You might not have noticed, but the successor of the Copenhagen Global Warming conference is
happening right now in Cancun, Mexico. Smart of the organizers to hold it in Cancun, to avoid the sudden appearance of blizzards during their meeting, though, if Al Gore makes an appearance,
anything can happen. Why no coverage? Why no triumphal attendance by our Glorious President who said,"this is the moment when
the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal"?
The Copenhagen summit,
well covered by RTP&GG in this and other posts, was supposed to be the Global Warmingists' moist, hot, wet dream, where the wealth re-distributions craved by 1st World Socialists and 3rd World Dictators would be finally set in motion, to supposedly finance everyone's reduction of fossil fuel use, and would be signed by the planet's new savior,
Jesus I mean, Barack Obama and implemented by the leaders of the world. It ended in a shambles for reasons covered elsewhere on RTP&GG, and was the 2nd big failure by our One True Messiah after he was elected, and is certainly one of his biggest humiliations (an enterprising RTP&GGer could make a good article titled "The Humiliations of our Dear Leader"). What was supposed to be eco-socialists' crowning achievement actually was the point where the Global Warming movement nosedived into general discredit. Now, no one is paying any attention to what those scammers are saying or doing in Cancun. The MSM is avoiding it because it will remind everyone of one of Obama's first big failures, and the humiliation of one of their sacred shibboleths.
But, I'm not here to talk about Cancun. I'm here to talk about how a tightening budget environment, and the new vigilance being shown on the Federal budget (by Tea Partiers, forced on politicians) is about to kick another huge eco-scam into the dustbin of history. Ethanol (aka grain alcohol or everclear) now makes up 15% of the gas we put in our cars, by Federal decree, not by any economic value obtained. It has been a major boon to corn farmers in the Midwest and around the world, who saw the price they got for corn skyrocket once ethanol was made mandatory. Ethanol was supposed to be a boon to the planet, as it was a 'renewable resource' because of course, we can keep growing corn (the question of how much petroleum product is now used in fertilizer by agribusiness will not be pursued here). And of course it was pitched that highly processing corn and burning alcohol was somehow being green. As usual with eco-scams, the technology can't stand on its own feet on the economic merits: according to the Congressional Budget Office,
taxpayers pay $1.78 for every gallon of ethanol.
A report in mid-July by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said the subsidy is something of a boondoggle in part because a gallon of ethanol delivers two-thirds the energy content of a gallon of gas.
"Because 1.48 gallons of ethanol are required to provide as much energy as a gallon of gasoline, the 45 cent credit for each gallon of ethanol is equivalent to paying blenders 67 cents for each gallon of gasoline that ethanol displaces," it said.
In all, taxpayers pay $1.78 for every gallon when fuel is made from corn, CBO said.
These taxes are paid both in the direct purchase and in Federal taxes. That's a lot of money being paid to make you feel warm and fuzzy about doing good things for the environment. But how green is it? Even its green attractiveness is
finally being called into question, says a professor involved in a study by Stanford University:
Prof. JACOBSON: Ozone that's formed is formed from the emissions of either ethanol vehicles or gasoline vehicles. And there - or have been technologies that have been introduced that have reduced the amount of ozone significantly. For example, the catalytic converter reduced the ozone. And there are other technologies that potentially could be used to reduce ozone further.
In fact, in this study we assumed there are going to be technological improvements. Just to put in perspective, gasoline vehicles in the United States kill about 10,000 people prematurely each year. Now, if we convert to ethanol, what I found was that this might increase slightly by about 200 deaths per year.
So it's not a large increase over gasoline. But the key is it's not an improvement over gasoline as has been suggested. The key is whether we can do a lot better than gasoline. And there are technologies out there that could eliminate all these deaths, particularly, battery electric vehicles where the electricity is provided by renewable energy such as wind and solar power. And also hydrogen fuel cell vehicles where the hydrogen is produced by wind and solar power and also hydroelectric geothermal power.
That study is not totally convincing to me I suppose. His conclusions, that electrical powered cars are cleaner where the electricity is provided by renewable wind and solar power is utter bullshit, as there is no place in the United States where the majority or even a significant minority of power is provided by wind or solar power. This casts doubt onto the believe-ability of the rest of the study, regardless of what prestigious academic institution produced it. But, assuming he knows what he's talking about, your $1.78/gal in taxes for ethanol is going towards the great green good of killing 200 more people per year than regular gasoline. I hope you feel good about that. I wonder if the professor is including the starvation deaths from the increased food prices the ethanol project has produced. Odd that he didn't mention a true green power: hydroelectric dams. What's up with these agendas dudes?
Well, I'm wandering...Let's get back on track:
The Goreacle Himself, the snakeoil saleman to the world, has now
made a shocking, if not surprising admission:
"One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president" in 2000.
Imagine, pushing a major change in our gasoline industry primarily to win votes through pork. Tell me it ain't so, Al! Next thing you say, is the whole global warming movement is a scam too! Shocking, but not surprising. Notice he said "made that mistake". The mistake was pushing ethanol. When Al Gore admits it's a mistake, you know the end is near. [a small aside: credit Tennesseans for knowing a scam when the hear one: if Al Gore had been able to win in his home state in 2000, he would have been president.] This particular pork project shoved pork to farmers, so probably a mostly Republican group of recipients. So, of course the bottom will fall out of support for this as the Coastal libs will have no real (ie voter) reason to support it (
from Hot Air):
Has the federal government’s appetite for ethanol ended? A bipartisan group of Senators signed a letter today calling for an end to subsidies and tariffs designed to protect and enhance domestic production of ethanol, which has been until recently the darling of the alternative-energy movement. In a sign of how far ethanol subsidies have fallen from favor, the letter addressed to both Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell has the signatures of such liberal luminaries as Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, and the newly-elected Chris Coons
When you've lost Barbara Boxer, you've lost the liberal base. Farmers cry, "goodbye sweet pork-laden scam, goodbye."
I'm pretty sure National Review editor Rich Lowry browses RTP&GG because this article he just wrote at Real Clear Politics could have been lifted right out of our article, and Jeff's comments! He adds some follow-on information if you read the whole thing, that tends to confirm Jeff's fears that Republicans aren't going to be able to rein in the goverment bloat. However, remember this is still the lame duck Democratic Congress. I am still confident this thing will be brought under control, at least to a certain extend. Anyway, some quotes from Lowry's article that may seem oddly familiar:
