Seeking Alpha
About this author:

John McCain and twenty-three other Republican Senators sent a letter last Friday to the EPA asking the agency to reevaluate the current ethanol mandate as food prices continue to soar. The EPA does have the authority to waive the mandate or structure it differently "if the mandate results in adverse unintended effects."

In the letter, McCain stated:

Every time hardworking American families buy groceries, they feel the financial sting of misguided federal policies mandating that taxpayers support ethanol. It isn’t a surprise that food prices are rising when more than 25 percent of the corn grown today is taken out of the food supply and instead used for subsidized ethanol production. This subsidized program - paid for with taxpayer dollars - has contributed to pain at the cash register, at the dining room table, and a devastating food crisis throughout the world. We need to put an end to flawed government policies that distort the markets, raise food prices artificially, and pit producers against consumers. We must call on the EPA to exercise its authority to not exacerbate this already bad situation.

Obama, two days later, on "Meet the Press" stated that, "there's no doubt that biofuels may be contributing to [rising food prices]."

With the growing political concern over ethanol, May corn on the CBOT fell 20 cents today to $5.82 per bushel.

In Monday's trading, VeraSun slipped 9.61% to $6.21 a share while Aventine dropped 7.73% to $5.01 a share.

Without government intervention, ethanol will become a fad real quick.

Print this article with comments

This article has 27 comments:

  •  
    Ethanol production has been subsidized for years, with Archer Daniels-Midland being a healthy recipent of the tax payers money. Since ADM contributes heavily to both Political parties, it doesn't matter who is in power.

    This most recent misadventure has been a farce from the get-go.

    You can not expend natural gas to make fertilizer to grow the corn; then further expend energy to process ethanol, and expect ethanol to be a viable energy source.

    This only works if we the tax-payer subsidize the process.

    Finally, the unexpected result of having corn shortages, should doom the whole stupid idea.

    2008 May 06 06:34 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Ethanol is the only blending source for cities that need to meet clean air requirements. There is much focus on ethanol as an alt. fuel, but few realize it is necessary to meet EPA clean air requirements for many areas.
    2008 May 06 08:11 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    My lady doth protest too much. All of the negative propaganda coming from the oil companies against ethanol shows that it must not be a passing fad, and ethanol must be cutting in to the profits of the oil companies pretty badly for them to cause such a fuss (notice most of the noise is coming from Texas! ...hmmm). All of this is to whitewash the fact that it is the price of oil that is driving up food costs, not ethanol. How about we cut subsidies to oil companies instead?
    2008 May 06 08:49 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    The production of ethanol results in far more pollution than is gained by using it as an additive to meet EPA guidelines. The EPA should suspend its use and begin looking for a replacement.
    2008 May 06 09:13 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Trader T. you need to do more research. Please qoute sources when making claims. Please compare those claims against the cost and pollution caused by alternative fuels such as oil and coal.

    2008 May 06 09:27 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    What was the cause of death of Alexander Farrell, 46, expert on alternative fuels?

    www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin...
    2008 May 06 09:33 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Corn ethanol plant constuction has been suspended.

    Specialty chemicals are needed to put out ethanol fires.

    BP has pulled its ads regarding growing our fuel.

    BP had plans to sell ethanol at its gas stations...pulled out of that idea too...Construction of anti-corosive tanks to costly.

    Corn ethanol will go the way of the dodo...they didn't fly either.

    2008 May 06 09:37 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Dear Conrad,

    How did you receive enough credibility to get your picture attached to your opinions? Politicians crying 'the sky is falling' is neither news nore prudent energy policy. Ethanol has very little to do with the price of food. Please explain how ethanol made the price of apples go up. Diesel fuel increases made the price of apples go up! Increased health care cost of every company and person that handled that apple made that apple more expensive. Farmers sell corn for 11 cents per pound. that is after the price of everything they use to grow the stuff has gone up in price.

    I would like to know who you work for. If you are just a paid basher, we have the right to know. What are your credentials?
    2008 May 06 09:37 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    using a food source as a fuel source is idiotic,cruel ,and just plain wrong ,,should be criminal.as i understand it cane is the natural as a ethanol base,which has a huge tariff levied against it by the congress cuddling with big agro business.i mean just think about it ,burning food ,how does that sound right
    2008 May 06 10:44 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    •  • Website: http://www.zenfar.com
    I guess you mean MORE government intervention, because they are already ethanol subsidies. This article should also include the current and proposed ethanol subsidies if we are going to talk about government intervention and ethanol. I think they are talking about upping cellous and keeping corn steady (which is a cut for congress' point of view).
    2008 May 06 10:59 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Seeing all of the ignorant posts-blindly swallowing the disinformation campaign on biofuels is very discouraging. It is inconceivable that anyone would suggest that we pull out 5 billion gallons of ethanol from the market and replace it with additional gasoline from imported petroleum at the same time that oil is passing $120 per barrel with no end in sight. Ethanol is the only game in town for short to intermediate relief.

    Business Week has recently published an article with a few facts that everyone who feels strongly enough to post on the subject should read.

    www.businessweek.com/m...
    2008 May 06 11:03 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    shendandoah,c'mon no one is suggesting pulling it off the shelf,,just don't make any more out of corn
    2008 May 06 11:39 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Problem here, it that ethanol is evaluated as good or bad, no middle ground. Our problem, is that politicians picked up votes by selling us the idea of corn based ethanol. The best source we could use in the US is sweet potatos. Far more sugar, much less agriculteral tending. Corn based ethanol is exactly the reason that the government should not make these decisions, since they are only worried about votes.

    The other argument that we will need much more oil if we stop corn based ethanol is also flawed. If it were stopped right now, the US would not have to plant as much corn to meet the food supply, thereby saving a lot of oil. Also, ethanol does not provide the mileage that gas does, so you need more of it to get from point a to point b.

    The two largest problems in this country are urban sprawl with no plan for mass transit, and just-in-time manufacturing, which greatly increases the number of inefficient trucks on the highway. JITM is a double tax for the consumer. Higher manufacturing costs, and more road repairs.
    2008 May 06 11:52 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Ethanol is one of a few key options the US has for dealing with the transportation fuel crisis. Production from corn is key to getting the industry infrastructure in started. From there we will move on to cellulosic ethanol. "Big Oil" hates ethanol. They don't make it even though the world is running out of oil. Even worse is the concern about what it does to their pricing paradigm. E85 sells for less than regular gas and is 105 octane. I think one of the big fears of "Big Oil" is premium grade gasoline customers catching on to this -- i.e., filling up with regular, and then putting a couple gallons of E85 to bring the whole tank of gas up to premium grade.
    2008 May 06 11:59 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Look at a HUGE box of Corn Flakes then look at the NET WEIGHT. "Corn's too high--corn's too high!" Bull! Their price is too high.
    2008 May 06 01:21 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    The argument about corn ethanol as a fuel is not a food issue. There are just not enough BTUs in corn ethanol (in America) to displace any meaningful quantities of gasoline or diesel -- maybe 15% at best. Corn ethanol cannot do anything for us, unless we were to grow 6-8 times more corn, which is fantasy.
    2008 May 06 01:52 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    chinooking & william. You two need to look at the facts on ethanol. neither of you have a clue. I have been running e10 since in was introduced. My 96 dodge pick-up gets poorer mpg on reg, than e10 or e30. I've done my own blending at the pumps. Yes e85 will drop mpg's but when you get it down to around 30%,it will inprove. Besides only approx. 7% of the corn grown is used for ethanol. of this approx. 5% goes back into ddg, or livestock feed. Also, ethanol is cheaper to make than gas and or diesel fuels. Using less energy and water. This is what happens when people only read one side of the story. Freedom of speech is one thing, but flat out lies is another. You two are the reason the media get's by with putting garbage out there, they know you'll beleive them. Shendandoah keep up the good work. We need to straighten people like this out!!!
    2008 May 06 02:20 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Crude oil was $8 per barrel in 1999 today it is over $120.00.

    OPEC's mid-east fund made up of OPEC's countries have put US $40 Billion dollars into commodity index funds, which pushes grain prices up.

    The cartel is playing us for suckers ...
    2008 May 06 02:48 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    grainman - show some links to support your numbers. Without subsidies, ethanol is not viable. Here are a few links from non-partisan types:
    archive.columbiatribun...

    www.sciencedaily.com/r...

    www.straightdope.com/c...

    This does not even touch the problems with transportation and blending. Ethanol is highly caustic. It can not be sent through conventianal pipelines. Because of this, it must be blended close to the dispensing site. It is also harsh to your fuel system components in the long run, particularly plastic and rubber components.

    You could do yourself a favor and educate yourself before you tell some one else that they don't know what they're talking about.

    Again, provide links from unbiased experts to substantiate your claim. I used the 10% blend on a 2600 mile trip, and noticed a drop in the mileage from 32 to 27. This was not my imagination.
    2008 May 06 03:02 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Y'all better get real Konrad because asking for gov'ment intervention is like asking your friendly fox to take care of them baby chicks. They'll all be on tonights dinner plate. Really the people need to rise up and get rid of the big, fat ethanol tariff placed on Brazilian ethanol by your friendly gov'ment. They don't want any competition because they are all gangsters at heart lickin' their chops over the pay-offs and sweet junkets to the Bahamas. And frankly, McCain never saw a payoff he didn't like. Ask the Keating five. Ethanol is just another word for protectionism.
    2008 May 06 04:30 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    William B: I would just like to point out that the references you gave are outdated and incorrect. (at least you had sources!) The DOE had the Argonne National Laboratory do a comprehensive review of the energy balance issue related to corn ethanol. An abstract with the critical data can be found at:

    www.ncga.com/public_po...

    The conclusion was that it takes 740,000 Btu of all fossil energy to create one million Btu of ethanol. It takes 1,400,000 Btu to obtain one million Btu’s of gasoline from petroleum. Total fossil energy includes the natural gas and coal equivalent of electricity as well as petroleum. It takes only about 1/8 a unit of actual petroleum fuel to create a unit of ethanol. That is primarily in operating the farm machinery and transportation.

    In view of the fact that our primary problem is the import of petroleum this is very favorable. When biodiesel is more readily available, this will get even better.
    2008 May 06 05:30 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    William, YES you are imagining the decrease in fuel efficiency, or maybe it was caused by other factors, like speed, more stops and starts, or A/C usage? Anyway, I can prove that the ethanol didn't cause the 5 mpg loss in fuel efficiency. First, you went from supposedly 100% gasoline to 90% gasoline and 10% ethanol. Even if you got NO energy out of the ethanol (which everyone can agree is not the case), the gas mileage could only drop 10% or 3.2 mpg to 28.8 mpg. Second, it is a proven fact that a gallon of ethanol has only 30% less energy than a gallon of gasoline, so in reality, given known figures for energy content, your mpg using 10% ethanol will only fall a miniscule 3%, which in your case is still just shy of 1 mpg. In the end, the mpg argument is a moot one when talking about which source is cleaner, and which one uses more energy because all of those analyses compare the two sources based on energy output, not gallons of fuel, thereby bypassing the need to correct for the discrepancy between the two fuels in energy density.
    2008 May 06 07:44 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Seems to me we should grow more corn, more soybean, more everything. I would think FARMERS would be happy. AMERICA should be happy. WE are farmers by tradition. It is one of our stronger suits. We have land, unlike Japan and England. But I can remember a few years back we were having talks about Farmers failing, FARM AID and Willie Nelson and all that stuff....Seems to me America would be happy, if farmers are successful they need to buy tractors. Tractors are made in the US, seems like John Deere and other companies would hire more people, more jobs for Americans...I can see no downside to SHORT TERM shortages of corn, the economy will rebalance itself, higher demand will cause more corn to be grown until there is a surplus and then prices will retreat....NO NEED for GOVERNMENT intervention in this case. Aren't we a market ecomony? Haven't Republicans forgotten that? They are just playing a policial game, just like the "gas tax holiday". It's what people want to hear, but it doesn't solve the problem. Maybe eliminating any ethanol subsidies would please some people, as long as you level the playing field and eliminate tax breaks for Oil Companies and Royalty FREE Oil from Federal territory, that might work.
    2008 May 06 10:57 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Two other positives for ethanol --

    1) Purchases of ethanol are an investment in additional infrastructure in America. For the most part when we buy gasoline, the money goes outside the country while the product goes up in smoke.

    2) Ethanol can make a big difference when combined with other technology. Picture this -- something like a plug-in, Flex-fuel, Prius (that gets 50 mpg), but uses electricity for short trips and 85% ethanol (only 15% gasoline) for longer trips.
    2008 May 07 10:16 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    The US spends over 1 billion dollars a day on oil imports ...

    Yes you heard that correctly that's *billion* with a "b".
    2008 May 07 11:01 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Yet another Ridiculous Republican Red-Herring. The cost of food is going up because the cost of fuel to plant, grow, harvest, process and transport is record high. The only thing corn is used for anymore is ethanol anyway. I don't believe it will solve the gas crisis, but if we would have given it a reasonable effort 30 years ago when we saw this day coming....
    2008 May 08 01:50 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    I continue to marvel at the spread of anti-ethanol Big Oil propaganda. In addition to the usual parrots such as Pat Robertson, Glenn Beck, and John Stossel, we now have the environmentalists piling on and adding their shrill two-cents-worth about how we're starving poor people all over the world with our profligacy. Biofuel is the most intelligent solution for power until we can figure out how to do it with other means.
    2008 May 08 08:19 PM | Link | Reply
More by Konrad Imielinski
Other articles by Konrad Imielinski »