One way to avoid discussing a key issue for Iowa voters is to make such over-the-top statements about other matters that the issue is never joined.
Republicans seem to have succeeded. In the circus masquerading as the Republican Iowa caucus, there has been nary a word about ethanol subsidies, a major issue for Iowans.
But, where do these budget-cutting, waste-fraud-abuse claiming, shrinking-government demanding, laissez-faire extolling candidates stand on ethanol subsidies? The subsidies have been around a long, long time. It is now clear that ethanol from corn is not efficient and competes with corn's use in food. Very few environmentalists, very few energy-independence proponents, of whatever political stripe, from Grover Norquist to Al Gore, believe we should continue to invest in ethanol from corn.
Before they "escape" Iowa, the media should get clear statements from each Republican candidate about what they will do about ethanol subsidies. It is not sufficient to say that they would eliminate them in the context of a big budget-cutting scheme. All budgets, big and small, have priorities.
Which Republican candidate would take the knife to ethanol subsidies as one of the first expenditures to be eliminated in any budget-cutting exercise?
Iowa voters, and the nation, are entitled to know. The press ought to be forcing them to answer the question precisely.
And, they are entitled to know NOW, before the votes are cast, and before the candidates can escape Iowa, and thus the accountability of their views to the electorate.
Mitt? Newt? Rick? Rick? Michele? Jon?* Pray, tell us.
*(we know Ron Paul's position -- he's against. Jon Huntsman is not competing in Iowa).
Follow Paul Abrams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/pabrams2001
Robert Scheer: Marginalizing Ron Paul
Ethanol now has a chance to prove it can stand on its own two feet. Let's see how it does.
Add 15% gas to that and it will compensate for the lower MPG of E-85.
Biofuels: Thinking Outside the Barrel
Why a positive energy future could be closer than you think
http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/energy/biofuels-thinking-outside-the-barrel.html
Of course, this was written at a time when a barrel of oil was around $30. So, let me say this -- a bone dry ton of biomass has the same energy as a barrel of oil. OK, so at $40 a bone dry ton for industrial hemp stalks is equal to petroleum at $10-13 a barrel!
Link to Foreign Affairs "The New Petroleum" article on the following page:
http://www.globalhemp.com/2000/06/after-oil-fuel-from-the-farms.html
Of course, this was written at a time when a barrel of oil was around $30. So, let me say this -- a bone dry ton of biomass has the same energy as a barrel of oil. OK, so at $40 a bone dry ton for industrial hemp stalks is equal to petroleum at $10-13 a barrel!
More information on industrial hemp on the Global Hemp website located at http://www.globalhemp.com/
INCREASE MPG 30% ON THE CAR YOU OWN NOW!
Decrease NOX and unburned hydrocarboÂns.70%!
Fitch Fuel Catalyst
Sonic Spark Plugs (Piezo) or Halo or Pulstar
Tornado Vortex Generator
Even More Mpgs Torque & HP.
http://www.hydrogenboostnow.com/HHO-Dry-Cell.htm
Besides it(VEETC) isn't an ethanol subsidy it is a Oil Subsidy..it is OIL that gets the blenders credit..not ethanol.
http://www.evworld.com/syndicated/evworld_article_1018.cfm
Or the massive subsidies for nuclear power?
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-subsidies-report.html
The ethanol subsidy goes away next year...this is already a non issue. Why don't we strip away subsidies for oil, gas & nuclear energy also?
Corn is a HORRIBLE source of fuel. It consumes much more in water than is viable, time to move past this failed experiment.
If you are not for corn subsidies, even counterproductive ones like ethanol, then you have no shot in IA. If you are for nuclear energy, you have no chance in NV because of yucca mtn.
Here is Al Gore, admitting he supported ethanol subsidies because he needed to get elected:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/al-gore-corn-ethanol-subsidies_n_787776.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-subsidies-report.html
BTW, the oil industry continues to get subsidized directly & indirectly on a massive scale as well.
http://www.evworld.com/syndicated/evworld_article_1018.cfm
You didn't know?
This again represents the hypocrisy of Iowa Republicans, and in fact the hypocrisy of the entire farm belt. "Socialsim for you is wrong, but I definitely want socialism for me. "
This is just one more sorry note in the long history of Republican hypocrisy.
If we're going to use ethanol, let's at least be honest about it. First, put EPA mileage stickers on cars and trucks that clearly state the expected fuel mileage using 10%, 15% and 85% ethanol blends, since that's what we're running.
I have an older vehicle that will run 10%. I won't run 15% and I can't run 85%. If I'm going to subsidize ethanol at any level (manufacturing, building plants, any level at all) and then be forced to subsidize the manufacturers yet again via higher fuel prices (yes, if my car get less mpg on ethanol blends than on gasoline, at the same price as gasoline, I'm subsidizing the industry) then I'll just keep repairing my car.
The government is mandating the market's use of ethanol and the producers want to "lock in" their profits for the future by removing all other choices at the pump.
I do oppose ethanol from corn. It's horribly inefficient. Switch grass or alge are better alternatives.
https://docs.google.com/a/chicagocleancities.org/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=Y2hpY2Fnb2NsZWFuY2l0aWVzLm9yZ3xjaGljYWdvY2xlYW5jaXRpZXMtb3JnfGd4OjRkMjdlMTk5NGIxMWM1NWI
BTW, your car will run perfectly fine on ethanol blends up to 50% without any modifications to the vehicle. Check out David Blume's Book and/or dvd at www.alcoholcanbeagas.com.