AP: The secret, dirty cost of Obama's green power push for ethanol

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    AP: The secret, dirty cost of Obama's green power push for ethanol

    A minute after you read this, Concerned Citizen will post that the law was signed by George Bush and rant about neo-con hypocrites. Yes, this was a bipartisan Big Government boondoggle. The point is, what do we do from here, when the evidence is in,  as to what a failure the push for ethanol is?

    AP:

    With the Iowa political caucuses on the horizon in 2007, presidential candidate Barack Obama made homegrown corn a centerpiece of his plan to slow global warming. And when President George W. Bush signed a law that year requiring oil companies to add billions of gallons of ethanol to their gasoline each year, Bush predicted it would make the country "stronger, cleaner and more secure."

     

    But the ethanol era has proven far more damaging to the environment than politicians promised and much worse than the government admits today.

     

    As farmers rushed to find new places to plant corn, they wiped out millions of acres of conservation land, destroyed habitat and polluted water supplies, an Associated Press investigation found.

     

    Five million acres of land set aside for conservation — more than Yellowstone, Everglades and Yosemite National Parks combined — have vanished on Obama's watch.

     

    Landowners filled in wetlands. They plowed into pristine prairies, releasing carbon dioxide that had been locked in the soil.

     

    Sprayers pumped out billions of pounds of fertilizer, some of which seeped into drinking water, contaminated rivers and worsened the huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico where marine life can't survive.

     

    The consequences are so severe that environmentalists and many scientists have now rejected corn-based ethanol as bad environmental policy. But the Obama administration stands by it, highlighting its benefits to the farming industry rather than any negative impact.

     

    Farmers planted 15 million more acres of corn last year than before the ethanol boom, and the effects are visible in places like south central Iowa.

    ... in the president's push to reduce greenhouse gases and curtail global warming, his administration has allowed so-called green energy to do not-so-green things.

     

    In some cases, such as its decision to allow wind farms to kill eagles, the administration accepts environmental costs because they pale in comparison to the havoc it believes global warming could ultimately cause.

     

    Ethanol is different.

     

    The government's predictions of the benefits have proven so inaccurate that independent scientists question whether it will ever achieve its central environmental goal: reducing greenhouse gases. That makes the hidden costs even more significant.

     

    "This is an ecological disaster," said Craig Cox with the Environmental Working Group, a natural ally of the president that, like others, now finds itself at odds with the White House.

     

    But it's a cost the administration is willing to accept. It believes supporting corn ethanol is the best way to encourage the development of biofuels that will someday be cleaner and greener than today's. Pulling the plug on corn ethanol, officials fear, might mean killing any hope of these next-generation fuels.

    The numbers behind the ethanol mandate have become so unworkable that, for the first time, the EPA is soon expected to reduce the amount of ethanol required to be added to the gasoline supply. An unusual coalition of big oil companies, environmental groups and food companies is pushing the government to go even further and reconsider the entire ethanol program.

     

    The ethanol industry is fighting hard against that effort. Industry spokesman Brooke Coleman dismissed this story as "propaganda on a page." An industry blog in Minnesota said the AP had succumbed "to Big Oil's deep pockets and powerful influence."

    Truth is , the Government succumbed to Big Ethanol's deep pockets and influence!

    Big Ethanol includes huge Agricultural corporations like Monsanto, and speculators who bought virgin lands now plowed over to plant corn....

    "The economic stakes for the industry are significant. Congress is working on legislation to do away with the corn-based portion of the mandate, which required oil companies to blend billions of gallons of ethanol into their gasoline. Big Oil is pumping big money into the effort. The Obama administration, a strong defender of biofuels, is soon expected to slightly ease the law's requirements. Overnight, such changes would eliminate a huge source of the demand for ethanol, reduce profits for farmers and ethanol producers and likely lower the price of corn."

    "The AP's investigation is based on government data, interviews and observations. It highlights what many researchers have published in peer-reviewed journals and is consistent with reports to Congress by the Environmental Protection Agency about ethanol's environment toll."

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: AP: The secret, dirty cost of Obama's green power push for ethanol

    I've always thought the ethanol thing was stupid. Bad for engines, bad for food supply.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: AP: The secret, dirty cost of Obama's green power push for ethanol

    It took corn-based ethanol to get to cellulosic ethanol.

    At least the thread title reflects the obviously bi-partisan nature of a decade-and-a-half of ethanol subsidies, right...?

    Right...?

     

     

     

     

     

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: AP: The secret, dirty cost of Obama's green power push for ethanol

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Apparently the not so secret 'dirty little secret' is that CLC wishes that the ethanol program started by the neo-cons could be blamed entirely on Obama.

    [/QUOTE]

    ACC,  you always just nastily diss Republicans, but you never take a stand.

    Man up. Do you support the ethanol subsidy, yes or no, ACC, and why?

    Do you think President Obama is correct in his policy, or  not?

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: AP: The secret, dirty cost of Obama's green power push for ethanol

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It took corn-based ethanol to get to cellulosic ethanol.

    At least the thread title reflects the obviously bi-partisan nature of a decade-and-a-half of ethanol subsidies, right...?

    Right...?

    [/QUOTE]

    Blame Bush, I am with you.

    Bush and Republicans made a bad mistake, the facts have shown what a disaster this is.

    The difference is, many if not most Republicans now want to change the policy. They actually pay attention to results...you know, fact-based, they admit the error of their ways.

    Where is the Party of Government and Crony Capitalism on this? Supporting Government subsidies and Crony Capitalists, as usual.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: AP: The secret, dirty cost of Obama's green power push for ethanol


    He's wrong in his policy, but he comes from a farm state so follow the money.

    In saner times, Obama would have made a good Republican. 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: AP: The secret, dirty cost of Obama's green power push for ethanol

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    Apparently the not so secret 'dirty little secret' is that CLC wishes that the ethanol program started by the neo-cons could be blamed entirely on Obama.

     



     

    ACC,  you always just nastily diss Republicans, but you never take a stand.

    Man up. Do you support the ethanol subsidy, yes or no, ACC, and why?

    Do you think President Obama is correct in his policy, or  not?

     




    I believe in bio-fuels in general as an alternative fuel source.

     

    As for the ethanol program in it's current state ... not so much.

    [/QUOTE]

    Thanks for responding on substance for once, instead of the usual hyperbole.
    So you are in alliance with Republicans on this issue..making you an honorary "neo-con hypocrite.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: AP: The secret, dirty cost of Obama's green power push for ethanol

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It took corn-based ethanol to get to cellulosic ethanol.

    At least the thread title reflects the obviously bi-partisan nature of a decade-and-a-half of ethanol subsidies, right...?

    Right...?

    [/QUOTE]

    Blame Bush, I am with you.

    Bush and Republicans made a bad mistake, the facts have shown what a disaster this is.

    The difference is, many if not most Republicans now want to change the policy. They actually pay attention to results...you know, fact-based, they admit the error of their ways.

    Where is the Party of Government and Crony Capitalism on this? Supporting Government subsidies and Crony Capitalists, as usual.

    [/QUOTE]

    Again, you jump off the partisan cliff.

    Make no mistake...there are quite a few (if not most) heartland pols - on both sides - who like those subsidies very much and would expand them further if they could.

    "Fact-based" is a bit of a stretch coming from you, so I'll ignore your tin-eared foolishness about complicit repubs and focus on the issue itself.

     

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     

Share