Back in August, the Green Scissors Project identified ways the federal government could shave $380 billion from the federal budget over five years. But their $380 billion in proposed cuts included a major error that accounts for more that 10 percent of their suggested cuts – $38.8 billion that they argued the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit would otherwise cost between 2012 and 2016. They conveniently ignored the important fact that there will be no VEETC between those years. VEETC expires about a month from now, and corn growers and the ethanol industry have long agreed to let it expire and have since stopped fighting for its renewal.

Let the record show that NCGA and our allies in the ethanol industry have left the playing field on this issue long ago and moved on. Those who continue to play are only showing their own foolishness by not realizing that there is no opponent still on the field and the game was called long ago. It’s time to work together on smart energy policies that promote our domestic economy and energy security.

Some may remember that last year due to a decreased sugarcane harvest caused by excessive rains, the country reduced its minimum ethanol requirements in the country’s fuel. Then this year, threat of another reduction circulated when once again the sugarcane harvest was lower than expected. In response, the government has cited ethanol shortages due to poor long-term strategic planning by the industry. The ethanol industry countered that the cause of problems lies in lack of uneven taxes, vague plans for future regulation and lack of investment incentives.

“As long as there is no clarity about the policy for fuels, there is a risk for investments,” said the president of Sao Paulo-based Datagro consultants, Plinio Nastari in a Reuters article.

Yet on the flip side of this bickering between the Brazilian government and Brazilian ethanol producers, the industry has once again begun exporting fuel to the U.S. over the past few months. According to brokers quoted in a recent Soyatech article, the ethanol industry has exported 1.9 million barrels to the U.S. as a result of fuel retailers needing to meet the requirements of the Renewable Fuels Standard.

Brazilian sugarcane ethanol has been considered an advanced biofuel as designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Since there is a shortage of advanced biofuels being produced in the U.S., sugarcane ethanol has become a premium fuel for the obligated parties. Ironically, the exportation of ethanol was an abrupt change as earlier this year Brazil imported ethanol to meet its country’s mandates – the first time since 1994.

While all this is happening, Brazil’s national petroleum agency, ANP, unveiled new plans aimed at tightening government regulation over the ethanol market and avoid the recent ethanol supply volatility that has been plaguing the country. Ultimately, ANP’s regulations would level out the amount of ethanol producers and distributors market throughout the year and mandate companies to have minimum stocks of ethanol available at all times.

To aid the industry in meeting both anticipated ANP regulations as well as meet import demand, Brazil’s state-run bank, BNDES, has committed to providing $19-$22 billion in funds to finance sugar cane industry expansions through 2014. The monies represent nearly two-thirds of the industry’s current yearly output.

The country will have to develop plans to expand the industry with special emphasis on sustainability. The country is often cited by biofuel critics, especially environmental organizations, as a environmental disaster waiting to happen due to accusations that the ethanol industry is expanding through the destruction of precious rainforests.

Needless to say, the Brazilian ethanol industry has denied these accusations, and during the same Ethanol Summit where mud was being flung between groups, UNICA, the Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association, launched a new website dedicated to sugarcane ethanol, www.SugarCane.org. The website is designed to showcase how sugarcane can contribute to pressing global issues such as energy and environmental needs and also lays out strategies to do this in an environmentally friendly and sustainable way.

This beat-down occurred during his speech at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in New York and was published by The Independent. During his presentation he said, “Today, 35 per cent of US corn goes into biofuel. From an environmental point of view this is a nonsense, but more so when we are running out of food in the rest of the world.”

Brabeck-Latmathe continued, “It is absolutely immoral to push hundreds of millions of people into hunger and into extreme poverty because of such a policy, so I think – I insist – no food for fuel.”

The fuel versus food debate has been raging for several years. For each report that debunks the theory, another is published that places primary blame on rising food costs at the feet of America’s corn and ethanol industries. Yet, scores of economists have publicly acknowledged while there are dozens of factors that affect food prices, the current spike is being driven by speculators, a global increase in demand for protein and the unrest in the Middle East to name a few reasons.

National Corn Growers President Bart Schott responded to Brabeck-Letmathe’s comments. “It is scandalous, ludicrous and highly irresponsible for the chairman of a global conglomerate that tripled its profits last year to talk about higher corn prices forcing millions into starvation. Perhaps if Nestle is so concerned about food prices, its board will consider putting more of their $35.7 billion in 2010 profits back into poor communities. Just their profits alone represent more than half the entire farm value of the 2010 U.S. corn crop.”

Schott continued, “It’s time for the food processing industry, which has been using higher grain prices to justify its price increases, to explain to hungry families why they have to eat less so those who can afford company stock can make more money. Profiteering off world hunger needs to end, and that is what is truly immoral. If there is a ‘food versus fuel’ crisis it exists because families are being forced to decide which of the two they can afford, gasoline from Big Oil or food from companies like these. That’s something I challenge Nestle to step forward and help alleviate. They certainly can afford it.”

Ironically, Nestle has its own brand problems – especially related to its use of water resources (Brabeck-Letmathe accused the biofuels industry of using too much water) and links to baby deaths in Africa and Burma as a result of its infant formula. In 2007, Brabeck-Letmathe was given the “Black Planet Award” for the company’s “irresponsible marketing of baby food contaminated by genetically manipulated nutrition, their tolerance of child labour and monopolisation of water resources.”

Today, Nestle is actively lobbying for European leaders to curb their biofuels policy even in the wake of many country’s commitments to reducing CO2 emissions.

So what lesson have we learned here? Maybe you should have a clean plate before you start throwing food at others.

The award was established by FOE “to recognize leaders that promote dirty biofuels” – especially corn ethanol – and was won last year by then House Agriculture Committee chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN). The first year it was Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant. This year’s nominees also include Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), General Wesley Clark, and Secretary Tom Vilsack. It’s a great honor to be included in such company.

Here is what FOE has to say about us:

This dynamic duo are a pair of bloggers who lead the group ZimmComm New Media and provide a big platform for the ethanol industry’s talking points. Each day, on a series of blogs – hosted by the Zimmermans (DomesticFuel, AgWired ) or by the corn ethanol industry itself (CornCommentary) – Cindy and Chuck critique anyone who may disagree with the ethanol industry’s line while practically cutting and pasting press releases from industry lobby groups. The Zimmermans are unabashedly pro-industry, with clients such as Growth Energy, the Renewable Fuels Association, the National Biodiesel Board and Syngenta. What’s more, many of their employees are previous employees of the biofuels industry lobby groups like Growth Energy. Now — Friends of the Earth has nothing against a pro-industry website (in principle), but the problem with the Zimmermans is that on the surface they pretend to be “reporters,” when in fact they act as industry hacks.

Just a couple points of clarification. First, we have no employees. We have freelance writers who contribute to our websites and other freelancers who do other work for us. One of our freelancers did work for Growth Energy, she now works for Protec Fuel and while she continues to do work for us in other areas, she does very little posting at this time. Another freelancer, Joanna Schroeder, worked for EPIC when we got to know her, but she now has her own company and does work for a variety of clients, including us. You can find our more about us and our company on the About page.

We support and believe in the use of biofuels for our country, as well as other forms of alternative energy – and even utilizing more of our country’s own oil reserves. We are diametrically opposed to organizations and individuals who criticize and attack the people who produce this nation’s food, fiber, AND fuel. If that makes us biofools, then we are proud to be!

Yesterday’s Iowa Renewable Fuels Summit in Des Moines concluded with a piece that aired on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” in June 2010 about how the last eight presidents have gone on television and promised to move America towards a more energy independent future. The segment was filled with Stewart’s trademark humor, but it is sobering to think about how long this country has been touting energy independence and yet still be facing so many hurdles, skeptics and downright enemies who continue to impede that progress.

Stewart showed clips of all of the past eight presidents, from Nixon to Obama, talking about moving “beyond a petroleum-based economy,” first playing clips of both Obama and George W. Bush saying almost the exact same words. He follows up with Clinton, Bush 42, Reagan, Carter, Ford and Nixon making similar statements and talking about ideas like solar, natural gas, fuel cells and even “gasohol.”

Funny, but unfortunately, way too true. Take a look.

An increase in the debate regarding a federal RES has come from two sources. Last Monday the Governors’ Wind Energy Coalition sent a letter to Senate Democratic and Republican leaders saying, “A strong RES is the most economically-efficient way to advance clean domestic energy and immediately create jobs in renewable energy manufacturing, construction of new projects and associated transmission, and ongoing operation and maintenance of these facilities.”

The letter was addressed by Govs. Chet Culver (D-Iowa) and Don Carcieri (R-RI), who lead the Governors’ Wind Coalition and early this year released a report detailing wind opportunities throughout the country.

The letter continued, “We wish to work with you and with the Administration to help shape federal energy legislation this year. The economic stakes are high for our states, and we see a narrow window of opportunity for Congress to enact a long overdue reworking of federal laws governing renewable energy.”

The letter was followed up by a press conference yesterday held by several bi-partisan senators who introduced a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) bill. One of the most vocal proponents is Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) who has been pushing for this standard to generate jobs while asking for no cap-and-trade elements to be added to the bill. The fear according to Brownback is that cap-and-trade strategies would be to expensive for businesses to take on during an economic recession, especially considering they do little to stave off global warming.

Brownback is joined by bill sponsor Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Senators Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) are also supporting the bill.

In a statement Brownback made this past July he said, “As we begin consideration of comprehensive energy legislation, it’s essential we include ideas that will help drive our national energy production in the direction of more clean, renewable energy. The RES title passed out of the Energy Committee requires by 2020 that 15% of our country’s energy be produced using agreed upon forms of renewable energy, such as wind, solar, and biomass. Under this proposal, utilities are allowed to meet up to 4% of the requirement through energy efficiency.”

So while the pressure is on in D.C to pass the RES, the pressure is on in California and Connecticut to dump their RPS’s. Dozens of organizations that have a stake in traditional forms of energy have joined together to back Prop 23 in California that would halt the development of clean technologies (including wind, solar and biomass) until unemployment is in control. They argue that the cost is so high, they will have to cut jobs to meet financial demands. By doing this, both the states RPS and Low Carbon Standard policies would be in jeopardy. Supporters of the RPS argue that jobs will actually be created due to increased research, development and manufacturing of the new technologies.

In Connecticut, where the current policy requires 27 percent of energy must come from renewables by 2020, the state is being crippled by high energy prices. As more wind and solar are added to the grid, at a higher cost per kilowatt than coal, nuclear or natural gas, the state fears energy costs will rise even higher.

So what does this movement mean? Are the states’ efforts merely a short-term fix to a long-term economic problem designed to give cash strapped consumers a break? Or are these efforts more symptomatic of a bigger problem, one that will reverse the trend away from renewables and back to fossil fuels?

Where are they going? Brazil. India. China. Why? Because these countries have the winning recipes for success: cohesive energy policy, long-term incentives and private investors. These are the exact three things we do not have in America.

We have other problems. We have states like California, that purport leadership in green policies and renewable energy, who make it nearly impossible to get permits for projects to meet its “green” initiatives.

Yesterday, Martifer Renewables Electricity dropped its plans to build a 107MW hybrid solar-powered biomass plant in California. The reason? After nearly 2 1/ 2 years, they have yet to obtain permits. Another company run out of California due to difficulty in obtaining permits, Blue Fire Ethanol – a next generation bioenergy company.

It may not be too late to head back up the hill but there are some things that must be done. First, we need to move forward on key legislative policies supporting renewable energy. For example, tax credits must be extended for the long-term, not one-to-five years. (BTW – oil has been receiving tax credits for over 100 years.) Our policies, the Renewable Fuels Standard, Farm Bill, any future electricity renewable standards, and climate change policy, etc. must work together for success, not work against each other as they do now.

Second, banks must start lending and private investors need to step up and begin funding projects. Last month, one of the country’s most famous billionaires, Warren Buffet, along with Bill and Melinda Gates publicly encouraged the country’s 400 billionaires to give away $600 billion dollars to charities. Unfortunately, nowhere in this call to action was the need to support renewable energy projects and green jobs right here in America. This oversight is a gross disservice to American citizens who helped them become billionaires.

I am going to make a bold prediction. In terms of biofuels, the next two decades will belong to Brazil. China and India will take ownership of wind, solar, biomass, and other products like biochemicals and plastics.

If you don’t want my predictions to come to fruition, then our country, under the leadership of its citizens, must take action now.

The entire speech, minus introductions, was only 10 minutes long and most of it was spent talking about the economy. About three minutes were spent on what the administration has done to promote renewable energy with the economic recovery act, the Biofuels Working Group and the Navy using biofuel in a new jet. However, there was no mention at all of the top priorities for the ethanol industry – getting the tax incentives renewed and the E15 waiver approved. Without those actions, the future of the ethanol industry is questionable.

The president only used the word ethanol five times, but preferred the more generic “biofuels” which was used nine times. Once, when he strayed from his prepared remarks, he used the word “biodiesel” apparently by mistake, saying “I want us to be first when it comes to biodiesel and the technologies that are being developed in places like POET.”

It is also notable that the president did not even mention the word corn, even though he was standing next to a big front end loader filled with it. The word agriculture was used only in reference to the U.S. Secretary and state director of agriculture present at the event. Farmers were only referenced in terms of the “tough time” they were having “getting by” when he was running for office.

The good news is that POET president Jeff Broin did get a chance to speak briefly with the president about the industry’s concerns. “We talked about the fact that cellulosic ethanol had the potential to create hundreds of thousands of jobs and that there were some policy issues that are very important to move that forward, the first being the fact that today the market is full,” said Broin. “Basically ten percent ethanol is what’s allowed in gasoline today and we need to move that wall and open up the market.” However, Broin says he only had a limited amount of time to talk with the president and was not able to address the ethanol tax incentive issue, but he did discuss it with Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.

One can be hopeful that meeting real workers with real jobs at a real ethanol plant in a small rural community made an impression on the president and he makes the connection between that and the need to provide real support to keep the industry growing.

And here’s why: when a tree is cut down in Brazil, it is not to plant crops for biofuels, it is to sell the wood because the tree is of greater value as wood, then as part of the rainforest. Only then is the land converted to pasture and then to land for crops like soybeans. Sugarcane is rarely grown in the rainforest and Brazil doesn’t produce biofuels from corn. So what I just can’t seem to wrap my head around is what exactly does that tree have to do with corn ethanol?

So what has caused today’s diatribe on indirect land use? A new paper published this month in Bioscience Magazine titled, “Effects of US Maize Ethanol on Global Land Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Estimating Market-mediated Responses.” The paper was authored by Thomas W. Hertel of Purdue University and five co-authors. In a nutshell, the authors argue that the greenhouse gas emission reductions from corn-based ethanol are canceled out when factoring in the increased carbon output from indirect land use change. Therefore, their contribution to California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard is negligible, even when compared to conventional petroleum based fuels.

There are so many things wrong with this paper that I had a hard time deciding where to begin. I’ll dive right in with the authors’ assessment of the number of acres used to produce corn in our country (they use yield numbers from 2001 when yield numbers for 2009 are already available).

They argue that land is going to need to be converted to crops and that this land will come from virgin land such as tearing down a forest. They also assume that current cropland will be converted to produce corn (most commonly away from soybeans). What they don’t factor is is this: In 2009, American farmers produced 13.2 billion bushels of corn, similar to the production numbers reported in 2007. The difference –this yield was produced using 7 million, yes million, less acres of land.

The ethanol industry was quick to respond. Tom Buis, CEO of Growth Energy commented, “The truth is, indirect land use is a heavily disputed theory in the scientific community that has yet to be proven. The theory of ILUC employs no empirical evidence and it is unfair to single out one industry – corn ethanol – as the culprit behind poor environmental practices in other countries.”

Buis continued, “Even when ILUC is included in lifecycle analysis for corn ethanol, the Environmental Protection Agency qualifies it as a low carbon fuel that is 20 percent cleaner than gasoline. Excluding ILUC, ethanol from corn is 59 percent cleaner and can play a significant role in cleaning the air, creating U.S. jobs and securing our national and economic defense.”

What Growth Energy failed to mention is that the paper was written with the help of several organizations including California Air Resources Board and The Energy Biosciences Institute, which was funded by $500 million from oil company BP in 2007 and at the time the largest single research “contribution” in the record books. Also participating was our “best friend forever” Timothy Searchinger. Searchinger is a lawyer by trade and is no more qualified to conduct a study on indirect land use than I, a blogger. So what we really have here is yet another biofuels “study” funded by Big Oil. (And have I mentioned lately that Big Oil is still funding a campaign to discredit global climate change?)

The authors do cede that the concept of indirect land use is largely “uncertain and clearly requires additional analysis,” which brings me to the million dollar question, If indirect land use is so uncertain, then why are we creating policy based on unsound science? Oh, I forgot, our country doens’t make policy decisions on sound science. And that my friends is one reason why our country is in this big energy mess.

1) Federally mandated fuel economy increases.

2) The number of vehicles on the road will hit a plateau. Get this. There are 4-5 cars on the road for each person in the U.S. including children who can’t legally drive.

3) There will be enough alternative fuels to cover increased fuel needs (which up until 2007 grew each year since we discovered our love for driving using petroleum).

“We’re on a slow but inexorable path away from petroleum,” said James Williams, an analyst with WTRG Economics, an oil and gas consultancy. “This is a big deal.”

While this is good news for consumer pocketbooks, this is not such good news for oil companies who will lose billions of dollars each year from declining gas sales. According to the article, many oil companies are looking at adjusting their refinery capabilities, including the possibility of shutting some of them down. But this doesn’t mean petroleum will disappear. The Energy Information Administration predicts that by 2035, petroleum still will provide 88 percent of the fuel for cars and light trucks.

I’ll let you decide if this is good or bad news.

The headline for an article posted by the automotive organization last week reads “Bailout Blend: Bad for Your Engine?” and proceeds to bash ethanol as being bad for consumers.

“How would you feel about a fuel additive that could cost you more money and screw up your engine? If the ethanol industry has its way, that’s just what you might get,” they begin, calling an increase to E15 “a bailout for the ethanol industry that may come at the expense of drivers.”

At the end of the one-sided article, AAA asks for your opinion. “Do you think adding E15 to the nation’s fuel supply is a good idea? Log onto AAA.com/Poll and take our poll.” Not surprisingly, the poll is running two to one against E15. Maybe it’s because the article doesn’t say anything about the EPA findings that ethanol is better than conventional gasoline when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, reducing them by at least 20 percent. AAA says, “Producing ethanol is an energy-intensive process that still results in greenhouse-gas emissions. It won’t save the planet as it still produces pollutants.” It may not save the planet, but it can help cut greenhouse gas emissions by cutting at least some of our gasoline use.

As far as engine issues and mileage concerns, Brazil runs up to 25% ethanol in its cars with no problems, and they consider energy independence to be more important than a few less miles to the gallon.

*post update*
If the link to the poll in the post doesn’t work, try the link in the AAA article. Apparently after you vote, you can’t go back to that link at all, so I can’t get the poll link to add to this post.

Some of the poorest people in the world reside in the regions in and around the Brazilian Amazon rainforest. To survive, they cut down the trees and sell them. Although there have been attempts to ‘block’ this wood from international markets, these efforts have not been successful. Once the trees are cut down, cattle farmers move in and once the land has been over-grazed and the cattle move on, farmers often begin growing soybeans. Another point of interest is that sugarcane does not grow well in the Amazonian region; however, laws have been passed that prohibit the expansion of sugarcane production on native vegetation.

According to The Breakthrough Institute, “The main drivers of Amazonian deforestation are socio-economic. Yet decades of environmental policy have failed to take this basic truth into account.” If we’re going to keep the rainforest intact, then the people who live in the region will need to be given new opportunities to generate wealth that are worth more then selling the trees.

During the climate talks next week, leaders will be attempting to create policies that will address the urban poverty drivers of deforestation. I was in Brazil last week and in prepartion for the meetings, the Brazilian Climate Alliance has prepared a report with recommendations to reduce/climate deforestation. The proposed policies will be released during the conference and the world will be watching.

While we haven’t focused much on Copenhagen on this site, alternative energy will play one of the biggest roles during the summit for its potential to curb worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. According to an article in the Guardian, “Climate scientists are convinced the world must stop the growth in greenhouse gas emissions and start making them fall very soon. To have a chance of keeping warming under the dangerous 2C mark, cuts of 25%-40% relative to 1990 levels are needed, rising to 80%-95% by 2050. So far, the offers on the table are way below these targets.”

What I find most interesting is that while there appears to be a scientific consensus on the existence of global warming and that it is caused by greenhouse gas emissions, mainly CO2, there are still many scientists who don’t agree. As such, the question must be asked, should we be moving forward so quickly both in the U.S. and around the world, on climate policies based on greenhouse gas emission reductions?

Now, before you shoot me and accuse me of being indifferent to the environment and human health issues, less pollution is always good and many economists predict that the next “Green Revolution” (the first one was in the 70s) will help our country rise above the recession. That said, I do believe we need to do something, I’m just not convinced the options on the table are the right ones.

Therefore, over the next week, I’m going to be offering three views on climate change as laid out in three books focusing on global warming. From there, it’s up to you to decide what direction worldwide leaders should be taking.

I’ll be writing a series of posts about my trip over the next week but I can sum up my experience in one sentence. Where there is a will, there’s a way. When the country of Brazil decided in the 1970s during the oil crisis that it would become energy independent, it did. Today, Brazil gets the majority of its energy, both renewable and fossil fuel based, within its boarders. In addition, the majority of the ethanol produced in the country stays in the country.

Also, unlike the U.S., Brazil produces most of its electricity needs from renewable sources as well. Today, more than 80 percent of its power comes from hydroelectricity, but this poses a problem during drought conditions and will be a bigger problem as water issues become more paramount. A solution? To sell the extra electricity from the sugar mills into the grid during the months the plants are operational, which happens to be during the dry time of the year. UNICA, the organization that represents the Brazilian sugarcane industry, predicts that sugarcane could supply 15 percent of the power by 2017.

While I don’t agree with all of Brazil’s polices and many in the country agree there have been some good and bad decisions, they offer the world demonstrable options and thus, a shorter learning curve to solid energy policies and technologies.

You can take a virtual tour via my Flickr account. Until tomorrow, Tchau.

Let me give you an example of why California should not set the stage for energy reform. Just today, Biofuels Digest reported that BlueFire Ethanol, a waste -to -energy biofuels company primarily using wood waste, is relocating its second facility from California to Mississippi. Why? A $1 million a year tax hike plus after two years, difficulty getting the permits through. Oh, and did I mention that the DOE threatened to pull its $40 million funding if the project wasn’t sped up?

So BlueFire has sped up. In Fulton, Mississippi.

“We wanted to move quicker, and DOE said we needed to move quicker than we were able to in California,” said BlueFire CEO Arnie Klann in the Digest. “The Economic Development people in Mississippi, and in Itawamba county, welcomed us, and facilitated the project in every way. After going through a 20-month process with our Lancaster facility in California, we expect to be done with permitting by the end of the first quarter, after starting in July, and we have already located an off-take partner for our ethanol, upriver in the Memphis area.

While the plant relocation is great news for Mississippi, it’s sad news for California which will now lose nearly $8.3 million is tax revenue. And let’s face it. This is not the only biofuels project to flee California, nor will it be the last one. If our country is really commited to energy reform then it must not follow the ways of states like Califonia, but follow the lead of states like Mississippi that are welcoming biofuels projects with open arms.

The Midwest is prime real estate for wind energy, especially Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa enabling the states to produce more energy than the people need. However, today, it is nearly impossible to capture and transfer the excess energy from wind turbines for use in overpopulated areas like California. The next logical step is to design a way to do just this all while providing lower cost energy to consumers.

Just like the biofuels industry is struggling to increase the blend wall (if not the country can’t meet the 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022), the electrical industry cannot meet President Obama’s goal of 25 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2025 if the grid is not overhauled and upgraded.

Steinberg writes in an op-ed piece, “President Obama’s goal of securing 25 percent of our electricity from renewable sources by 2025 is restricted by state regulators who act only in the interests of their state and disregard the potential benefits of new, high capacity, interstate transmission line.” If the country is serious about energy security, he continues, then the President should emulate Eisenhower’s approach and, “demand action by Congress to bring our energy infrastructure into the 21st century.”

As many have said and will continue to say, including Steinberg, our government needs to get out of its own way in order to usher in new environmental and economic security for generations now and to come.

This is the car you will drive if the Climate Bill passes the Senate.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 42 percent of Americans oppose the climate bill that passed the House last week because respondents believe the bill will hurt the economy. Well, the more I dig into the nuances of the proposed climate bill, the more I realize that this bill will do more damage than good.

Here are five reasons why the climate bill will ruin your life:

1) You won’t be able to sell your house if it doesn’t pass an energy audit. If your house fails, you’ll have to reduce the price of the house or update the house until you can pass the audit. Here’s an incentive that’s sure to rejuvenate the housing market.

2) The bill would require that all buildings built in the U.S. conform to meet California Building Code Standards. Who needs an affordable house anyway?

3) Your energy bills and other expenses will be higher. The republicans are complaining that the bill would raise yearly electricity bills $175 per year by 2020 but some experts say that an average family’s expenses will go up between $1,200 to $3,000 per year. Break out the summer fans and winter sweaters and blankets.

4) CRAP and RAID – also known as cap and trade.  The legislation mandates a 17 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and an 83 percent cut by 2050. These cuts will be “enforced” in part through a cap and trade system which puts a price on CO2 emissions. With a program this well thought out, how could it not work?

5) The government will tell you what kind of car you can drive. No more gas guzzling SUVs people. Start peddling – you need the exercise anyway.

Now, I could be wrong. The Republican filibuster on CSPAN last Friday nearly put me in a coma, but seriously people, this bill needs an overhaul.

“My administration will reduce the price of food by eliminating the subsidies for ethanol and agricultural goods,” McCain told an invitation-only group at the Harry Truman Library in Independence, Missouri. “These subsidies inflate the price of food, not only for Americans but for people in poverty across the world, and I propose to abolish them.”

The senator has previously said that he was opposed to the 2008 Farm Bill calling it “a bloated piece of legislation that will do more harm than good for most farmers and consumers.”

McCain has been in the Senate for almost 20 years. Surely he knows that of the $307 billion in spending authorized by the bill through 2012, $209 billion is for nutrition programs and $25 billion is for conservation. Only about $35 billion goes to agricultural commodity programs, including research and market promotion, with just a portion going in direct payments to farmers.

“Agricultural goods” for the most part are food. America has the safest, most affordable and most abundant food supply in the world – and that is due largely to our farm programs. Like any government program, they can certainly stand improvement. But to make a blanket statement that subsidies for agricultural goods are inflating food prices is just unfair. Congress is on the brink of providing $700 billion in “subsidies” for financial institutions that have made bad investments in order to keep them solvent. A few billion to support our nation’s food supply and the development of alternative energy sources to wean us off foreign oil pales in comparison.

In Michael Grunwald’s March 27 article “The Clean Energy Scam,” corn-based ethanol is the scapegoat of the week. Though Grunwald draws attention to the vitally important need for evaluation of global land-use changes, the environmental finger pointing at corn-based ethanol by his sources has come to the point of ridiculous.

The fuel behind this latest fiery round of environmental blame game is two studies posted mid-February in Science Express. The papers, authored by Timothy Searchinger and Joseph Fargione, reach conclusions regarding the greenhouse gas emissions associated with potential global land-use changes caused by increasing biofuels demand — specifically for corn-based ethanol. Their conclusions are considered debatable by others in the scientific community.

Unfortunately, the topic of global climate change and the impact of possible sources of carbon emissions are complicated and multi-factorial issues which require continued and thorough research. Information from the United States EPA found at http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html illustrates the complexity of the issue.

Perhaps the biofuels detractors should put a halt to the creation of studies to support the “agenda du jour” and more effort put into finding solutions.

A refinery explosion in Texas over the weekend and fear that OPEC will decide to cut back production next month drove prices higher.

There were several really exciting things about the recent Advancing Renewable Energy Conference in St. Louis. I have to admit I have never attended a conference of any sort where the President of the United States stopped by to offer words of encouragement. But George W wasn’t the only speaker with an impressive resume on the agenda, there were opportunities to hear two cabinet members, a US senator, CEOs from the agriculture and bioenergy sector, and leading venture capitalists, just to name a few of the many extraordinary speakers.

On a more personal note, it was a lot of fun to explain to people who stopped by the Monsanto booth the benefits that molecular breeding and biotechnology can play to help make renewable energy happen. I don’t remember a time in my career when so many diverse people where interested in understanding more about agricultural yields, and it was fun to talk about all the hard work and excellent results people engaged across all sectors of agriculture have delivered and will continue to deliver. Corn yields have roughly doubled every generation, and the people working on livestock productivity have also make great strides. Dr. Fraley, in his talk, told us that this amazing trend will continue. It is possible to develop both food, feed, fiber and fuel on the same acre. To put this in perspective, in 1940, the year before my parents were born, an acre of my grandfather’s farm in Johnson County Iowa produced enough corn to feed 200 chickens.
Today, that same acre produces enough corn to feed over 1200 chickens. It has always felt great to work in agriculture and to help feed people, but if feels even better to know that what we are working on helps to feed, clothe and fuel the next generation.

Thanks for those observations, Beth. I would certainly love to hear from anyone else who attended the conference to provide their thoughts and comments – and pictures, too.

What kind of a lunatic would come into our country and proceed to call our President “the devil?” This chunky little dictator I guess. I don’t care if you like President Bush or not Mr. Hugo. Don’t come into our country and make your outlandish statements and expect that it’s going to have a positive impact on your image. As the news outlets all over the country are reminding people over and over, Citgo is owned by the Venezuelen government and we do have fuel choices.

You can find more stories about this here, here and here.

JW
www.mocommonsense.com