U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-08-2008, 11:35 AM
 
Location: Sacramento
13,755 posts, read 23,230,467 times
Reputation: 6092

Advertisements

From Obama's own website:

Corn ethanol is the most successful alternative fuel commercially available in the U.S. today, and we should fight the efforts of big oil and big agri-business to undermine this emerging industry.

Obama also led the successful effort to make gas stations eligible for a tax credit to cover 30 percent of the costs of installing E85 ethanol refueling pumps.

Less than 10 percent of new ethanol production today is from farmer-owned refineries. New ethanol refineries help jumpstart rural economies. Obama will create a number of incentives for local communities to invest in their biofuels refineries.


http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pd...yFactSheet.pdf


From the New York Times fairly liberal economics writer Paul Krugman:

Where the effects of bad policy are clearest, however, is in the rise of demon ethanol and other biofuels.

The subsidized conversion of crops into fuel was supposed to promote energy independence and help limit global warming. But this promise was...a “scam.”

This is especially true of corn ethanol: even on optimistic estimates, producing a gallon of ethanol from corn uses most of the energy the gallon contains. But it turns out that even seemingly “good” biofuel policies...accelerate the pace of climate change by promoting deforestation.

And meanwhile, land used to grow biofuel feedstock is land not available to grow food, so subsidies to biofuels are a major factor in the food crisis. You might put it this way: people are starving in Africa so that American politicians can court votes in farm states.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/op...ar&oref=slogin


From fellow Illinois Senator Dick Durbin (Democrat):

“I’ve supported ethanol from the beginning. The object of having homegrown fuel in America is a good goal, and it’s one we’re moving toward ever so slowly,” he said. “But we have to understand it’s had an impact on food prices. Even in the Corn Belt, we’d better be honest about it.”

Because of biofuel mandates included in the 2005 energy bill, about one-third of the U.S. corn crop is expected to go toward ethanol production in the coming year.

High corn prices have also contributed to higher soybean and wheat prices. This is because farmers last year planted more corn instead of soybeans and wheat because of the high prices for corn.


TheHill.com - Ethanol part of food crisis, says Durbin


From a write up in Science magazine, authored by Dr Joe Fargione, a scientist for The Nature Conservancy:

"We analyzed all the benefits of using biofuels as alternatives to oil, but we found that the benefits fall far short of the carbon losses. It's what we call 'the carbon debt.' If you're trying to mitigate global warming, it simply does not make sense to convert land for biofuels production. All the biofuels we use now cause habitat destruction, either directly or indirectly. Global agriculture is already producing food for six billion people. Producing food-based biofuel, too, will require that still more land be converted to agriculture."

"Using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land use change, we found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gasses for 167 years," write the authors.


Biofuels are worsening global warming

Conservation Science at The Nature Conservancy - Joe Fargione Bio


So, my question is this, is Obama supporting a policy and subsidy that substantially contributes towards the problems of hunger, food price inflation and global warming? Are the arguments against Obama's ethanol policies incorrect?

Please keep in mind, the sources I used in putting together this thread are generally sympathetic towards liberal sentiments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-08-2008, 11:52 AM
 
Location: Albemarle, NC
7,730 posts, read 12,453,288 times
Reputation: 1489
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
So, my question is this, is Obama supporting a policy and subsidy that substantially contributes towards the problems of hunger, food price inflation and global warming? Are the arguments against Obama's ethanol policies incorrect?

Please keep in mind, the sources I used in putting together this thread are generally sympathetic towards liberal sentiments.
I think you've outlined it really well. Ethanol subsidies are horrible. The consumers should decide which alternative will survive.

This also invalidates his Global Poverty Act. We're going to make things worse, before we make them better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2008, 11:54 AM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,314 posts, read 38,494,404 times
Reputation: 7106
The terrible unintended consequences of liberal ideas.

They just create disasters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2008, 11:59 AM
 
Location: Albemarle, NC
7,730 posts, read 12,453,288 times
Reputation: 1489
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
The terrible unintended consequences of liberal ideas.

They just create disasters.
LOL. You're a hoot!

Ethanol Industry Gets a Boost From Bush - washingtonpost.com

Quote:
At the State of the Union address Tuesday night, Don Endres relished the strange applause rituals, the pomp and ceremony, and even the dinner in the Capitol beforehand at which he rubbed elbows with leading lawmakers.

But most of all, Endres, the chief executive of the nation's second-largest ethanol maker, relished President Bush's message: that the government should sharply raise the mandate for ethanol use in motor fuels, setting a floor for alternative and renewable fuel use in 2017 that is equal to seven times the current ethanol output.
Quote:
To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by setting a mandatory fuels standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 -- and that is nearly five times the current target. (Applause.) At the same time, we need to reform and modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks -- and conserve up to 8.5 billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017.
President Bush Delivers State of the Union Address
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2008, 12:01 PM
mga
 
Location: near rochester ny
230 posts, read 355,954 times
Reputation: 41
the EU states are now considering getting away from bio-fuels:

American Thinker Blog: EU to scale back Bio-fuel plans

poor liberals...it's terrible when an idea back fires.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2008, 12:03 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
13,755 posts, read 23,230,467 times
Reputation: 6092
I'd like to be clear here, I want to debate the idea that Obama supports. I know it has a start from both parties. But McCain isn't a supporter of corn based ethanol subsidies (see thread that discusses this). Bush isn't running for President, so he is irrelevant here.

Hopefully some of the Obama supporters will provide a reasoned rebuttal to the OP. It would help the discussion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2008, 12:09 PM
 
Location: Albemarle, NC
7,730 posts, read 12,453,288 times
Reputation: 1489
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
I'd like to be clear here, I want to debate the idea that Obama supports. I know it has a start from both parties. But McCain isn't a supporter of corn based ethanol subsidies (see thread that discusses this). Bush isn't running for President, so he is irrelevant here.

Hopefully some of the Obama supporters will provide a reasoned rebuttal to the OP. It would help the discussion.
Well I can't debate you because I think he's wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2008, 12:13 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
13,755 posts, read 23,230,467 times
Reputation: 6092
Quote:
Originally Posted by paperhouse View Post
Well I can't debate you because I think he's wrong.
Agreements are always welcome too! ;-)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2008, 12:14 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,314 posts, read 38,494,404 times
Reputation: 7106
Quote:
LOL. You're a hoot!
Quote:
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 set a national goal of 30 percent penetration of alternative fuels in light-duty vehicles by 2010. It also requires the federal government, alternative fuel providers, state and local governments and private fleets to purchase vehicles that run on alternative fuels.
IIRC, the dems/clinton were in power.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2008, 12:52 PM
 
2,215 posts, read 3,213,519 times
Reputation: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
I'd like to be clear here, I want to debate the idea that Obama supports. I know it has a start from both parties. But McCain isn't a supporter of corn based ethanol subsidies (see thread that discusses this). Bush isn't running for President, so he is irrelevant here.

Hopefully some of the Obama supporters will provide a reasoned rebuttal to the OP. It would help the discussion.
Ca this is happen in all the negative Obama threads, they are going back to talk about Bush when they know anything he has done is out the window now. They started to go back to the Iraq issue as a topic but then when Obama flipped over to our side on Iraq it stopped and they went back to the Bush in every negative posting.

Obama is wrong on many key issues, we are just now seeing the information come out because he has been given a free ride on key issues.

Corn is in trouble, dont forget the demsof the 1980's and early 90's paid farmers in the midwest to not grow it or grow it and leave it rot in silos so the price could be manipulated. Obama is getting caught in the middle on this one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top