E15, Liberal Dreams Have Consequences

We drive. They starve. Everybody PAYS.

Hey folks,

Not to mention, no one knows how it will ACTUALLY effect, well, ANYTHING. Happy Tuesday to you. YES. That WAS me on the Tom Sullivan Radio Show on Friday talking about Housing. I was on the Third Hour, first up. I was talking about the best, and only way, to speed up the Housing "Recovery." I will elaborate more on this tomorrow. However, since it is Tuesday, time to check in at the Energy Front.

So you may have heard, the E.P.A. is considering raising the maximum blend of ethanol in unleaded gasoline from 10 percent to 15%. Great. So what's the problem? No one knows how it will effect the Engine, Pollution, OR the World Food Source.

So let me ask you a question. You are a Farmer. You grow products that feed the the masses. You get X amount per acre. It's enough to barely get you by. Some years are better than others. Then along comes the Government. They say we will pay you a GUARANTEED amount for you to grow Corn. That's roughly 120 bushels per acre of Corn that yield 300 gallons of ethanol. They will even give you MORE to subsidize you, just in case. They will also herald you as someone on the cutting edge and a Hero, for doing your part, in saving the planet. Most stop growing FOOD, and start growing "Fuel."

Remember stories like these? Media Research Center - Ethanol Being Blamed for Global Food Riots New York Times columnist praised by Pulitzer board for 'clarity of vision' didn't foresee global food shortages that resulted from the realities of his vision. By Jeff Poor Business & Media Institute 4/11/2008 5:48:11 PM

As riots over food shortages are breaking out in Haiti, Egypt and other parts of Africa, the media are looking for a culprit. ABC’s April 10 “World News with Charles Gibson” identified one culprit of this global strife: biofuels.

“[P]rices are rising across Africa, pushed up by the cost of oil and demand for biofuels,” ABC correspondent Jim Sciutto said.

“Those biofuels are in fact a large part of the equation,” ABC correspondent David Muir added. “Many farmers around the world, who once grew wheat and rice, now grow corn and sugar cane instead to produce ethanol, a more lucrative market.”

It's pretty hard for most to turn down a GUARANTEE profit. Some Kooks, would LOVE to see Oil Prices out of reach. Some Libs back then even admitted it. Listen to this Idiot.

Flash back to two years ago – Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, author of “The World Is Flat,” appeared on ABC’s “Good Morning America” on March 9, 2006. He made a very bold statement about his preferred direction for the future of U.S. energy policy.

“[C]harlie, if they [Iran] cut off oil and oil went to $100 a barrel – that would make my day, because the sooner we go to $100 a barrel, the sooner we’re going to have everyone in America driving a plug-in hybrid car fueled by corn and ethanol,” Friedman said. “And I think that would be a great thing. And that would ultimately free us from having to worry about these people.”

Yeah the DREAM. But as we know, the Liberal Dream usually doesn't even come close to resemblance of any type of actual REALITY. Not only did this hurt the Food sources, but it was also blamed for INCREASED Pollution.

An April 7 Time magazine article also blamed ethanol for the quickened clearing of Brazilian rainforests, as farmers move to plant more soy to meet the demand created as American farmers switch from soy to corn to feed ethanol mandates.

Then you had THIS Story. From CNN - Riots, instability spread as food prices skyrocket

"In just two months," Zoellick said in his speech, "rice prices have skyrocketed to near historical levels, rising by around 75 percent globally and more in some markets, with more likely to come. In Bangladesh, a 2-kilogram bag of rice ... now consumes about half of the daily income of a poor family."

The price of wheat has jumped 120 percent in the past year, he said -- meaning that the price of a loaf of bread has more than doubled in places where the poor spend as much as 75 percent of their income on food.

"This is not just about meals forgone today or about increasing social unrest. This is about lost learning potential for children and adults in the future, stunted intellectual and physical growth," Zoellick said.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, also spoke at the joint IMF-World Bank spring meeting.

"If food prices go on as they are today, then the consequences on the population in a large set of countries ... will be terrible," he said.

The UK Telegraph - Global warming rage lets global hunger grow By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, International Business Editor Published: 12:01AM BST 14 Apr 2008

We drive, they starve. The mass diversion of the North American grain harvest into ethanol plants for fuel is reaching its political and moral limits.

"The reality is that people are dying already," said Jacques Diouf, of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). "Naturally people won't be sitting dying of starvation, they will react," he said.

Back in 2009, I talked about all this. I posted OPNTalk - Good Intentions Unintended Consequences

CHICAGO (AFP) – The use of crop-based biofuels could speed up rather than slow down global warming by fueling the destruction of rainforests, scientists warned Saturday.

Once heralded as the answer to oil, biofuels have become increasingly controversial because of their impact on food prices and the amount of energy it takes to produce them.

Yeah, remember the riots? The "Food Wars" that were breaking out? The poor could no longer afford Corn Products and Farmers were rewards a lot of money to set land aside to produce Harvests for Fuel only? That was a great plan.

They could also be responsible for pumping far more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than they could possibly save as a replacement for fossil fuels, according to a study released Saturday.

So? Now, they want to INCREASE this. Add another 5 percent to EVERY GALLON of gas. So look for all this to also increase. Then you have the fact that they do not even know how it will actually WORK. According to Energy Tomorrow - Don't Blend Politics and Science On E15, API President, Jack Gerard, tell us this. Don't Blend Politics and Science on E15
By Jack Gerard Thursday 19 August 2010

Higher-level ethanol blends like E15 have not been proven safe or effective according to preliminary testing to date. These studies are scheduled to be completed in 2011. In addition, EPA is in the midst of the scientific review mandated by the Clean Air Act before new fuels, additives or fuel blends are introduced into commerce.

Despite these ongoing studies, EPA has indicated it may act as soon as September to approve E15 in vehicles. This has alarmed lawmakers and ordinary citizens alike. In July, the House Energy Committee warned EPA that renewable fuels must be introduced in "a manner that adequately protects consumers." A broad coalition of business, consumer and environmental groups also wrote EPA expressing similar concerns.

So untested, untried, and to hell with any unintended consequences, we have to realize the DREAM. I know, I know, that IS Liberalism defined. Quick to Dream, slow to think. Problem is, when you do this, you do not have the time to realize if it IS a dream, or a nightmare in the waiting.
Peter

Sources:
Media Research Center - Ethanol Being Blamed for Global Food Riots
CNN - Riots, instability spread as food prices skyrocket
UK Telegraph - Global warming rage lets global hunger grow
OPNTalk - Good Intentions Unintended Consequences
Energy Tomorrow - Don't Blend Politics and Science on E15

Good Intentions Unintended Consequences

Yet again, plans put in place without full knowledge of their effects.

Hey folks,

Happy President's Day to you. Remember, all those Holiday Sales today will accrue interest on your credit cards causing a $10 shirt to become $100. Spend wisely.

I love this story. This is just another example of plans put in place, with nothing but good intentions, that have consequences that no one seen coming. The problem is, no one wants to actually take the time to fully investigate the possibilities of what will happen. They love the idea, dream, or concept, they rush it into being, before they understand the REALITY of the situation.

According to the AFP - Biofuels may speed up, not slow global warming: study

CHICAGO (AFP) – The use of crop-based biofuels could speed up rather than slow down global warming by fueling the destruction of rainforests, scientists warned Saturday.

Once heralded as the answer to oil, biofuels have become increasingly controversial because of their impact on food prices and the amount of energy it takes to produce them.

Yeah, remember the riots? The "Food Wars" that were breaking out? The poor could no longer afford Corn Products and Farmers were rewards a lot of money to set land aside to produce Harvests for Fuel only? That was a great plan.

They could also be responsible for pumping far more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than they could possibly save as a replacement for fossil fuels, according to a study released Saturday.

Told you so.

"If we run our cars on biofuels produced in the tropics, chances will be good that we are effectively burning rainforests in our gas tanks," warned Holly Gibbs, of Stanford's Woods Institute for the Environment.

Gibbs studied satellite photos of the tropics from 1980 to 2000 and found that half of new cropland came from intact rainforests and another 30 percent from disturbed forests.

"When trees are cut down to make room for new farmland, they are usually burned, sending their stored carbon to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide," Gibbs said.

{Laughing} No one thought of this in the beginning?

For high-yield crops like sugar cane it would take 40 to 120 years to pay back this carbon debt.

For lower yield crops like corn or soybeans it would take 300 to 1,500 years, she told reporters at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

"Biofuels have caused alarm because of how quickly production has been growing: Global ethanol production increased by four times and biodiesel by 10 times between 2000 and 2007," Gibbs said.

"Moreover, agricultural subsidies in Indonesia and in the United States are providing added incentives to increase production of these crops."

Yup. Put that together with all the Chicken Little Crowd, including the MMD just reporting what they are told based on the SCAM that IS GWBS, and you get what you get. Some in the General Population actually thinking that the sky is falling, we are killing the planet, and that we need to do something NOW! RIGHT NOW! Or we are all going to die.

Gibbs estimates that anywhere from a third to two thirds of recent deforestation could be as a result of the increased demand for biofuels, but said an increased demand for food and feed also play a major role.

What is certain is that much of the expansion of cropland in response to growing demand and rising prices is occurring in the tropics where there is an abundance of arable land and climates ideal for growing biofuel crops like sugar cane, soy and oil palm.

Simply growing the biofuel crops in the United States or other non-tropical countries will not solve the problem, said Michael Coe of the Woods Hole Research Center.

Recent legislation mandating increased use of ethanol has already prompted US farmers to switch from soy to corn production. But since soy demand remains high, farmers in Brazil have responded by cutting down forests to expand soy production.

Liberals with agendas. Pipe Dreams and careless actions. Without full facts and truth to back ANY of it.

"Emissions from deforestation in Brazil -- even under our best scenarios -- still swamp any decrease in greenhouse gasses in the United States," Coe told reporters.

"We can't find a way that it makes greenhouse gas sense to grow ethanol in the United States."

These findings do not mean that biofuels cannot be an important part of energy policy, Gibbs added.

Growing biofuel crops on marginal lands can have an overall positive environmental impact and there are enormous tracks of degraded land in the tropics.

But since fighting soil erosion or reversing nutrient leeching with fertilizers costs more than cutting down forests, farmers must be offered economic incentives to do so, Gibbs said.

So let's throw MORE MONEY at the problem that WE are creating. {Laughing}

And policy makers must also decide if the climate would be better served by returning degraded land to its natural forested state so it could act as a carbon sink and provide ecological services such as rainwater recycling, flood mitigation and habitat for endangered species.

"There are tradeoffs in all these decisions that need to be made on a case-by-case basis," she said. "We need to keep in mind that more cropland will be needed to meet the global demands for food, feed and fuel, so the best options will likely vary by circumstance."

Don't let the facts and truth stand in your way this time. Never stopped you before. {sigh} Yes folks, just another example of the Good intentions of the Left, going miserably wrong, because they have no real knowledge of what actual consequences will their actions actually produce.
Peter

Sources:
AFP - Biofuels may speed up, not slow global warming: study