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.
Why do farm state agricultural interests have so much influence that ethanol despite having 1/3 less less energy content then gasoline get huge subsidies.
Ethanol tends to be about 40-50 cents more per gallon than petrol to begin with and even then it contains 1/3 less energy, which means 1/3 less miles per gallon with ethanol. And this is with barrel of oil at around 62 dollars, they still have ethanol at more then 40 cents higher with 1/3 less energy content.
It seems like this is just an energy program far worse then straight subsidies.
I mean think about E-10 means that on 100 gallons, with 10 gallons being ethanol you are getting 3 gallons less worth of energy for your car. Which equals about an in-direct 7 dollar ethanol tax on every 100 gallons of gasoline.
Not only that the corn being planted means less corn for feed. Since alot of the animals that end up on the dinner table are corn-fed that means with corn costing double what it was it will be passed onto the consumer in the form of higher meat prices and higher prices for anything that has corn in it.
I just think this ethanol situation is a big, big waste of resources and energy which will be of big detriment to the economy.
Why?
Because we want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil coming from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Nigeria, Venezuela, Russia, etc.
I'm not saying that ethanol is the best way, but if it's not economically feasible, then another alternative will dominate the market anyway.
Additionally, another answer as to "Why", is because states like Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and Nebraska grow tons and tons of corn. These states also have senators, just like everyone else. If I'm a senator from one of these states, I'm going to be pulling as hard as I can for things that are in the best interests of my constituents. If ethanol becomes economically viable as an energy source (or maybe even if it doesn't), then the price of corn will skyrocket, and my state's farmers would see huge profits, and I'd get re-elected.
Why?
Because we want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil coming from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Nigeria, Venezuela, Russia, etc.
I'm not saying that ethanol is the best way, but if it's not economically feasible, then another alternative will dominate the market anyway.
Additionally, another answer as to "Why", is because states like Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and Nebraska grow tons and tons of corn. These states also have senators, just like everyone else. If I'm a senator from one of these states, I'm going to be pulling as hard as I can for things that are in the best interests of my constituents. If ethanol becomes economically viable as an energy source (or maybe even if it doesn't), then the price of corn will skyrocket, and my state's farmers would see huge profits, and I'd get re-elected.
I dont see whats wrong with importing oil, if people dont want use the oil its called conservation. Buy more energy efficient cars and they dont have to drive so much. Besides, why should meat and anything with corn increase in price alot so people can put something in their gas tank that gets them 1/3rd less energy to the gallon then regular oil.
Farmers are just a small part of the population base, yes they are relevant to these states economies but they are only a very small segment of the population. The average person living in a county without farms isnt benefiting much from some one who has a 5,000 acre farm in a rural part of Indiana or Iowa.
City dwellers in Des Moines and Indianapolis still have to pay 7 dollar per 100 gallon premium on today's prices just like any other state that uses E-10.
I think alot of these politicians from the center of the country should worry more about where the vast majority of their populations live (albeit not as many as the coasts) in small and medium sized cities and not on farms.
I sympathize with those people who live in a rural area or otherwise are in a position where driving is their only option. I do think that in more dense metropolises where mass transit is (or perhaps should be) an option, it might influence folks to make the most out of their car trips... or even hop on the train or bus, where applicable.
As anonymous said, ethanol may not be the best solution out there but it seems to be the easiest to implement. If it can help especially the individual corn farmer, then that's a bonus! I certainly believe that more research and implementation should be done on other alternative renewable fuels. With all due respect to those in the oil industry, I think we need to start transitioning out of that field as it is not a renewable resource. While it might not happen in any of our lifetimes, it is only a matter time before even the oil wells overseas run dry. And then what...?
I dont see whats wrong with importing oil, if people dont want use the oil its called conservation.
Reliance on imported oil is bad for a variety of reasons. Our military relies on it, so it's bad for national security. Our economy relies on it, so it creates an economic risk. It puts us at the mercy of OPEC, which consists of corrupt governments, whose citizens typically hate us. It's non-renewable, so the price is just going to continue to rise. Also, burning it is bad for the environment. Also, one could make a case for it causing the Gulf War and current Iraqi conflict.
Conservation is a very small solution to a very big problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattDen
Buy more energy efficient cars and they dont have to drive so much.
How would energy-efficient cars keep people from driving as much? I don't understand this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattDen
Besides, why should meat and anything with corn increase in price alot so people can put something in their gas tank that gets them 1/3rd less energy to the gallon then regular oil.
You're approaching this solely from the viewpoint of an urban/suburban consumer. There are other points of view that were probably considered when writing this legislation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattDen
Farmers are just a small part of the population base, yes they are relevant to these states economies but they are only a very small segment of the population. The average person living in a county without farms isnt benefiting much from some one who has a 5,000 acre farm in a rural part of Indiana or Iowa.
City dwellers in Des Moines and Indianapolis still have to pay 7 dollar per 100 gallon premium on today's prices just like any other state that uses E-10.
I think alot of these politicians from the center of the country should worry more about where the vast majority of their populations live (albeit not as many as the coasts) in small and medium sized cities and not on farms.
National security and the long-term health of the economy take priority over the price of beef (and corn-based products) in America's grocery stores. I'm not saying that ethanol subsidies will accomplish all those things, but I think that is the intent.
Last edited by anonymous; 03-02-2007 at 08:57 AM..
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.
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.
