the goal if it produces more carbon than if we stayed with what we have now.

[blueblood]

You forgot to add: By 2010. The Liberal plan was for 5% years earlier and now they are saying 10%.

Because the federal government under the Liberals helped them build them. That was in the link I sent you.

I have no problem with bio-mass waste. I do have a problem when people say grain and corn are waste. Using what one person could eat in a year of corn to fill an SUV tank is absurd.

The Richardsons can't buy land in Ssakatchewan and Alberta because they are non-residents. They already have land in Manitoba which they use for research in neutraceuticals. The reason they don't buy land as a producer has probably more to do with their business ethic than economics.

If you don't believe that non-residents would buy farm land if they could, why is the restriction in place?

It's not meeting the goal if it produces more carbon than if we stayed with what we have now.

And on the CBC, MP McGuinty was perfectly clear about upping the cellulosic part. I think both is alright. The CBC did paint the picture that the Liberals were flip flopping on the issue and showed minister Baird defending the current plan. The Liberals also said they would eliminate the GST, I am fairly skeptical of what politicians say.

You were stating that the oil companies hate ethanol, but Husky and Shell seem to support it.

Of course grain and corn are waste. Prices in the 90's up to 05 clearly dictate that. If it is getting produced and is not worth anything it is waste. By using the leftovers as biofuel, the price is boosted and the economy improves.

The agricultural economics professor at the U of M clearly states that Canadian famers have no responsibility whatsoever to provide cheap food to the world. What is absurd is that with the cheap food policy I have to subsidize a person's lifestyle when I can get paid more by filling an SUV tank. If people in the cities want cheap food, it should be subsidized like in the U.S. and Europe in order to pay for it, the old Canadian way was having your cake and eating it too. I have bills to pay. Manitobans are much better off with high grain prices than low grain prices. I find it peculiar when people complain about the loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector when there are lots of job opportunities now in the agricultural and agribusiness and biofuel/biotech sector, high grain prices created these opportunities and it is in the best interests of our economy to keep it that way. It's exactly the same with oil prices, the higher oil goes, the richer our country gets.

The Richardsons can buy tens of thousands of acres in Manitoba, if you believe JRI has saintly business ethics just talk to any former employee who jumped ship to Monsanto. There is an owner of a soil services company in Sask. who has tens of thousands of acres acquired through shady acquisitions (don't pay bill, land is used as collateral). Big inefficient corporate style farms can happen, it doesn't because it doesn't necessarily pay.

[jdobbin]

And on the CBC, MP McGuinty was perfectly clear about upping the cellulosic part. I think both is alright. The CBC did paint the picture that the Liberals were flip flopping on the issue and showed minister Baird defending the current plan. The Liberals also said they would eliminate the GST, I am fairly skeptical of what politicians say.

I saw the same CBC report and they said only Keith Martin was being vocal among Liberals about re-thinking ethanol. Dion is still convinced that 10% is what the goal should be which should make you happy since grain will go even higher if he gets elected.

Harper also said he would not touch income trusts. Don't trust him either?

You were stating that the oil companies hate ethanol, but Husky and Shell seem to support it.

Husky bought Mohawk Oil which built Canada's first ethanol plant in Minnedosa in 1981. It was a small operation as Is Husky in the grand scheme of oil companies. Shell came long after and only with huge incentives and subsidies.

None of the big oil companies aside from Husky wanted to be forced to blend ethanol in with their product. They had to create laws in Manitoba and Saskatchewan to it. Remember that?

Of course grain and corn are waste. Prices in the 90's up to 05 clearly dictate that. If it is getting produced and is not worth anything it is waste. By using the leftovers as biofuel, the price is boosted and the economy improves.

Subsidies in Europe and the U.S. made grain and corn values go down. It didn't mean it was inedible waste despite what farmers say.

The agricultural economics professor at the U of M clearly states that Canadian famers have no responsibility whatsoever to provide cheap food to the world. What is absurd is that with the cheap food policy I have to subsidize a person's lifestyle when I can get paid more by filling an SUV tank. If people in the cities want cheap food, it should be subsidized like in the U.S. and Europe in order to pay for it, the old Canadian way was having your cake and eating it too. I have bills to pay. Manitobans are much better off with high grain prices than low grain prices. I find it peculiar when people complain about the loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector when there are lots of job opportunities now in the agricultural and agribusiness and biofuel/biotech sector, high grain prices created these opportunities and it is in the best interests of our economy to keep it that way. It's exactly the same with oil prices, the higher oil goes, the richer our country gets.

And Canadian city dwellers are under no obligation to support a policy on ethanol that does nothing for the environment and supports an expensive food policy. We have bills to pay.

The Richardsons can buy tens of thousands of acres in Manitoba, if you believe JRI has saintly business ethics just talk to any former employee who jumped ship to Monsanto. There is an owner of a soil services company in Sask. who has tens of thousands of acres acquired through shady acquisitions (don't pay bill, land is used as collateral). Big inefficient corporate style farms can happen, it doesn't because it doesn't necessarily pay.

You keep avoiding the question of why there are restrictions on owning farm land. If no one is interested in buying, why are there restrictions on selling?

The fixation on the Richardson business aside, the company prefers to be a grain handler rather than a producer. I've never mentioned anything about being saintly. They prefer to do business in areas where they have expertise and be a dominant or niche player. They sold their radio and airline companies very early in their history so they could focus on their strengths and keep the company private. It must be working because the company is now in its fifth generation. That is their business ethic.

Edited May 2, 2008 by jdobbin

[blueblood]

I saw the same CBC report and they said only Keith Martin was being vocal among Liberals about re-thinking ethanol. Dion is still convinced that 10% is what the goal should be which should make you happy since grain will go even higher if he gets elected.

Harper also said he would not touch income trusts. Don't trust him either?

Husky bought Mohawk Oil which built Canada's first ethanol plant in Minnedosa in 1981. It was a small operation as Is Husky in the grand scheme of oil companies. Shell came long after and only with huge incentives and subsidies.

None of the big oil companies aside from Husky wanted to be forced to blend ethanol in with their product. They had to create laws in Manitoba and Saskatchewan to it. Remember that?

Subsidies in Europe and the U.S. made grain and corn values go down. It didn't mean it was inedible waste despite what farmers say.

And Canadian city dwellers are under no obligation to support a policy on ethanol that does nothing for the environment and supports an expensive food policy. We have bills to pay.

You keep avoiding the question of why there are restrictions on owning farm land. If no one is interested in buying, why are there restrictions on selling?

The fixation on the Richardson business aside, the company prefers to be a grain handler rather than a producer. I've never mentioned anything about being saintly. They prefer to do business in areas where they have expertise and be a dominant or niche player. They sold their radio and airline companies very early in their history so they could focus on their strengths and keep the company private. It must be working because the company is now in its fifth generation. That is their business ethic.

Harper kept more promises than the liberals.

Subsidies in the U.S. and Europe made prices go down of course, the people there want cheap food and also have the common decency and logic to pay for it, unlike here in the 90's.

I didn't say the grain was inedible, I said it was still waste, when the price is low enough that people are starting to burn it in their homes for cheap heat, I would call that waste.

When ethanol helps out the environment and the economy, plus with the convenience of not growing or butchering food. I'd say pay up. Or we can take the Saudi attitude and rely completely on imports. The people of Argentina are also going to be gouged on imports this year when they can grow their own products, they are going to find how expensive imports are.

You keep avoiding the fact that particular law is very easy to get around. I was using JRI as an example, they CAN buy tens of thousands of acres of land, but don't want to for the reasons you pointed out, the same as other big operations.

The figure for getting the biofuel sector is around 2 billion and change per year, the cost for "bailing out" grain producers in the early part of this decade was over 4 billion dollars a year. One plan has signifcantly improved the economy and helps the environment, one plan poaches tax dollars and didn't do a thing to help the economy.

Then there is the Walmart analogy, why should Canada be the worlds Walmart of food production by putting third world farmers out of business.

[jdobbin]

Harper kept more promises than the liberals.

It's only been two plus years. Give him time.

Subsidies in the U.S. and Europe made prices go down of course, the people there want cheap food and also have the common decency and logic to pay for it, unlike here in the 90's.

Canada wasn't about to win a battle of the subsidies with the Europeans and the Americans. More subsidies in Canada were likely to cause prices to go down even further.

I didn't say the grain was inedible, I said it was still waste, when the price is low enough that people are starting to burn it in their homes for cheap heat, I would call that waste.

Citation on grain being used by farmers to heat their homes? I find that hard to believe for most Canadian farmers.

When ethanol helps out the environment and the economy, plus with the convenience of not growing or butchering food. I'd say pay up. Or we can take the Saudi attitude and rely completely on imports. The people of Argentina are also going to be gouged on imports this year when they can grow their own products, they are going to find how expensive imports are.

The evidence is that ethanol using food is causing inflation. If it takes enough corn to feed one person for a year to fuel an SUV, it is not good for the economy. This might be great for farmers but we are seeing areas of the market getting hit hard by this including parts of the farm economy.

Ethanol using food for fuel hardly helps the environment.

You keep avoiding the fact that particular law is very easy to get around. I was using JRI as an example, they CAN buy tens of thousands of acres of land, but don't want to for the reasons you pointed out, the same as other big operations.

If it is so easy, why have the law at all?

The figure for getting the biofuel sector is around 2 billion and change per year, the cost for "bailing out" grain producers in the early part of this decade was over 4 billion dollars a year. One plan has signifcantly improved the economy and helps the environment, one plan poaches tax dollars and didn't do a thing to help the economy.

Doubtful on helping the environment and food inflation or lack of grain or corn for the food market hurts other areas of the economy.

Then there is the Walmart analogy, why should Canada be the worlds Walmart of food production by putting third world farmers out of business.

Right now food inflation is causing starvation and deaths around the world.