Print 58 comment(s) - last by Ghostmaker.. on Mar 15 at 8:27 PM

Ethanol is making a point that Big Oil is receiving subsidies and ethanol isn't

Ethanol is holding one huge, sarcastic birthday party for Big Oil in celebration of its oldest subsidy enacted 100 years ago.

The 100th birthday for oil's oldest subsidy -- which began in 1913 -- will be prepared by the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association (IRFA), which promotes Iowa ethanol and biodiesel growth, and the American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE), which encourages the production and use of ethanol.

“And it dawned on us a few months ago that this is in fact the 100th birthday for oil subsidies and this calls for a party, and I think people can assume our tongues are firmly planted in our cheeks when we say we’re going to celebrate that fact,” said Monte Shaw, executive director of IRFA.

Why is the ethanol industry doing this? According to Shaw, the ethanol blenders tax credit expired in 2011, and ethanol has been forced to continue on without any help. However, Big Oil, which is already the most profitable industry in the world, still receives subsidies. The oldest, continuous subsidy was enacted in 1913, which is the topic of the birthday party.

“What we’re saying is, they’re there," said Shaw. "And we’re sick and tired of members of Congress who don’t know any better or don’t want to know any better, saying, oh, why do you need the RFS?  Why do you this, why do you need that? Can’t you just compete on a level playing field? When the fact of the matter is, our competition has had 100 years of subsidization. They’ve had nearly 40 years of a petroleum mandate written into federal law that says unless you drive a flex-fuel vehicle, you will purchase gasoline with a minimum amount of petroleum (85% percent of petroleum). The playing field is overwhelmingly tilted to the oil industry and that has got to be a part of all discussions around the RFS."

The RFS is the Renewable Fuel Standard, which is a U.S. federal program that requires transportation fuel to have a certain amount of renewable fuels when sold in the U.S.

The birthday party, called "Century of Subsidies," will be held on Thursday, March 14, 2013 from 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. at 430 Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington DC.

There will be cake.


Comments     Threshold

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

RE: :p
By mikeyD95125 on 3/14/2013 3:12:24 AM , Rating: 2
Absolutely not. I don't want the government ever deciding what industries are "highly important". I want governmental policies that encourage all commerce equally; I want a government that gets out of the way and influences as little as possible.

Ack! Well too effin bad you delusional libertarians who enjoy all the conveniences society, but want none of the sacrifice, because you and Reclaimer (as usual when he doesn't back up his dogmatic opinions with any sources)are going DP on the wrong hole.

Why? Hmm I think because you both are stating your absolutist arguments against any kind of government involvement over the freaking internet. Once in a while, bright people get together and create something awesome that benefits people everywhere. Because this sometimes happens through government programs, you can't rule out government involvement entirely, definitely not ideologically like it is so tempting to do.

Do negative things happen because of government involvement? Well no $h1t?!?!?
So articulate that argument against bad government more precisely. Unless you actually believe that no government involvement is really the solution. In which case you missed the economics courses after intro macro and micro, in which Keynesian economics schools 19th century 'Reclaimer style'(TM) wild west market economies by controlling inflation and evening out the business cycle.

My evidence is that you no longer poop in a hole.
Mike D

RE: :p
By ebakke on 3/14/2013 10:38:17 AM , Rating: 2
who enjoy all the conveniences society, but want none of the sacrifice
$400M to Solyndra isn't convenient to me. DoD drones used to kill Americans without due process isn't convenient to me. An education system that is failing miserably isn't convenient to me.

And never once did I say I wasn't willing to pay for the things that are valuable to me.

Because this sometimes happens through government programs, you can't rule out government involvement entirely
Because something has happened a certain way in the past, that is the only way it can happen in the future? Or because something has happened a certain way in the past, I must accept that as a viable solution?

Read my other posts in this thread for a more articulate argument. But based on the post I'm replying to, I suspect you're not actually interested in understanding my point of view; you're just interested in chastising it.

"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes

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