Senate Floor Bi-Partisan Grassroots Advocacy Project

It seems to me that I've seen a lot of agreement among Republicans, Democrats and Independents, to the extent I know who you are, about corn-based ethanol. Subsidizing corn-based ethanol is wasteful, expensive, bad energy and economic policy, and is driving up food prices worldwide.

Senators Coburn (R) and Feinstein (D) have introduced amendment #309"Ethanol Subsidy and Tariff Repeal Act" to S. 493.

U.S. Senators Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) today [yesterday] introduced the Ethanol Subsidy and Tariff Repeal Act, which will fully eliminate the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) and fully repeal the import tariff on foreign ethanol. Cosponsors also include Senators Ben Cardin (D-MD), Richard Burr (R-NC), Jim Webb (D-VA), Susan Collins (R-ME), and James Risch (R-ID).

Senator Coburn's web page

-If passed, this bill could reduce Federal spending by billions.
-It would go along way toward killing corn-based ethanol, a terrible misstep in our national energy policy
-It will help ease international pressure on food prices. Remember corn is primarily used worldwide as livestock feed. So corn is meat. Meat is corn. If you like meat, you'll support this bill, but also if you like other grains, the price of which is also tied to the fortunes of corn.

This is what I propose for all U.S. citizen members of the Senate Floor.

1. Go to http://www.senate.gov, use the Find Your Senators menu at the top right of the page. Call your Senators' offices and express your support for Amendment 309 to S. 493, the "Ethanol subsidy and Tariff Repeal Act." You can also use the web form to submit an email.

Note: if your senator is already a sponsor or co-sponsor of the bill, thank them for that.

2. Report the action you took here.

3. Then we can follow the bill and see if it goes anywhere. It won't, but still. Clearly, no Senator from Illinois would ever support this amendment. But still.

Here's your chance to participate in a very small way toward a Quixotic endeavor - moving the U.S. toward a sensible national strategic energy policy.

 

Awesome. All ethanol does is make food more expensive while making seed companies (Farmers don't get rich off these subsidies, honestly; farm culture makes yield, not profit, the yardstick by which all farmers are measured. This increases the price of seed while depressing the price of the crop.) very rich.

 

But no matter what else, how effective is ethanol at reducing greenhouse gases until a more effective method can be found? I don't really know the specifics.

I know that IL, for example, (and I'm sure other states do too) requires that gasoline be mixed with some sort of formula-up to 10% ethanol. It would require all sorts of changes to the way gasoline is distributed and sold, which I think has the added effect of ensuring that ethanol is here to stay.

 

It's impossible to change, therefore we shouldn't even try?

Sounds like the arguments swirling around balancing the budget and fixing the deficit. If the law changed, ethanol mixing would stop-period. Alternatives would present themselves, and be used.

Lack of will is a far cry from lack of "possibility". Time travel is likely "impossible"-ending corn subsidies for ethanol is not. It just requires collective decision making.....

....which generally has been very difficult to find in the US these days .

Peace,

V-03

 

That mandated blend is part of the scam: require its use, subsidize its use. I've never seen stats about greenhouse gas emission gains from using ethanol. I wouldn't be surprised if it was more costly than burning oil in fuel tanks. To make ethanol, there are the greenhouse gas costs of burning oil to grow it, the greenhouse gas costs in the production process.

Anyway, I called both Kirk's and Durbin's offices today to express my support for the amendment. Got the staffer who thanked me for my call, could almost hear the chuckling. Even a 22 year old phone receptionist staffer knows where Durbin stands on ethanol subsidies.

 

It's impossible to change, therefore we shouldn't even try?

No, no, that's not what I mean. That requirement is set by a series of state laws. So it's not just a matter of easily switching if the federal government got rid of the subsidies, for example. The IL state legislature would have to debate and change those laws regardless of the actual corn/ethanol issue. The "choice" is protected by a double whammy of bureaucracy..

 

Ah, thanks for the clarification, Mr44.

Sorry to jump on you like that....sometimes the springs in my legs break through their restraining straps ....

Peace,

V-03