Ethanol was a disaster from the start. Only reason Iowa's caucus has any importance at all.
If we continue down this crazy road we will end up a net importer of food.
It's madness.

The reasons to NOT go this way was there. They just choose to ignore it. When a product takes more energy to produce than what you are trying to replace, what do you expect?

Dont listen to this bull rhetoric. the reason for the high cost of food is simple. The high cost of fuel! Period. Creating ethanol has nothing to do with the cost of food around the globe.

Welcome to corporate america. When the Oil Corporations align themselves with Agra-business Corporations, you have one, huge Corporate combine, that is reaping in, nothing but profits. The Exxon/Mobile Corporate combine just reported, FOR THE LAST QUARTER, 10.9 BILLION DOLLARS PROFITS. Who says, the Oil Corporations don't know what they are doing!!!? We should have listened to then-President Carter, when he told the nation, back in the 1970s, to look for alternative sources of energy!! We were too busy consuming!!!! Now. we sure are in it, thanks to the Republicans, that have killed or stalled almost all the bills that have addressed the topic of alternative sources of energy!!!A vote for Senators McCain or Clinton is a vote to continue this crazy energy policy, if you can call it that!!!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE. NOW.

Americans deserve hearing the facts, beginning with the real cause of rising food prices.

The benevolent, good-hearted people at OPEC who surely do not have any interests of their own at heart would love for you to believe that food prices are rising entirely because some corn is being used to make ethanol. The truth is that increases in food prices are rooted largely in increases in fuel prices. The cost of oil keeps rising--it's up an astonishing 100% in the past year alone, increasing the cost of getting food from field to store to table. Increased demand in emerging economies such as China and India are impacting pricing for all commodities and yet somehow biofuels are singled out.

Biofuels aren't part of the problem, they're part of the solution. Because of this new market and 21st-century agriculture practices -- less fertilizer, less water, drought-resistant grains and increased yields on existing agriculture land -- more crops are being planted and harvested, increasing supply at a time when, in the United States at least, a legislative cap actually restricts the amount of corn that can be directed toward ethanol production.

Scot....I see your frustration...but yes, fuel obviously plays a part in the prices...but when it costs more for feed, that also plays a part. The problem I see is that more energy is used to produce a gallon of ethanol than it does for oil.

Arable land is disappearing. This has more to do with the increase in food prices than ethanol. Google desertification.

Sorry Bill but I dsagree whole hertedly! The more biofuels we produce and use, the less we will pollute our environment and contribute to global warming. The simple and well-documented truth is that ethanol and biodiesel burn cleaner than petroleum-based products. And according to data from Natural Resources Canada, the federal renewable fuels standard, which mandates a minimum percentage of biofuels in the fuel supply, will result in reductions to greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to removing more than one million cars from Canadian roads each and every year. What's more relevant going forward is that increased demand for ethanol will be met by new technologies such as cellulosic ethanol, which is made not from corn but from agriculture biomass, switchgrass, straw, and even wood and yard waste.

It is trendy these days for those with a political agenda or a divergent economic interest to label ethanol and its ilk as the source behind pretty much every problem on the global stage. Indeed, the Post headline would have you believe that biofuels have gone from "saviour to villain." But a more objective analysis would recognize the true promise of biofuels.

Policy leaders in Canada, the United States, Brazil and Europe rightly recognize biofuels will reduce the cost of harvesting and transporting food, economically bolster rural communities, help to meet the world's growing energy demands in a sustainable and environmentally responsible way, and aid farmers in their efforts to access new markets and achieve a new prosperity.

If teh gov't would get out of the subsidy business and let the markets play out, all would be well.

As usual, a liberal's best-intentions have unintended negative consequences. Usually becuase they haven't figured out the law of supply and demand.

As for Donny Fitz and his jab at Exxon Mobil - They also paid $10.307 billion in income taxes and $30.346 billion in total taxes. How much more do you want from "Big Oil"? Before you answer, please think it thru.

The 8-year "dust bowl" in Australia has devastated the wheat harvest there, having a huge impact on world prices. Many climate experts believe this too is a symptom of man-man global warming (sorry Jerry White), and that this bread-basket down-under may remain permanently arid.

Dedicated to Bruce, John D., Jerry White and all the other "flat-Earther's" :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kknbg7xquQ

Terry....Get the speculators out of the market..then you will see better prices. When your price of gas is affected by fog in the shipping lanes...you got to look at the whole picture.

Corn-based ethanol is the most idiotic idea floated in my lifetime. It's a boondoggle. It's a filthy, inefficient fuel source. Besides the pollutants spewing from tailpipes as ethanol is burned (FYI it's dirtier than gasoline, Scot S. Blakeley) it's production utilizes enormous amounts of petroleum in the form of pesticides, ferilizers, farm equipment fuel and fuel to heat the distillation process.

But giant Agribusiness is for it, so of course Obama is for it.

Bill R.,

Wouldn't it be nice if the shipping lanes didn't have to be used and the oil was pumped right here in the ol' USA. Less dependecy on foriegn gov'ts, great paying jobs in the oil industry would be created - win-win.

Don Fitzgerald said-

"...Welcome to corporate america. When the Oil Corporations align themselves with Agra-business Corporations, you have one, huge Corporate combine, that is reaping in, nothing but profits. The Exxon/Mobile Corporate combine just reported, FOR THE LAST QUARTER, 10.9 BILLION DOLLARS PROFITS...."

First of all, Don, what else is a publicly traded company, that employees thousands of people SUPPOSED to do other than make profits??

Some economics facts that seem to elude you..

Exxons profit represents approximately a 10% profit margin-

Googles profit margin is roughly 25%

Coca Cola's margin is also above 20%-

Should we appropriate a Marxist profit tax on those companies as well?

Then- even more draconia recommendations from the left ..
Bill R said -

"...Get the speculators out of the market..then you will see better prices..."

So Bill R. how would you propose "getting the speculators ( a completely legal proffession) out of the market"??

Terry,
Sorry buddy, but unless you Nationalized US Oil, anything we pull out of the ground here would go intot the world market. Not directly to the US consumer as you pretend it will

Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | May 1, 2008 12:24 PM

Your post is lifted right out of the Canadian Renewable Fuels Assocition newsletter- they are "facts" from an org that represents biofuel companies/producers..

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/25/biofuels-are-the-solution-not-the-problem.aspx

(from the website) They are the CRFA whose membership is comprised of representatives from all levels of the ethanol and biodiesel industry, including: grain and cellulose ethanol producers, biodiesel producers, fuel technology providers, and agricultural associations.

With an organization that is completely dependent on the success of using our food for fuel- do you think they may have a slanted point of view?

I love it when Republicans try to defend immoral behavior, be it the Bush war, or exorbitant profit margins. Do we need coca- cola to go to work or how about google? Do they get tax subsidies, like the Oil Corporations? The Greedy's playground is America!!!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE. NOW.

Cost of oil:

2002--- $30/bbl
2008---$120/bbl

Cost of wheat:

2001---$2.78/bushel
2008---$24/bushel

Cost of corn:

2001---$1.97/bushel
2008---$6.16/bushel

Cost of Soybeans:

2001---$4.35/bushel
2008---$11.97/bushel

Cost of Rice:

2001---$4.17/cwt
2008---$24.05/cwt

The US dollar declined 80% vs. the Euro 2001-2008

Are you feeling the squeeze yet?

Terry,
Sorry buddy, but unless you Nationalized US Oil, anything we pull out of the ground here would go intot the world market. Not directly to the US consumer as you pretend it will

Posted by: jo | May 1, 2008 5:24 PM

Nationalized oil- thats working pretty well in mexico isn't it??

Jo, Your right- those silly, slow witted oil companies will bypass this huge, affluent US market that will buy as much oil as you pump to supply its industry, trucking, and 6000 pound SUVs for driving kids to school- so they can load all of that petro on to super tankers across the oceans- ?? I forgot they really don't like making money...

Jo,

If you ever took an economics class, go back to the school and get a refund.

Yes Jo, the oil would go into the world market - it would increase oil supply. Basic economics would tell you that prices would go in which direction???

Fitz, the economic dropout, what was that "exorbitant profit margin" that Exxon-Mobil earned this quarter? They made a whopping 9.3 cents on every dollar of revenue. Stop the presses!!!

SUPPORT OUR YOUNG, GET THEM EDUCATED, NOW. We'll start with Fitz.

Stop blaming Ethenol! It's not Ethenol that is causing higher food price. It's the value of the dollar going down; it's Hedge Funds that are manipulating commodities that pushes the prices up.

Stocks get manipulated and the SEC is required to look into it; but, when food and oil is manipulated by Hedge Funds, nobody is investigating?

Terry,
You shouldn't be lecturing anyone about economics, you're still pushing the "trickle-down" b.s. that has been discredited time and time again.

Etenol mandates instead of engine MPG mandates? I don't believe we have reached the max on MPG increases. Take the subsidies and tax breaks away from the oil companies and give them to the engineers.

dt,

You mean that supply-side economics that JFK used in the 60', Reagan used in the 80's, and Bush43 now that resuulted in periods of economic growth. I guess you didn't like the past 6 years of economic growth during wartime.

I guess you think Senator Boy Wonder's highest payroll/income tax rate of 54% will generate a ton of new jobs. Please explain how raising taxes will create incentives to create new jobs?

The dollar has dropped, and fuel prices have risen. Those are the two causes.

Take the subsidies and tax breaks away from the oil companies and give them to the engineers.

Posted by: Vivian | May 1, 2008 10:14 PM

Take the subsidies and tax breaks?? SO that oil companies margins will be even lower??

What do you think will happen to the thousands of oil co jobs when this happens-

Or how much R&D will the oil cos engage in now that the bottom line is "taken" away?

just curious?

Obviously MJ you have your head in the sand as most republicans do. Corn based fuel dirtier than gaasoline! LOL Thats the biggest joke yet!

heartburn and Terry,
Assuming you aren't the same moron, the supplies taken from the US would only reduce the price pennies on the world market. Heartburn I never suggested that nationalizing oil would be the right thing to do. I said it would be the only way to deliver that oil directy to the US for our sole consumption. Learn to read

Terry,
Clinton had record growth without lowering taxes or creating deficits. Case closed.

Jo,

Heartburn and I not the same moron since neither of us are morons - we, unlike you, understand how economics work. What you are saying is that all the oil reserves in ANWAR, North Dakota, Utah, and off our countries coasts would only put a small dent in the supply of oil and thus barely lower the prices. try reading a bit on how much oil and gas is in these places before you prove w/o a doubt how ignorant you are.

dts,

Clinton had record growth w/o lowering taxes and he also reduced the deficits. He also had the economic engine of the PC and Internet, he had the Republican Congress that reigned in spending - remember he was in 1995 forecasting $200 billion ($300 billion in today's dollars) deficits for as far as the eyes could see, and finally he punted the whole terrorism issue down the road to his successor.

He's no more responsible for the economy of the 90's than he was for the Chgo Bull's last three championships - he just happened to occupy the oval office when the events occurred.