Print 118 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Jun 26 at 7:02 PM

39% of all corn produced in the U.S. goes to ethanol production   (Source:
House to vote next

Lawmakers in Washington are working hard to write and pass laws that would have fuel efficiency standards in the U.S. changing drastically in coming years. While some in Washington support the new standards for vehicle efficiency, others oppose the standards. Along with mandating better fuel economy across a carmakers fleet, Washington is also seeing green and renewable fuel alternatives for vehicles.

In the U.S., ethanol has been added into the fuel we run in vehicles for years. Ethanol is as high as 10% in fuels today and some that are against ethanol, which is derived from corn, claim that the biofuel is increasing the price of some food items in America. A report published by the GAO claims that the use of ethanol has driven the cost of some food items up as much as 20%.

With all of Washington in cost cutting mode in an effort to shore up the federal budget lawmakers are looking at everywhere money can be saved. One place that some in the Senate want to save money is by repealing the subsidy on ethanol. The Senate voted Thursday 73-27 to end a $0.45 per gallon tax credit on ethanol-blended gasoline starting on July 1. According to those that support the repeal, the subsidy cost taxpayers $5.6 billion last year.

Growth Energy, and ethanol association, CEO Tom Buis said, "The Senate missed an enormous opportunity to take real action on deficit reduction and energy policy when it failed to put oil subsidies and giveaways to the same test as ethanol."

On the other side of the coin, Kate McMahon coordinator of biofuels campaigns for Friends of the Earth said, "Senators scored a win for the public and for the environment by voting to end this $6 billion giveaway." She continued saying, "[the Senate delivered a message] that the ethanol industry's days of living high off the taxpayers' hog have come to an end."

The effort to end the ethanol subsidy now goes to the House for voting. White House spokesman Jay Carney says that the Obama administration supports a reduction in the ethanol subsidy, but does not support a full repeal. Some claim that 39% of the corn produced in the U.S. is currently going into fuel tanks. With the costs to reach the proposed 62mpg regulations for fuel economy reaching nearly $10,000, some automakers are calling for the removal of ethanol from gasoline. Ethanol is renewable and greener than petroleum fuel, but reduces fuel economy.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Motoman on 6/17/2011 2:16:03 PM , Rating: 4
Fuel from food = massive stupidity.

RE: Duh
By HrilL on 6/17/2011 2:20:06 PM , Rating: 4
Corn ethanol actually is less green when you consider the product from Growing it to production to burning it. Its never been about being Green. Its been about making the price of corn go up to build farming states economies artificially.

RE: Duh
By icemansims on 6/17/11, Rating: 0
RE: Duh
By superstition on 6/17/2011 5:11:35 PM , Rating: 4
"Its been about making the price of corn go up to build farming states economies artificially."

Votes and money for politicians.

Money for Monsanto and other companies that have long had interestingly close relationships with the government.

Ethanol is awful. Even biodiesel is likely a better choice. At least it has a useful role when added to ULSD in a quantity of around 1.5%. It improves the lubricity of the fuel to the standard engine makers suggest (460 wear scar or lower). Ethanol, by contrast, just attracts more water and provides worse mileage -- to say nothing about the water pollution from farming to make it, fuel used to make it, and so forth. Photosynthesis is very very inefficient when it comes to capturing solar energy. Alcohols are hardly ideal for fuels because of their molecular structure.

If we want to be more ecologically sound, we would see some of the many fuel-efficient diesels available in the UK and elsewhere. Here is a list of vehicles that outrank the Prius in MPG according to greencar (MPG in imperial):

SMART fortwo coupe fortwo coupe 54 bhp cdi 15in rear wheels [2011] Semi-automatic 5-speed
SKODA Fabia Estate 1.2 CR TDI 75PS Greenline II [2010] Manual 5-speed
VW Polo 1.2 TDI 75PS BlueMotion Manual 5-speed
SKODA Fabia Hatch/Estate 1.2 CR TDI 75PS GreenLine II [2010] Manual 5-speed
SEAT Ibiza ST 1.2 CR TDI 75PS Ecomotive Manual 5-speed, start-stop, Coupe, 5 door
SKODA Fabia Hatch 1.6 CR TDI 75PS [2010] Manual 5-speed
FIAT Punto Evo 1.3 16v MultiJet 85 ECO [from Jan 2010] Manual 5-speed
SEAT Ibiza/Coupe 1.4 TDI 80PS Ecomotive 5dr Manual 5-speed
VAUXHALL Corsa 1.3CDTi 16v 95PS 3dr Hatch [from July 2010] Manual 5-speed
FORD Fiesta 1.6 Duratorq TDCi 90PS +DPF ECO [Post 2010¼ ] Manual 5-speed
SKODA Octavia Hatch 1.6 TDI 105PS Greenline Manual 5-speed
VW Golf 1.6 TDI 105 PS BlueMotion SE Manual 5-speed
AUDI A3 1.6 TDI 105PS start-stop Manual 5-speed
FORD Focus 1.6 Duratorq TDCi 109PS 5dr Saloon ECO Start-Stop Manual 5-speed
SEAT Leon 1.6 CR TDI 105PS Ecomotive Manual 5-speed
TOYOTA Auris T4 1.8 VVT-i hybrid E-CVT [2010] Continuously Variable
VOLVO C30 DRIVe Manual 6-speed, 5-speed
VOLVO S40 DRIVe Manual 6-speed, 5-speed
VOLVO V50 DRIVe Manual 6-speed, 5-speed

TOYOTA Prius Mark III 1.8 VVT-i Hybrid 15in wheel 2009

These vehicles are already for sale elsewhere. Even Ford and GM make some of them. Our fuel efficiency politics are all wrong. Instead of giving people almost $10,000 per vehicle for electric toy cars, why not put some money toward diesel-electric hybrids, especially for public transport like buses? Europe has some of those, too.

RE: Duh
By invidious on 6/17/2011 6:08:06 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention the hundreds of pounds of biohazzard batteries that need to be replaced every 5 years in a hybrid.

I am an eletrical engineer and I would love to see good electrical cars. But current encarnation of hybrids and EVs are not good electric cars. They are bastardized garbage.

If granola muching hippies want to buy them because captain planet told them that they can save the earth by recylcing then thats their problem. But when the government starts making policy decisions based on this nonsense it gets scary. Too many people drinking the coolaid...

RE: Duh
By superstition on 6/17/2011 6:27:45 PM , Rating: 3
And, as far as I know, those batteries are still made with rare earths -- rare earths we can no longer mine in the US because our businessmen and politicians decided it's "cheaper" to get them from China.

China, now that it controls the entire rare earths market, has already threatened an embargo and, as far as I know, is restricting their export. People say we're still in Afghanistan (and will be for decades or more) because of its untouched cache of rare earths. Perhaps, but what are we supposed to do right now? From what I've read it will still take years to get our mines back in operation here. If it takes that long to reopen existing mines, I imagine it will take quite a bit longer to get anything out of Afghanistan.

So, our politicians decide to cede the rare earths market to a hostile China. Then, as China is beginning to hold us hostage over rare earths, the US subsidizes hybrids (and now all-electric cars which are even more dependent upon batteries). The tax break for buying diesels is gone, and we still don't have any of the most efficient diesels in our market, including vehicles made by Ford and GM.

Something smells quite rotten to me. Now that I just read about all the Chinese junk parts the military has been buying I am convinced that our political-business nexus is so corrupt that the US is not far from fully becoming merely a shell game for "globalized", not national, interests. Even our military is buying Chinese junk parts.

Maybe some of these newer all-electrics have transitioned away from reliance upon rare earths for their batteries, but I haven't heard much about that if that's the case.

What I'd like is a small very efficient well-made American-made clean diesel car that has no Chinese parts in it at all. And, our fuel standard needs to improve. 40 cetane is not ideal, and the lubricity standard of 520 contradicts even engine manufacturers' 460 max standard.

RE: Duh
By FishTankX on 6/20/2011 10:09:47 AM , Rating: 2
I'd just like to add that rare earths aren't generally used in battery manufacture, they're used in the production of the electric motors linked to the batteries.

RE: Duh
By jabber on 6/20/2011 12:41:56 PM , Rating: 2

Would you buy a 5 year old Prius or a VW Golf?

Would you buy a 10 year old Prius or a VW Golf?

What is the deal re. second hand values of electric cars that need new batteries every few years?

RE: Duh
By YashBudini on 6/21/2011 12:00:19 AM , Rating: 2
Would you buy a xx year old Prius or a VW Golf?

Seriously? You're not really familiar with the reliability record of VWs that circulate in the US, are you?

Years wouldn't concern me on either Prius, unless it's at the rust-through stage. Only miles are a concern. And with that atmosphere of fear I suspect they might sell for decent prices.

RE: Duh
By flatfour on 6/17/2011 7:57:10 PM , Rating: 1
Its not just the "granola munching hippies" that buy hybrids. If congress is giving tax credits to hybrid buyers, even your average Joe can purchase them, get the tax savings, without having to drink the Koolaid. I know plenty of Prius drivers that bought them on on the recommendation of their accountants. I'm not saying that this is good policy, but merely reality.

RE: Duh
By tng on 6/18/2011 8:54:48 AM , Rating: 2
If congress is giving tax credits to hybrid buyers, even your average Joe can purchase them, get the tax savings, without having to drink the Koolaid.
Really, are you kidding?

Not sure if you think congress giving my money out to the "Average Joe" to buy a hybrid is a good idea or not. It is never a good idea for government to subsidize one thing over another. If JSP can't a afford a hybrid then he should stop spending money on other things so he can save for one.

I know plenty of Prius drivers that bought them on on the recommendation of their accountants.
Lets face it, in allot of cases the stereotype is true. My accountant has a 98 Camry that she thinks is sexy.

RE: Duh
By flatfour on 6/18/2011 3:13:03 PM , Rating: 3
I never said subsidies were a good idea, just that if they're available, people will take them. You can't demonize someone for taking advantage of a program. And for some, saving money at the pump will override concerns about where all the rare earth metals are coming from and what types of pollutants they put out

But yes, many have in fact drank the Koolaid. I was mostly just playing devil's advocate. What do I know though, I drive a sports car that gets <25mpg.

RE: Duh
By chick0n on 6/18/11, Rating: 0
RE: Duh
By YashBudini on 6/20/2011 11:54:12 PM , Rating: 2
where u got that from? out of your ass ?

While your remarks are very Motoman-like (and he would have been uprated for saying the exact same thing you just did) the answer is pretty much yes. Its the "Some people say...." technique that has worked it's magic on the less edjamacted that follow the antics of the News Corp.

RE: Duh
By Motoman on 6/17/2011 6:16:22 PM , Rating: 3
My guess is they don't pass our nanny-state safety regulations.

RE: Duh
By superstition on 6/17/2011 6:35:53 PM , Rating: 3
Vehicles in my list, like the Golf TDI, are available in the US, but only with the less efficient 2.0 engine and without the Bluemotion stuff (and 7 speed DSG for automatic drivers) that helps them get Prius-rivaling efficiency. I doubt VW makes a different chassis and so forth for their UK Golf. Golfs for the US are imported from Germany, where I believe all of them, or at least all the TDIs, are made.

The only safety difference I can think of is that some airbags may be optional overseas and standard on ours. But, in Germany at least, the level of configuration (options) for the Golf greatly exceeds what is available here. Not only are there the more efficient engines, there are more options of every kind.

Some say the reason we haven't seen more of these is the expense of having crash testing done and, especially, meeting our emissions standards. However, vehicles in the UK, as far as I know, have the DPF (diesel particulate filter). You can see at least one of them in my list that specifically mentions the DPF.

RE: Duh
By superstition on 6/17/2011 6:45:05 PM , Rating: 2
Correction to the first sentence. It should read:

Some vehicles in my list, like the Golf TDI, are available in the US, but not with the efficient engines/tech that gives them Prius-rivaling economy.

RE: Duh
By Targon on 6/17/2011 7:54:28 PM , Rating: 1
There is a trade-off in most cars between fuel economy and having a car that has a decently powerful engine. If I had to choose a 160 horsepower at 34 miles per gallon average fuel economy and a 105 horsepower at 42 miles per gallon average fuel economy, I'd go with the 160 horse.

RE: Duh
By mindless1 on 6/17/2011 11:18:45 PM , Rating: 2
... and most people in the US feel exactly the same way, the majority of little econobox cars with 105HP engine were bought by those economically challenged, simply because they cost less.

RE: Duh
By Nemeth782 on 6/18/2011 5:43:59 AM , Rating: 2
Meanwhile, the Prius has 98bhp.

I think the point being made is not that everyone should buy a Golf Bluemotion instead of a Dodge Viper, it is that nobody should ever buy a Prius.

They are More expensive than a bluemotion, less powerful than a bluemotion, less fuel efficient than a bluemotion, uglier than a bluemotion, and more dangerous to the environment than a bluemotion due to the batteries.

RE: Duh
By superstition on 6/18/2011 3:30:20 PM , Rating: 1
Another point that I neglected to make is that larger vehicles like the Passat are available with engines/tech that give them outstanding fuel economy, too.

We're not just talking about small cars. The VW station wagon (called the Jetta Sportwagon in the US) is an example:

VW Golf Estate 1.6 TDI 105PS BlueMotion Manual 5-speed
VW Golf Estate 1.6 TDI 105PS BlueMotion 7speed DSG S Direct shift 7-speed

Both of those beat the Honda Insight:

HONDA Insight 1.3 IMA S 5dr [2009] Continuously Variable

The midsize Passat sedan nearly equals the Insight:

VW Passat Saloon 1.6 CR TDI 105 PS BlueMotion Manual 6-speed

People like to brush off fuel efficient diesels' advantages by dismissing them as merely being relegated to tiny cars, but that's not really the case. Their efficiency can be useful for all vehicle sizes.

RE: Duh
By tng on 6/18/2011 9:11:17 AM , Rating: 2
Speaking for the general public because that is the way you and most of your friends feel is not a good thing.

Where I live 40 to 70 mile commutes (one way) are common (with stop and go traffic, BTW). While many of the people that live in my neighborhood make 6 figures, almost all of them have a cheap fuel efficient, reliable car for doing the commute. Most also have a more powerful, more fun weekend car.

Most of the people I know that would agree with you have a really nice car with more power than they will ever use (+ a huge monthly payment for it) and live paycheck to paycheck in a small cheap apartment.

most people in the US feel exactly the same way

Most people in the US have good sense and probably don't agree with you, however if you know most of the people in the US personally....

RE: Duh
By mindless1 on 6/26/2011 7:02:49 PM , Rating: 2
So you think most people who are financially well off drive little econocars, and most with nice cars live in small cheap apartments?

That... that's some really screwed up logic you have going on, before even considering that most don't drive 40-70 miles in stop and go traffic to get to work.

Let's get back to reality. The reality is most people buy mid to nicer cars so they can drive them, ESPECIALLY so they don't have to be crammed like a sardine into a piece of junk for hours a day, unless they are too impoverished to afford the gasoline which is not much.

Think about it. Even if you get a low 20MPG on a 40 mi commute, versus 30MPG with the econobox car, that's only $2.50 or so difference in gas, pocket change to someone making six figures.

The fact is, "most" people drive the cars with the highest sales rate in the last few years. Imagine that!

RE: Duh
By YashBudini on 6/17/11, Rating: 0
RE: Duh
By Motoman on 6/18/2011 12:37:25 AM , Rating: 2
Oh look, it's the moron who thinks corporations invent themselves and do things without any human intervention.

Go crawl back under your rock. You're getting your stupid all over the internet.

RE: Duh
By YashBudini on 6/18/2011 1:48:58 AM , Rating: 1
Yes, I'm well aware that my addressing your hypocrisy is something you can't deal with in an adult manner.

And now so is everybody else.

RE: Duh
By YashBudini on 6/18/2011 5:08:18 PM , Rating: 1
RE: Duh
By Reclaimer77 on 6/20/2011 4:10:04 PM , Rating: 2
Not surprising words, given the fact that Lincoln was a tyrant who used violence and the military on his own people when they Democratically, and bloodlessly, voted to defend States Rights.

"We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end..."

Oh, you mean the one you started without even ATTEMPTING to negotiate or compromise first? The man who directly caused the deaths of nearly 700,000 of his own citizens lamenting about cruelty. I guess he needed the stovepipe style hat to contain all that irony...

Also Yash, you are aware this was 1864 right? I know you Liberals like to exaggerate the mans greatness, but you're adding being a prophet to his legend as well?

RE: Duh
By YashBudini on 6/20/2011 11:47:51 PM , Rating: 2
Him being a tyrant has nothing to do with his concerns of corporations. Did Eisenhower's remarks about the military industrial complex affect his ability to be president?

Same old generalizations for personal attacks. How many times have I told you I don't vote within that entrenched 2 party system?

RE: Duh
By xyzCoder on 6/17/2011 8:28:24 PM , Rating: 3
People always seem to forget that diesel is a type of hydrocarbon that simply has more energy in it than gasoline (let alone the ethanol mix we current run off of).

The other HUGE factor is the size of the vehicle. I don't doubt that the cars with 80+ MPG are quite a bit smaller/lighter than Americans are willing to buy.

As well, one mustn't forget air quality controls, which frankly are lower in Europe, to a noticeable degree if you consider the air quality in their cities, IMO. The extra tight emissions regulations we have in the US cost us in yet more MPG.

So, although I agree that our hybrids are maybe absurd, I don't think diesel is the answer. Personally, I see biofuel from algae as the best candidate.

RE: Duh
By mindless1 on 6/17/2011 11:28:12 PM , Rating: 2
Your link somewhat contradicts you, while you are making a claim based on volume we don't necessarily care about that, gas is higher based on weight though they are very close.

Historically it is correct that americans don't pick the smallest lightest cars to get highest fuel economy, even though they are usually, substantially cheaper too which is one of the few reasons any of them sold at all in the US.

RE: Duh
By Solandri on 6/18/2011 6:25:20 AM , Rating: 2
Your link somewhat contradicts you, while you are making a claim based on volume we don't necessarily care about that, gas is higher based on weight though they are very close.

Problem is people are comparing gasoline MPG to diesel MPG as if they're equivalent. MPG = miles per gallon - i.e. volume. If we measured mileage based on miles per pound, then you'd be right.

RE: Duh
By mindless1 on 6/25/2011 8:35:21 PM , Rating: 2
^ True, we measure based on MPG, BUT, when it comes to fuel economy they would tend to consider the weight tradeoff because that effects the achieved MPG.

Thus, we don't really care about energy density per gallon, if cars shifted to diesel then the mandates and costs per mile would just shift to take it into account. What supposed "green" minded people and the government are trying to do, is no matter how good the MPG is, try to push people to make it better.

It's arbitrary... even if today we had only 20MPG fleet average, they'd still try to push just beyond what the industry was expected to achieve without that push. MPG doesn't matter, true efficiency and cost does.

RE: Duh
By Alexvrb on 6/18/2011 3:56:57 PM , Rating: 4
1) Unbelted occupant crash test requirements. That's right, we have safety requirements for occupants that refuse to wear a seatbelt. I think it is stupid, but anyway European models do not have this requirement.

2) You could build two slightly different variants of the same car side by side. Just because they're both built in Germany does not mean they have identical safety/suspension/etc.

3) A "gallon" here is not the same as a "gallon" elsewhere. I know you said that they were Imperial gallons, and you were just demonstrating the difference against the Prius. But this can just confuse people further. So be careful with your "MPG" ratings. Looking at the Prius you listed, I can already guess that "72 MPG" would work out to 60 MPG here - and that's just converting to US gallons, not even changing testing methods.

4) Our emissions standards are stricter, especially for the (12+) states that adhere to the more stringent California EPA standards. This applies to gas and diesel engines.

5) 2008+ EPA tests reflect real-world MPG results in US road conditions much better than older EPA testing. If you put those vehicles you listed through the same testing, their rated MPG (even after converting to US gallons) would drop like a rock.

Example: 2007 Toyota Prius. Using EPA numbers, US gallons.

Old (2007-) EPA numbers: 60/55/51 (City / Combined / Highway)
New (2008+) EPA numbers: 48/46/45

I verified by also checking a 2008 Prius, which has the same new numbers as the 2007 (48/46/45).

Bottom line: Do you really think VW, et al are just ruining their US vehicles on purpose, you know so they don't "sell too many cars"? Hogwash.

RE: Duh
By superstition on 6/19/11, Rating: 0
RE: Duh
By superstition on 6/21/2011 12:07:37 AM , Rating: 2
The list was updated to show US MPG:

The vehicles that beat or equal the Prius are given red MPG labels and the vehicles that meet or beat the Insight are given blue.

RE: Duh
By FishTankX on 6/20/2011 10:15:08 AM , Rating: 2
Just would like to comment that in the US diesel is generally more expensive than gasoline (probably reflective of it's higher energy content) and the 'price premium' for diesel over gasoline is similar to the hybrid price premium. So in the long term, running costs might be similar if not the same.

If you account for Diesel's 20% more energy per gallon, then the prius ranks past all of those cars at an 87. If you measured fuel by the pound, then it would be a little clearer. Nevertheless, I support diesel's, as they last forever and cut down on nickle mining and rare earths consumption. But I'm not sure if Americans would go for diesel. There just isn't enough education to get alot of the people buying new cars (the older folks, 50s and up) knowledgable about how diesel is no longer the smoky, smelly fuel it was in the past.

RE: Duh
By Souka on 6/18/2011 1:23:59 AM , Rating: 2
All I know, and all I care is the following result from Ethonal madness.

My pizza and beer cost more.... direct result of.

RE: Duh
By tng on 6/18/2011 9:16:57 AM , Rating: 2

Well said.

RE: Duh
By GreenEnvt on 6/17/2011 2:24:48 PM , Rating: 1
It works in some cases. Brazil is just about totally fuel independent these days. They produce tons of ethanol from sugar cane, which is more efficient in producing ethanol than corn.

RE: Duh
By Motoman on 6/17/2011 2:36:32 PM , Rating: 5
Uh-huh. Which does nothing but promote more clearcutting of rainforest to grow sugarcane, and drives sugar prices up. Sugar is used in a lot of stuff you know.

Does it work? Sure. Is it a good idea? F%ck no.

RE: Duh
By whickywhickyjim on 6/17/11, Rating: 0
RE: Duh
By Motoman on 6/17/2011 2:46:58 PM , Rating: 5
Go wiki yourself up a little Easter Island there sparky.

Rainforests aren't important because they're pretty.

RE: Duh
By Flunk on 6/17/2011 3:14:44 PM , Rating: 1
Contrary to popular believe rainforests are not pretty at all. Ecologically, they're great but you wouldn't want to go there on vacation.

RE: Duh
By Motoman on 6/17/2011 3:20:30 PM , Rating: 1
True. Probably a good way to become dead.

"ooh, cool frog! Imma lick it!"

RE: Duh
RE: Duh
By whickywhickyjim on 6/17/11, Rating: -1
RE: Duh
By MrBlastman on 6/17/2011 3:42:56 PM , Rating: 4
It's all those Brazilian women I say. The people's minds are being turned to mush by all the beautiful scenery. So, you really can't blame them for making these bad decisions. ;)

RE: Duh
By fic2 on 6/17/2011 4:41:34 PM , Rating: 5
The only reason that sugar prices in the U.S. are up is because of the tariffs and import quotas imposed by the U.S. The U.S. is getting screwed (yet again) by congress by giving corporate welfare. Of course, this has also had the consequence of driving candy manufacturers and sugar refiners to other countries. One article I read said that a GAO report estimated that these tariffs and quotas cost the U.S. consumer $3B a year. Good thing we have a "free" market.

RE: Duh
By Kurz on 6/17/2011 5:50:42 PM , Rating: 2
He was talking about brazil, though all your points are valid.

RE: Duh
By YashBudini on 6/17/2011 11:16:55 PM , Rating: 2
corporate welfare

Oddly enough they very same people who claim corporations are people and people welfare is all bad have no qualms about the type of "people welfare" you just mentioned.

RE: Duh
By Solandri on 6/18/2011 6:56:59 AM , Rating: 3
Ostensibly, corporate subsidies are used to increase supply of whatever it is you're subsidizing (usually with the goal of a corresponding price drop). It doesn't always work out that way, but that's the rationale.

If you try to apply that rationale to welfare for the poor, then you arrive at the conclusion that the purpose of Welfare is to increase the number of poor people.

So the error that causes this contradiction you're pointing out does not originate in the people you're criticizing. It originates in the person referring to this sort of thing as "corporate welfare". It's not welfare, it's subsidizing - they're different things. You can argue that the subsidy isn't working. Or that it isn't worth it. You can even argue it's corrupt and being abused. But the only way the subsidies can be considered "welfare" is if they're given exclusively to poorly performing companies, but not to successful ones. Like the subsidies for green energy technologies.

While I'm against corn ethanol, this topic has kinda turned into a broader criticism of corporate subsidies and lobbying. Here's the thing. Do you believe in "no taxation without representation"?

If you do, and you also believe in taxing corporations, then that is the same thing as believing that they should have representation - i.e. that they should be able to lobby. If you don't want them to have representation but you still want to tax them, then the fair thing to do is to give that tax revenue back to corporations in the form of subsidies. You can shape those subsidies to fit your agenda (e.g. tax oil companies to subsidize green energy companies). But if 100% of the tax money you collect from business isn't being given back to business as subsidies, then either you don't believe in "no taxation without representation", or you believe corporations should have representation in government (i.e. lobbying is ok).

It is self-contradictory to believe in "no taxation without representation", support taxing corporations while opposing corporate subsidies, and at the same time say corporations should not be able to lobby.

RE: Duh
By YashBudini on 6/18/2011 11:45:14 AM , Rating: 2
It is self-contradictory to believe in "no taxation without representation", support taxing corporations while opposing corporate subsidies, and at the same time say corporations should not be able to lobby.

Individuals are routinely taxed without any representation. We don't have lobbyists. Taxes are determined by earnings and profits, if they are working properly. To subsidize and tax at the same time is contradictory.

It's "We The People...." not "We The Corporations....."

RE: Duh
By shin0bi272 on 6/19/2011 7:00:59 AM , Rating: 2
lobbyists are not representation... they are people paid to pay off politicians. the politicians they are paying off ARE THE REPRESENTATIVES THAT YOU VOTED FOR. Your idiotic claims are the exactly like those of the whiskey rebellion. They tried to claim the same no taxation argument but president washington rolled out the militia against them because they had the ability to vote for their representatives.

RE: Duh
By YashBudini on 6/21/2011 12:10:17 AM , Rating: 2
they are people paid to pay off politicians. the politicians they are paying off ARE THE REPRESENTATIVES THAT YOU VOTED FOR.

And the result of what you stated above is my (and everyone else's) representation is thrown out the window by those politicians who are suppose to represent the people who voted for them but now only represent those with the extra payoff.

That's what bribes do, they pay off a person to do something they are not suppose to do, throw a fight, shave points, look the other way, or ignore your constituents in favor of only the corporations with the biggest wad.

RE: Duh
By Solandri on 6/19/2011 10:49:26 AM , Rating: 2
Individuals are routinely taxed without any representation. We don't have lobbyists.

Every individual who is taxed has representation in government. If you chose not to exercise your right to vote, then that's your own fault.

RE: Duh
By YashBudini on 6/19/2011 4:00:28 PM , Rating: 2
Your oversimplification doesn't add credibility. Money outweighs you and what the person you voted for is suppose to do for you.

And speaking of oversimplification, you think only 1 of the 2 parties does this? Both parties are entrenched, both parties do this, and I vote for neither.

Your comment about not voting came out of nowhere, and it's not the only thing you used in your argument from this particular location.

RE: Duh
By YashBudini on 6/17/11, Rating: 0
RE: Duh
By Motoman on 6/18/2011 12:40:54 AM , Rating: 2
Nice invention you made there. You've made it eminently clear that you fundamentally are incapable of having a fact-based conversation, so this is the last time I'm going to waste any pixels on you.

Every single thing you have ever stated over the past few articles that you have darkened has been utterly without basis in fact. You obfuscate and misdirect when challenged, and never address the core issues...based on fact.

You are, in fact, a waste of space. Meaning that literally the world would be better off if the space you occupied were simply empty space. Take your moronic non-ideas and non-arguments and shove them some place else.

RE: Duh
By YashBudini on 6/18/11, Rating: 0
RE: Duh
By Nutzo on 6/17/2011 2:51:12 PM , Rating: 3
That's mainly due the the masive oil fields off thier coast where they actually drilled and are pumping oil from. Unlike here in the US, where we'd rather attack & blame big oil than drill & increase production.

RE: Duh
By Targon on 6/17/2011 7:57:37 PM , Rating: 1
I would rather see the government pay to pump the oil out of the ground but then KEEP the oil taken from government owned land. Sell that on the normal commodities markets and fix the budget problems, rather than just letting companies drill and take EVERYTHING, giving the tax payers NOTHING.

RE: Duh
By YashBudini on 6/17/2011 11:03:49 PM , Rating: 1
but then KEEP the oil taken from government owned land

Under W oil companies wrote their own contracts about oil obtained from federal land. He basically gave the stuff away.

Adminstration of federal natural resource continues to be a totally corrupt fiasco. As usual the 2 parties prove one is worse than the other.

Good riddance.
By MrBlastman on 6/17/2011 2:06:41 PM , Rating: 5
Finally, something out of Washington I can agree with.

RE: Good riddance.
By HrilL on 6/17/2011 2:17:34 PM , Rating: 2
Completely agree as well. I was watching the arguments on Cspan2 the other morning and it was the only time I've ever agreed with Dianne Feinstein.

I think the DT stats on food prices are way off. The price of corn has gone up 200% since 2005. This leads to higher prices for pretty much every animal product as their number one food source is corn.

RE: Good riddance.
By superstition on 6/19/2011 3:07:04 PM , Rating: 2
" was the only time I've ever agreed with Dianne Feinstein."

That seems to say... better check this for overall quality. Congress has a habit of doing certain things for show (as does the White House -- such as with Dawn Johnsen's nomination).

RE: Good riddance.
By DigitalFreak on 6/17/2011 2:24:38 PM , Rating: 3
Finally, something out of Washington I can agree with.

Don't be so quick. The Senate is just using this as a smokescreen to shift the money to ethanol infrastructure (subsidizing more ethanol pumps at gas stations, etc.).

RE: Good riddance.
By shin0bi272 on 6/19/2011 7:02:20 AM , Rating: 2
state your source.

RE: Good riddance.
By kattanna on 6/17/2011 2:25:05 PM , Rating: 2
Finally, something out of Washington I can agree with

while i agree, remember that the house still has to vote on it and the president has to sign it.

hopefully though it will end

RE: Good riddance.
By Dorkyman on 6/17/2011 4:17:04 PM , Rating: 2
Too bad the article doesn't mention the Wall Street Journal article yesterday. After covering the same story the WSJ added that the chance of passage was zero because of something about the bill it was attached to, or whatever.

Still, a giant step in the right direction. Who woulda thought that Dems would be able to embrace Common Sense for once?

RE: Good riddance.
By YashBudini on 6/17/2011 11:06:49 PM , Rating: 2
Who woulda thought that Dems would be able to embrace Common Sense for once?

There's no way for you to know that. There's a good chance they know all too well the bill will never pass and decided to attach the "good idea" to it to pretend they give a rats a$$ about the people, which they don't. Neither party does.

RE: Good riddance.
By room200 on 6/17/2011 2:31:46 PM , Rating: 5
Now dump the oil subsidy.

RE: Good riddance.
By Flunk on 6/17/2011 3:15:42 PM , Rating: 2
And pay fair market prices? The populace would be in an uproar!

RE: Good riddance.
By Spuke on 6/17/2011 3:49:24 PM , Rating: 3
And pay fair market prices? The populace would be in an uproar!
You actually think that the subsidy going to the oil companies is what keeps US prices "low"? LOL!!

PS - LMAO!!!

RE: Good riddance.
By torpor on 6/17/2011 3:53:01 PM , Rating: 2
If we chop the gas tax by a similar amount, I'd be happy to.

RE: Good riddance.
By Kurz on 6/17/2011 5:52:07 PM , Rating: 3
gas tax goes to paying for upkeep on roads.

RE: Good riddance.
By Targon on 6/18/2011 1:43:29 AM , Rating: 1
That is the theory, but in the same way that money in the Social Security fund wasn't supposed to be mis-appropriated, the gas tax revenues have all been redirected toward other things, like paying for the 30 government aides that some elected officials have.

RE: Good riddance.
By YashBudini on 6/18/2011 1:52:48 AM , Rating: 2
gas tax goes to paying for upkeep on roads.

Gas taxes here go into the general [slush] fund. What about your state?

RE: Good riddance.
By chick0n on 6/18/2011 8:29:43 AM , Rating: 1
Then maybe you should explain why the roads in NYC are the shittest roads I've ever seen ?

or it could be that Bloomberg has spent it all on useless bike lanes/bus lanes/parks that no one ever use it/make the already jam pack roads EVEN narrower/etc.

Just not using them to fix the roads/potholes ?

RE: Good riddance.
By YashBudini on 6/18/2011 1:40:18 PM , Rating: 1
Then maybe you should explain why the roads in NYC are the shittest roads I've ever seen ?

That's easily resolved. Try driving through PA to find a whole new low. But yeah NY is also one of those states that puts gas taxes into the general fund.

You neglected the biggest workfare program NY has created, the NYS Thruway. It's purpose is to satisfy political nepotism.

RE: Good riddance.
By YashBudini on 6/18/2011 1:46:53 PM , Rating: 2

It seems you got rated down merely for addressing me. The only thing more lacking on DT than adequate server HP is fairness. Oh well, not much you can do about flamers.

RE: Good riddance.
By shin0bi272 on 6/19/2011 7:12:59 AM , Rating: 2
All tax revenue goes into the general fund and is dispersed according to who lobbies the hardest for the most money.

Here in NC there's a yearly property tax just to have a car on the road... So not only do you have to pay tax, tag and processing when you buy a car, you also have to pay for registration, inspection, and then this tax. They claim its to help the roads but according to their little pie chart that they put on the bottom of the bill (which is bs of course) 65% of it goes to education and only 0.002% of it goes to the road. Yet we have a gas tax to "fix the roads" and a state lottery to "fund education" but we still have to pay this property tax.... oh yeah cause the government can never do with less of our money. Now you know why people have swiss bank accounts.

RE: Good riddance.
By YashBudini on 6/19/2011 4:04:01 PM , Rating: 2
Now you know why people have swiss bank accounts.

Yeah that's another overlooked piece of the pie the Heritage Foundation overlooks when it talks about how high tax rates are for the rich.

RE: Good riddance.
By shin0bi272 on 6/19/2011 7:05:00 AM , Rating: 2
better idea... the government (state and federal) add about a dollar a gallon to the price of gas while the oil subsidy only drops the price a few cents a gallon. Why not eliminate the gas taxes first then the oil subsidy wont have such an impact.

the "populace" wont be in such an uproar then will it?

RE: Good riddance.
By Jalek on 6/18/2011 3:36:37 AM , Rating: 2
This program had some ridiculous games being played with it, they got the credit if they dumped a few gallons of ethanol into a supertanker headed overseas as well.

It was going to expire anyway, note that they kept the agricultural subsidies and diversions, they just took out the easiest for political mileage.

Subsidy and tax
By RedemptionAD on 6/17/2011 2:28:23 PM , Rating: 4
This applies to more than just ethanol, but I find it supid that many items have both a subsidy and a tax? Why not have no subsidy and a lesser tax?

Just my $.02

RE: Subsidy and tax
By RedemptionAD on 6/17/2011 2:50:07 PM , Rating: 2
*stupid not supid

RE: Subsidy and tax
By nafhan on 6/17/2011 3:14:49 PM , Rating: 2
many items have both a subsidy and a tax
It's an easy way for the government to redirect money.

RE: Subsidy and tax
By Flunk on 6/17/2011 3:16:16 PM , Rating: 2
While skipping plenty off the top.

RE: Subsidy and tax
By Flunk on 6/17/2011 3:16:29 PM , Rating: 2

RE: Subsidy and tax
By RedemptionAD on 6/17/2011 3:30:45 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry. I thought politics were supposed to have ethics and logic, but they seem to have neither. Mea Culpa.

RE: Subsidy and tax
By ClownPuncher on 6/17/2011 3:33:31 PM , Rating: 3
They do, ethic al violations and logic al fallacies.

RE: Subsidy and tax
By TSS on 6/18/2011 8:27:27 AM , Rating: 2
Actually it's the people that should understand ethics and logics and vote in somebody in accordance to that. If the people do not understand it's not ethical to accept money from corperations during campaigns in return for promises in office then you can hardly fault the politicians doing for that. Hell they get much more money from corperations then the american people would it be ethical for them to go against his employers?

Logics mean that this will go on forever unless the people speak up about it. Logics also mean the people can speak up about it.

It's not ethical or logical to blame the first sheep that jumped off the cliff for the deaths of the ones that followed it.

RE: Subsidy and tax
By RedemptionAD on 6/18/2011 9:29:00 AM , Rating: 2
It is both ethical and logical to blame the other sheep that followed. We are not lemmings and to not think for yourself and follow a losing trend is a logical fallacy. When a car crash happens in front of you, do you not try to avoid it or do you go "That looks like fun" and crash into the back of the car that just crashed?

What's the point?
By TEAMSWITCHER on 6/17/11, Rating: 0
RE: What's the point?
By Fraggeren on 6/17/11, Rating: 0
RE: What's the point?
By Dorkyman on 6/17/2011 4:22:16 PM , Rating: 2
Earth to TeamSwitcher: You might want to read more.

In the past few years there have been startling discoveries of new oil and natural gas deposits. Literally many hundreds of years worth.

One can argue that fossil fuels are "bad" for the planet (I disagree), but there is no longer any argument about them being in short supply.

RE: What's the point?
By Mathos on 6/17/2011 9:48:55 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, this one here is right. It's the whole oil sand thing. Irony being that US refineries are the only ones advanced enough to refine the oil from this. Everyone else is stuck with using sweet crude blends which is why the price per barrel and demand has always gone up or been high for those types of oil.

Now on to the ethanol repeal.....Thank friggen higher being if it goes through. Not only does the ethanol in our gas cause more wear and tear on internal engine parts. It burns hotter, packs less energy per unit, causes water condensation inside the engine, fouls the fuel with water if it sits unused for more than a month in a tank (due to water condensation). It drives the cost of food up ,and I mean all foods that use corn products, high fructose corn syrup, corn meal, corn starch, flour, etc. It drives the cost of meat products up, due to increased cost of animal feed.

Don't get me started on what the ethanol in the gas does to small engines, such as most 2 cycle motors, and lawnmower motors.

RE: What's the point?
By tng on 6/18/2011 9:37:20 AM , Rating: 1
Earth to TeamSwitcher: You might want to read more.

In the past few years there have been startling discoveries of new oil and natural gas deposits. Literally many hundreds of years worth.
I had also read somewhere in a trade publication of some geological group that there were some old oil fields that were "refilling", pumped dry in the 30's and now half full again (wish I could find the link). This makes the case that "fossil fuels" are not really from fossils and probably never have been.

RE: What's the point?
By Fraggeren on 6/18/2011 1:07:07 PM , Rating: 2
It's YOU who needs to read more.

IEA says the annual rate of decline is 6.7% and new discoveries is not making of for what is consumed. Please remember in 30 years we are 40% more people walking the earth. And already now they fail to raise output making the oil price go higher. NO JOKE.

Ohh.. and why do you think Saudi Arabia want solar energy output to match crude exports? I'll let you chew on that.

Get out of your comfort zone and wake up! You smell like sloppy politicians.

RE: What's the point?
By Targon on 6/17/2011 8:00:34 PM , Rating: 1
Yep, nuclear does the job, but due to people being ignorant about what causes the big nuclear disasters, they want to ban everything. It should be entertaining to see half of Europe slow to a crawl as country after country shuts down their nuclear power plants due to irrational fears.

RE: What's the point?
By RivuxGamma on 6/18/2011 11:24:02 AM , Rating: 3
I mostly agree. Nuclear, when done properly, is the best way to produce tons (not literally) of electricity. The problem is always people. By that, I mean that people make decisions that make it unsafe like improper waste containment that's cheaper by the short term. Also, people force others to make those decisions like "green" lobbyists howling about nuclear waste storage in Yucca Mountain, a place chosen specifically for its minimal environmental impact. If we had a better way to launch stuff into space, then I'd say we should just hurl it all at the sun or maybe Venus. Because f*ck 'em, that's why.

By chagrinnin on 6/17/2011 3:36:45 PM , Rating: 4
39% of all corn produced in the U.S. goes to ethanol production

The other 61% is soon to be used in steaks.

RE: 100%
By chagrinnin on 6/17/2011 6:09:22 PM , Rating: 2
"Waiter! There's corn in my steak!"

~Sheb Wooley

RE: 100%
By tng on 6/18/2011 9:29:16 AM , Rating: 2

Sugar ethanol?
By quiksilvr on 6/17/2011 2:23:13 PM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't it be better (cheaper) to just import the sugar ethanol from Brazil? It's much cleaner than corn (and easier to make) know...we cool with Brazil.

RE: Sugar ethanol?
By Flunk on 6/17/2011 3:17:29 PM , Rating: 2
Where is Brazil going to produce this extra ethanol? As it is they're barely covering domestic demand.

RE: Sugar ethanol?
By YashBudini on 6/17/2011 11:11:23 PM , Rating: 1
Wouldn't it be better (cheaper) to just import the sugar ethanol from Brazil?

That's illegal. Who made it that way? The corn lobby.

By whickywhickyjim on 6/17/2011 2:40:21 PM , Rating: 2
I am surprised that the administration is going along with this. Especially when considering that the Obama administration roots are in Illinois, where the corn growers have a large presence, and stand to lose out bigtime on inflated corn prices with the rollback of this subsidy.

RE: suprsing
By Etsp on 6/17/2011 3:37:25 PM , Rating: 2
Three branches of government. The Senate is in the legislative branch, the President is in the executive branch. The senate do not need to care about what the Obama administration thinks about a particular bill. If they have enough support for a bill, they can override the President's veto.

I don't know what the Obama administration feels about this, they may even be supporting it as well. However, the fact that the senate voted for something doesn't mean that it is in line with what the White House wants.

cellulosic ethanol
By Fraggeren on 6/17/2011 3:48:20 PM , Rating: 3
It's a shame most people isn't aware of cellulosic ethanol:

It gives farmers a second income on their harvest, and therefore help to reduce food price.

oil reserves....
By croc on 6/18/2011 12:47:33 AM , Rating: 3
The issue is, much of the 'reported' reserves of oil that many here are touting are either unproven (geologist talk for 'that looks like a likely formation') or are uneconomical to drill (mine, frac, whatever) at today's prices. Sooo.... If you want oil bad enough to pay $500 / bbl, yes - there are many years of the stuff left. Conceivably, coal could be turned into oil. People are also pretty greasy, but probably only useful for low grade diesel...

By The Raven on 6/17/2011 2:36:02 PM , Rating: 2
By Beenthere on 6/17/2011 5:44:29 PM , Rating: 2
As usual U.S. consumers have been duped by politicians for years so that our tax dollars could line the pockets of Big Biz and politicians. It's so amazing that the U.S. is becoming a dirtbag, third world country due to unscrupulous politicians and Biz people.

Real subsidies
By DrApop on 6/17/2011 8:43:21 PM , Rating: 2
But would the senate or house vote for to repeal the most costly energy subsidies offered by the government...that is the real question.

Tax deductions and subsidies for the oil companies. Screw the farmer and his family but bend over and take it deep from big oil.

Deficit control
By vision33r on 6/20/2011 10:03:21 AM , Rating: 2
People failed to understand that cutting this is simply the govt looking for ways to cut our deficits without the big debates. If they cut tax cuts to oil companies which should be the best thing to do you have the big oil companies' lobbyist breathing down their necks. Ethanol does not have enough lobbying power in Washington right now so they are on the receiving end of cuts as congress will keep scanning for more ways to cut spending and see which small fry to kill.

corn doesn't just appear
By invidious on 6/17/2011 5:57:10 PM , Rating: 1
We don't have huge piles of corn that is just waiting in the ground for us to dig up like oil. It costs a lot to farm all that corn. It releases a lot of emissions. And the corn to ethanol process has plenty of ineficiencies too.

The only productive creation of ethanol is from waste food. Grocery stores and resturants should send their waste food for processing. If its too old or undesirable to eat then by all means turn it into fuel. Growing food for the expressed intent of making fuel is just silly to anyone who understands physics or engineering or manufacturing.

If it was a practial industry it wouldn't need $6 billion of subsidies.

Ethanol is NOT more green.
By Stoicz on 6/20/2011 5:22:19 PM , Rating: 1
"Ethanol is renewable and greener than petroleum fuel, but reduces fuel economy."

There is nothing 'greener' about ethanol, I don't even know why this is stated at the end of the article. It takes petrol in MANY forms(herbicide, pesticide, transportation). If you take out not just the ethanol subsidy but the huge subsidies on corn, you're left with nothing greener nor less expensive than petrol.

This not even including the damage that the land that only producing only Corn and Soy over and over in the same fields without letting the fields regenerate topsoil and nutrients naturally.

“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki