Little-Acorn
New member
"Unintended Consequences" (ph.) - An intellectual-sounding phrase meant to deflect attention from the fact that Congress failed to do even the simplest study on the amount of ethanol needed to supply the demand they were artificially creating, and the amount of acreage that needed to be taken from other foodstuffs to produce it, before they put laws into place mandating vast increases in ethanol production.
Completely aside from the fact that it takes more than one gallon of gasoline or diesel to produce one gallon of ethanol; and that ethanol production and usage produces MORE air and water pollution that does gasoline.
BTW, the food riots the author mentions, have as much to do with expanding populations worldwide while food production hasn't risen commensurately, as it does the converting of food farms to ethanol-corn farms.
-------------------------------
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080501/NATION/462824208/1001
Congress' ethanol affair is cooling
by Stephen Dinan
May 1, 2008
Members of Congress say they overreached by pushing ethanol on consumers and will move to roll back federal supports for it — the latest sure signal that Congress' appetite for corn-based ethanol has collapsed as food and gas prices have shot up.
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer said Democrats will use the pending farm bill to reduce the subsidy, while Republicans are looking to go further, rolling back government rules passed just four months ago that require blending ethanol into gasoline.
"The view was to look to alternatives and try to become more dependent on the Midwest than the Middle East. I mean, that was the theory. Obviously, sometimes there are unforeseen or unintended consequences of actions," Mr. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat, told reporters yesterday.
Only a year ago, Congress and President Bush seemed to view ethanol as a near-magic solution to the nation's dependence on oil and counted on it to make a dent in greenhouse gas emissions. Republicans and Democrats together piled up the incentives and mandates that pushed farmers into planting corn for ethanol and consumers into buying gasoline blended with it.
But as farmers switched crops, they left a dearth in other foods — which, coupled with higher worldwide living standards and higher demand — has caused food shortages. Food riots have erupted in some nations, while even in the U.S., some stores have said they will ration sales of staples such as rice.
Now the most common phrase when lawmakers talk about ethanol is "unintended consequences."
"This is a classic case of the law of unintended consequences," said Rep. Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican, who introduced a bill this week to end the entire slate of federal supports, including the mandates for blended gasoline, the tax credits for ethanol producers, and tariffs that keep out cheaper foreign ethanol.
"Congress surely did not intend to raise food prices by incentivizing ethanol, but that's precisely what's happened. A jump in food prices is the last thing our economy needs right now," Mr. Flake said.
Completely aside from the fact that it takes more than one gallon of gasoline or diesel to produce one gallon of ethanol; and that ethanol production and usage produces MORE air and water pollution that does gasoline.
BTW, the food riots the author mentions, have as much to do with expanding populations worldwide while food production hasn't risen commensurately, as it does the converting of food farms to ethanol-corn farms.
-------------------------------
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080501/NATION/462824208/1001
Congress' ethanol affair is cooling
by Stephen Dinan
May 1, 2008
Members of Congress say they overreached by pushing ethanol on consumers and will move to roll back federal supports for it — the latest sure signal that Congress' appetite for corn-based ethanol has collapsed as food and gas prices have shot up.
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer said Democrats will use the pending farm bill to reduce the subsidy, while Republicans are looking to go further, rolling back government rules passed just four months ago that require blending ethanol into gasoline.
"The view was to look to alternatives and try to become more dependent on the Midwest than the Middle East. I mean, that was the theory. Obviously, sometimes there are unforeseen or unintended consequences of actions," Mr. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat, told reporters yesterday.
Only a year ago, Congress and President Bush seemed to view ethanol as a near-magic solution to the nation's dependence on oil and counted on it to make a dent in greenhouse gas emissions. Republicans and Democrats together piled up the incentives and mandates that pushed farmers into planting corn for ethanol and consumers into buying gasoline blended with it.
But as farmers switched crops, they left a dearth in other foods — which, coupled with higher worldwide living standards and higher demand — has caused food shortages. Food riots have erupted in some nations, while even in the U.S., some stores have said they will ration sales of staples such as rice.
Now the most common phrase when lawmakers talk about ethanol is "unintended consequences."
"This is a classic case of the law of unintended consequences," said Rep. Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican, who introduced a bill this week to end the entire slate of federal supports, including the mandates for blended gasoline, the tax credits for ethanol producers, and tariffs that keep out cheaper foreign ethanol.
"Congress surely did not intend to raise food prices by incentivizing ethanol, but that's precisely what's happened. A jump in food prices is the last thing our economy needs right now," Mr. Flake said.
