Shock and Hare team up to help Big Ethanol

May 7, 2009
By Billy Dennis

Congressman Phil Hare (D-17th District) normally doesn’t miss an opportunity to dismiss Congressman Aaron Schock (R-18th District). But, hey, when it comes to pimping for the ethanol producing industry, they find common ground.

Schock and Hare Author Letter Advocating for Higher Ethanol Blends in Gas
Letter to Treasury Secretary Geithner requests he makes financial assistance to automakers contingent upon their support of higher ethanol blends in gasoline

Washington, D.C. – Congressmen Aaron Schock (R-IL) and Phil Hare (D-IL) today authored a letter to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to request he consider making financial assistance to troubled automakers contingent upon their support of higher ethanol blends in gasoline.

“By increasing the ethanol blends in gas we will simultaneously help our nation address climate change, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and increase green economic opportunities, all of which complement President Obama’s stated goals,” said Schock.

“More ethanol means more jobs in Illinois,” Hare said. “Increasing the ethanol blend is an important and overdue step that will help free us from our dependence on foreign oil, reduce global warming pollution, and protect consumers from spikes in gas prices.”

The ethanol industry produced 9.2 billion gallons of ethanol last year, reducing oil imports by 321.4 million barrels. The use of this biofuel also reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 48-59 percent when compared to traditional gasoline, according to a recent report from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Additionally, the ethanol industry supported more than 494,000 jobs, putting an estimated $19.9 billion into circulation last year.

While impressive, the ethanol industry can contribute more if the automakers support the use of higher blends without negating the warranties of vehicles on the roads today. This further benefit would include the reduction of an additional 20 million metric tons of greenhouse gases per year, the equivalent of removing 10.5 million vehicles from our roads. Furthermore, North Dakota State University estimates that increasing the amount of ethanol used in the U.S. will produce 136,000 new, good-paying jobs.

Currently, automakers provide warranties for their vehicles allowing ethanol blends of 10 percent. These levels were set 30 years ago in response to the levels allowed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. At that time, little was known about the effects of ethanol in gasoline. Research currently underway has shown that the traditional, unmodified internal combustion engine can handle higher blends of ethanol. In fact, testing of intermediate blends of ethanol, by the U.S. Department of Energy found there to be “no adverse effects” associated with using higher blends of ethanol.

Here’s the straight dope: Ethanol sucks. It’s pollutes the air. By taking farming land OUT of the food production business, it raises food prices, increasing the amount of starvation in third world nations. Ethanol subsidies discourage growing food locally, which increased the amount of energy usage to transport food food. And the idea that we can ever make enough ethanol to replace gasoline is ludicrous.

Tags: , ,

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

18 Responses to “ Shock and Hare team up to help Big Ethanol ”

  1. 11Bravo on May 7, 2009 at 2:24 pm

    How does ethanol discourage growing food locally? Not arguing, just wondering. And I assume you are talking about corn based ethanol correct? Because there is a huge difference between the older versions of ethanol and cellulosic ethanol.

  2. anotherexjser on May 7, 2009 at 3:47 pm

    But there is no cellulosic ethanol industry, 11Bravo. Virtually all of the ethanol in this country comes from corn. We could get cheaper ethanol from places like Brazil with tropical climates and sugar-cane-based ethanol, but we have huge tariffs in place to protect our corn-based industry.

    Which brings me to what the ethanol craze is really about: making people feel good while redistributing wealth to farmers, ADM and other parts of the agri-business conglomerate.

  3. Billy Dennis on May 7, 2009 at 4:00 pm

    Ethanol scam.

    “The subsidized conversion of crops into fuel was supposed to promote energy independence and help limit global warming. But this promise was, as Time magazine bluntly put it, 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, like Brazil’s use of ethanol from sugar cane, 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.”

  4. maubs on May 7, 2009 at 4:02 pm

    The ethanol industry wants to sneak ethanol by-products into our food supply. And might even tell us that it’s good for us (anti-oxidants! really healthy!), while not disclosing the source. For corn-allergic people like me, it’s a frakking nightmare.
    http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-04-ethanol-waste

  5. 11Bravo on May 7, 2009 at 5:25 pm

    Okay… still wondering what the answer is to my first question.

  6. ERN on May 7, 2009 at 8:21 pm

    No proponents of Ethanol and bio-fuels purport that they will “replace gasoline.” They are however one important component of a lower dependence on foreign oil. Ethanol and bio-fuels provide a measure of diversification of supply, and also modest diversification for price fluctuations.

  7. Billy Dennis on May 7, 2009 at 9:01 pm

    ERN: Cutting gasoline with ethanol is to lowering our dependence on foreign oil as cutting heroin with baking soda is to lowering our dependence on foreign heroin.

    Well, it would be if we were giving manufacturers of baking soda AND heroin a government subsidy.

  8. 11bravo on May 7, 2009 at 9:14 pm

    Billy,

    You’re still ignoring the fact that there exist multiple types of ethanol and all of your arguments only address corn or other food based ethanol. Ethanol in and of itself has none of the pitfalls you are stating if using the right inputs.

  9. idonotknowme on May 7, 2009 at 9:55 pm

    11bravo,

    Look at pages 12 through 15 of the PDF linked here and then tell us again about all these non-corn sources of ethanol.

  10. Friends on May 7, 2009 at 10:27 pm

    Aaron is now a friend of ADN. That is what his facebook should say. What a shameful WASTE of corn and a young man I believed in.

  11. Friends on May 7, 2009 at 10:29 pm

    make that ADM — I was so p!ssed I could even spell.

  12. Precinct Committeeman on May 8, 2009 at 12:59 am

    Thanks for using Earth First as a source. Totally unbiased organization!

  13. Precinct Committeeman on May 8, 2009 at 4:46 am

    When you add more fuel to the market total, cost should go down. More fuel available equals more choice for consumers.

  14. Curious on May 8, 2009 at 7:30 am

    Does Congressman Aaron have family members that run large farms?

  15. Neal on May 8, 2009 at 8:53 am

    He may not have family in farming………..but quite a few of his voters are farmers. Which is even better for him.

  16. 13charlie on May 8, 2009 at 10:10 am

    “How does ethanol discourage growing food locally?”

    Let’s see.. I have 40 acres to plant and there are government subsidies for growing corn for ethanol use…. am I going to grow turnips and carrots?

  17. Joe the Farmer on May 8, 2009 at 2:33 pm

    “You might put it this way: people are starving in Africa so that American politicians can court votes in farm states.”

    Now that’s a load of BS. People are starving in Africa because of war and African politics. See Zimbabwe for example.

  18. Joe the Farmer on May 9, 2009 at 1:35 pm

    “Ethanol subsidies discourage growing food locally”

    Here is some perspective – “food for thought” According to the USDA Feb 2009 projections for 2009 total acreage expected; Vegetables and Melons, 7,011,000 acres, corn 88,000,000 acres, soybeans 73,000,000 acres, wheat 60,500,000 acres.

    If ethanol demand declined resulting in a drop in corn prices, farmers would look first at producing something they already are equipped for such as soybeans. The connection between ethanol and locally grown vegetables is tenuous at best.

    Much of the ethanol being produced today is used to displace MTBE.