Now, how's about y'all stop telling us how evil we are with the ethanol start-up bit and offer a better, non-subsidized energy alternative, since last I heard the Mr. Fusion unit for my truck is currently on back-order from the manufacturer?
You know, the old, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" thing.
I do believe the obligation to prove a subsidy's and a mandate's worth is on those who wish to impose it. As such things are anathema to freedom and a free market, there had best be a net benefit in the cost/benefit analysis.
Also, a viable solution to a bad idea is to
stop implementing it, much as a viable solution to head trauma is to stop banging your head on the wall.
The market did not need subsidies to end our dependence on whale oil. It became more expensive relative to other alternatives. I think that solution, the market, will best solve our fuel problems. Tear out mandates, subsidies, CAFE, EPA cocktail blends, etc. and let the market do its work.
I'm also trying to remember exactly how many trees my family and friends in Sauk County have cut down to plant ethanol corn in their fields. Off the top of my head, I remember the number being 0, give or take 0. Maybe that's because the fields were already growing the same field corn to sell at government-subsidized prices before the most recent ethanol boom? I dunno, you tell me.
You & your family's cutting of trees is not the issue. Your farmland sounds like it is some of the better and (more importantly) currently in cultivation. The lands at issue are the marginal plots that have fallen to disuse since Midwest agriculture came online in the late 1800's. Ethanol subsidies and mandates make it profitable to put that land to the plow again. Toss in land that is already in use growing crops suitable to the local climate that is now being planted in corn. All such lands generally require greater inputs (fertilizer, water, etc.) than prime land in the farm belt.
Now, do you suppose that the 4.3 billion gallons of ethanol fuel in that particular study you so nicely bold-faced (paid for by whom, I'm curious) just might have replaced 4.3 billion gallons of gasoline that came from Jihadistan?
Not by a long shot. Do. The. Math.
Assume that it takes zero energy inputs to make that 4.3 billion gallons of ethanol. Since Eth has 55% the energy content of oil, you would replace 2.37B gal of oil with the 4.3B gal of Eth.
But, assuming zero energy inputs for corn-derived Eth is not even close. The Cornell study a net
loss of 54000 BTU per gallon of Eth produced, or:
Net BTU Loss per Gal Eth 5.40E+04
Net BTU Loss for 4.3B Gal Eth 2.32E+14
Equivalent Gal Oil Loss to Pro 4.3B Gal Eth 1.68E+09
So, to produce that 4.3B gal of Eth, we not only have to import the original 4.3B gal of jihadi oil, we need to import another 1.68B gal of jihadi oil. Yep, that is quite the "alternative."
Cost the consumer more, import more jihadi oil, and spend more tax dollars to do it. Great idea.
I've got way more than 11 acres planted in field corn, and I'll exercise my Gawd-given right to drive hither and yon using what grew there, and sell the extra to whom I choose, be it the ethanol distillery in Friesland or the local co-op.
It is less a God-given right, more a Congress-given windfall.
Or would you rather we do nothing? Your beloved Euro-weenies...
So, you taking public transportation out to your acres of subsidized corn? How 'bout when you're on patrol? Advocates for public transport really ought to set the example.
Doing nothing is certainly preferable to Eth subsidy and mandates. At least doing nothing doesn't cost us more.
Ethanol is, at its heart, just another example of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs similar to the illegal alien issue. We don't need another one of those sorts of programs, thank you very much.
