Comments rbcoleman has made

Interesting Discussion Here

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ngreene/biofuels_not_qu ...

I hope this is not bad form. I dont know blog rules very well.On Biofuels not helpful in climate-change fight, new studies say posted 1 year, 9 months ago 28 Responses

Eye Opening?

I am again sad to see what could be a useful debate dragged down to personal baloney by the usual suspects (read: anti farmed fuel crowd). RDMiller: they will swarm until you are gone.

I have two questions for those of you (including O'Donnell) that have bronzed this analysis:

1. How can you be so supportive of a study that is so blatantly not an apples to apples comparison? Searchinger et el add indirect/upstream impacts to biofuels, then compare that analysis to a petroleum baseline for which they do NOT add indirect impacts.  It's a total mechanical breakdown.

2. How can you say this is a biofuels "bombshell" when the primary assumption right out of the gate is 30 bgy of corn ethanol. We produce 8 bgy now. the federal energy bill stops at 15 bgy through 2022!!!!!

For the record, it is CLEARLY useful to "get it right" with regard to a carbon footprint for biofuels. But if we're going to go indirect on biofuels, let's go indirect on the other alternatives too dont you think? Especially if we are going to compare them.

You would think this community would have caught such a basic mechanical problem by this point in the thread.On Researchers find corn ethanol, switchgrass could worsen global warming posted 1 year, 9 months ago 111 Responses

Fair Enough

My post was a bit dismissive. Chalk it up to heated debate. I should clarify.

The reference I made was indeed to your biodiesel page ... and the text reference was ...

From this study: "Not all LCA models treat emissions the same, even when they are included. For instance, GREET does not include N2O emissions from atmospheric nitrogen fixed by soybeans, while LEM does, contributing to an almost order-of-magnitude greater estimate of GWI for soybean biodiesel."

Your reference links to this study ...

http://www.energy.ca.gov/low_carbon_fuel_standard/UC-1000 ...

... I believe it is worth mentioning that this study then chooses not to adopt the model you highlight, and chooses one that happens to conclude that corn ethanol has GHG benefits in many common scenarios (see page 13 of the study).

This is one of the most respected energy analysis groups in the country. UC-B acknowledges that we must improve our understanding of upstream impacts and improve GREET, but in my opinion, the citation is misleading ... or at least incomplete.

On the risk premium side, Daniel Yergin of Cambridge Energy Research Associates testified before Congress in 2006 that the risk premium was around $15 (crude was between 60-70/brl). In the last year+ the risks and prices have grown. I do not have an electronic link to his testimony but I am sure there is one if you are interested.

I do not understand your criticism of my risk premium reference (as strawman). The original argument was that protecting and subsidizing the costs of getting oil to market have little effect on price because it's all about the price of crude. I countered that even the perception of risk changes the price of crude. So if that's the case, and the removal of govt protections increased volatility in the crude oil marketplace, then it seems that retail price will be implicated.

I hope that helps.On The neverending debate on corn ethanol continues posted 1 year, 11 months ago 20 Responses

Unweildy thread ...

Sorry JustLou ... lots of comments to work through ...

What we do in the US with ethanol does impact the destruction of rainforests and other endangered ecosystems off shore.  Our biofuel policies have huge leak overs in all kinds of ways.  And US firms are major investors in off shore biofuel schemes that are endangering critical ecosystems.  The demand we create here for future biofuels does have far reaching consequences for the entire planet.

No argument there. That's why we support better upstream emissions modeling and sustainability protections that are reasonable and enforceable.  

So while many of us agree that ethanol will have a place among a diversity of energy sources it will be very difficult in a global economy to confine biofuel production in an ecologically responsible and sustainable niche.  There are troubling signs in many places already.  Mr. Coleman seems to want to push the responsibility for containing biofuel onto the environomentally conscious consumer rather than on the biofuel investment community.  And that, as consumers, is what we are ranting about.  And he doesn't like it.

I was saying that subsidy reform is a consumer issue; that we cannot count on companies that need them to compete in a overly subsidized market to all of a sudden turn around and reject them. That's just wishful thinking. My position on "confining" biofuels to a responsible niche may be different than yours. I think we need to get progressively more sustainable without jeopardizing already sustainable land use, which is far different than opposing everything that is good but not great.

Mr. Coleman downplayed the role of corn ethanol on food prices but he did not address the point I attempted to make about its impact on prices when we encounter a major down year in corn production.  Since we ramped up production we have not seen a bad crop year.  Although farmers do receive a small percentage of food prices, the ethanol boosters are not going to reform the basic economic reality of food processors, feeders, packers, and retailers pushing on their costs to the consumer.  The ethanol industry has yet to experience the enormous consumer backlash that will occur when a major drought hits the Midwest.

Corn crops will be good and bad, and this will affect markets. But oil is volatile too. There have been plenty of bad corn crops in recent years though. Volatility in commodity markets is unavoidable. Doesn't mean we should not have a more diversified fuels market.  

Mr. Coleman also argues about the potential benefits of low wholesale ethanol prices.  This is somewhat laughable considering that the industry is pulling back planned production for the very reason that the wholesale price is too low to incentivise investments.  And if the infrastructure was in place for people to purchase cheaper ethanol vs. gas, the projected supply would not meet the demand except in very limited locales.

I dont know what's laughable about this. A non-competitive energy market makes all alternatives laughable because they need government support to compete, which in turn provokes ridicule from this crowd. The oil industry likes to say that ethanol would have a place in the market if the infrastructure was in place, but why then are they not blending more ethanol in conventional gasoline markets where E10 (the max warrantied blend) is not prevalent?  

And this is probably the niche for ethanol -- in limited locales close to the points of production.  We should not even be considering building ethanol distribution pipelines.  If consumers in the Midwest can benefit from local production this would have the same impact on reducing oil demand nationally as attempting to push this fuel to all parts of the country via government mandates and subsidies.  People in the Midwest live in this sacrificial landscape; let us benefit from some of the "external" costs of ag production.  And our state (as well as your federal) tax dollars are also subsidizing local production so let us reap the local rewards first.  If Illinoisans and Iowans can drive on E85 more economically and ecologically than on gas, OK.  But pushing this nationally is stretching both the economical and the ecological arguments for it.

So I guess your position is that the Midwest is a natural market for ethanol but the coasts are a more natural market for oil? I dont see how shipping oil from Iraq, Russia or Venezuela (or Alaska for that matter) is more reasonable that using Midwestern fuel.    

If Mr. Coleman wishes to put a better face on ethanol he should address the "Ethanol Guzzler" bumper sticker that the Renewable Fuels group has printed.  I'd like to see some evidence that the ethanol trade is lobbying Congress to remove the Flex Fuel Vehicle loophole in the CAFE standard.  When I see signs that the ethanol industry is attempting to conserve ethanol AND oil by promoting highly efficient cars, I'll put more stock in Mr. Coleman's arguments.

This is just more idealistic, never-going-to happen stuff. They should be in charge of closing the loophole? Why? Their members are trying to sell ethanol. The usefulness of ethanol is to displace petroleum. If you think they should be a leverage point for CAFE, sorry, but that's just out of touch with reality. Passionate but pointless.

If there are additional comments you want responses to, please let me know.On The global nature of global warming posted 1 year, 11 months ago 70 Responses

Wow

Wow. Drop offline for a couple days and look what happens.

Thanks for the welcoming message. Why this response is not in the other thread, I don't know. I will bite and respond, because this thread seems to have received a lot of attention.

You seem to think that anything is better than oil. But believe it or not, in the real world, we sometimes have to pick between the lesser of two evils, at least until something better comes along.

No, I do not think anything is better than oil. I do think ethanol is better than oil, and could be much better than oil. BTW, NRDC, Union of Concerned Scientists, and other well-respected environmental groups have published reports in support of biofuels. No, they don't think biofuels should be produced in the wrong way, but they recognize the benefits.

Plowing under the world's remaining grasslands and forests to grow industrial agrofuels dwarfs the damage done by oil spills. What happens when you take grain off the world food market and stuff it into American gas tanks? I'll tell you. Someone somewhere on this planet takes advantage of the high prices to plant more of it to fill the hole in the human food chain. Where is the arable land they need to do that? It is under an existing carbon sink or has another crop on it already.

My primary criticism of the community here is many of them seem to live in the abstract; in fact, they seem to indulge in these abstract, over simplified statements. It is true that this planet can support only so much biofuels production. Instead of recognizing this reality, and advocating for careful policy, you seem to be screaming bad! just like most everyone else here. If biofuels are simply bad, just say so, because I would think that reasonable people would conclude that we can support some biofuels production. NRDC, for example, has taken a position. So has UCS. What's yours? Zero? If so, fine, but understand that more oil will be burned as a result. To be honest, you seem to get this. But others in this green community may not be so thrilled about that position. They seem to think that they can replace a gallon of ethanol with a Prius. Fuel diversification and better efficiency are two different challenges, especially politically.

The second leading cause of global warming is deforestation. How hard is that concept to understand? Global warming is global. What we do here screws everybody.

Pretty obvious statement, like your other one. The question is how to protect them. Screaming about biofuels is not a rainforest protection strategy. In other words, we need to do a better job of protecting rainforests in addition to being careful about energy policies that could threaten them. Ranting will not help, nor does it particularly fortify your anti-biofuels stance. Rainforest protection is mostly a governance issue. If enviro groups want to use biofuels to raise awareness for rainforest degradation, that might be smart of them in the long run and within their limited mission statement. But let's not overdo the real cause/effect going on here.

Using less oil is not the same as replacing it with ethanol. Using less oil is a better strategy than replacing it, because corn ethanol is worse than oil for the environment.My family has reduced its use of liquid transport fuel about 80% in the last few years while improving our standard of living. Simplistic, myopic viewpoints do not cut the mustard in today's world.

Except for the silly last line, I congratulate you and agree. More families should be like yours, and if they were, we might not need biofuels. In fact, I will agree that not burning oil is always better than burning a different liquid fuel. But I would disagree that we can just conserve our way out of this problem we have. Either way, they are two different political challenges; the pols protecting oil interests are different than those protecting auto interests. How do you propose we get a more aggressive CAFÉ standard passed? Because the current one, while a step in the right direction, will not get us where we need to go on its own. I think I have made clear that our position is we need to conserve and diversify fuel markets. Both.

Corn ethanol is a horrifically wasteful use of natural resources, tax dollars, energy, and effort, just to reduce oil consumption a fraction of a percent. You could obtain the same goal by simply using less oil. Last time I looked, the Prius fleet alone saves more gas annually than all the ethanol produced in 2001.

This is your classic "false choice" statement. Biofuels are a fuel diversification strategy. I said before, and now again, that conservation is absolutely critical. We need to burn less fuel, whether from Iraq or Iowa. But we also need to burn better fuel. You think oil is better than ethanol. I respectfully disagree. But maybe a vehicle that gets 100 MPG on ethanol is a good thing.

Instead of lobbying the government to stop subsidizing competing energy schemes, one group after another lobbies the government to support their favored energy scheme -- corn ethanol, cellulosic, soy biodiesel, hydrogen, nuclear, coal, and on and on it goes.

These groups have to survive in the subsidy world. I think I have made clear that the right position is leveling the playing field. Yes, people ask for subsidies when their competitors get them. I actually think that energy subsidy reform is probably the single most important thing for green groups to rally around (in addition to complaining about it on blogs). But if you are implying that energy companies that have to compete in this jungle of subsidies should advocate for less subsidies for their sector, no wonder nothing has changed in fifty years. Not going to happen. This is a consumer issue needing a louder voice. All for it.

A) Corn ethanol has been sucking from the government teat for how many decades now, Brooke?
B) If it doesn't need to be bailed out, why do you support the bailout? Of course it needs to be bailed out by legislation. If the subsidies stopped tomorrow, corn ethanol would disappear about two days later, as it should. There is no real market for this fuel. It is mostly going into gas tanks as an additive, by government fiat. Consumers aren't clamoring for it now, and they certainly won't if the huge subsidies offered by fellow taxpayers' dry up.
C) Corn ethanol is a scam.

Actually not. I just Googled the cost of gas and E85 for this month and when adjusted for the lower gas mileage, E85 is still more expensive than gasoline (huge blending subsidy aside). Here is my source for the prices. I cut and pasted them into a spreadsheet. Let me know if you want a copy of the spreadsheet.

No offense, but good grief. Tom's original point (like yours) is that ethanol is a false market, which implies that it cannot compete. I told you that the WHOLESALE price of ethanol is cheaper than gasoline. And you go and google the retail prices to shoot the argument down!? Again, ethanol is cheaper at the distribution point and oil companies are not buying it. If the market worked, independents would gobble up ethanol and stick it to the majors (at the retail point) if the majors refused to buy it. But fuel energy markets don't work, largely because the oil companies have been allowed to integrate, gobble up distribution and retail points, and manipulate the market. So ethanol companies are forced to ask Congress to make oil companies blend it (that's the only market stimulus the oilies respond to). Yes, it would be better to bring the free market back to fuel markets. But ethanol folks have real business interests to protect, so they do what they believe they have to do (and in a rigged market, who can blame them? You?). One simply cannot talk about "real markets" in the fuels world with a straight face. Oil companies say, "stop giving ethanol a false market" in the halls on Congress all the time, while simultaneously refusing to buy the (cheaper) product. False markets?? That's a better description for the oil markets. But it's interesting that this "false market" thing is echoed here all the time.

Grist contributors have written millions of words on the problems with fossil fuels. This particular article was about the problems associated with corn ethanol. You can't seriously expect Tom to write a paragraph on the ills of oil to balance every paragraph he writes about the ills of corn ethanol. Tom has not misled anyone.

I am not moved by this defense of Tom. He was complaining about subsidies, so I think it would make sense to give people a better sense of energy subsidies instead of pretending that ethanol exists in a vacuum. And, based on what I have seen, the anti-biofuels crowd has given oil a free pass on the subsidy issue, generally. The uninformed will rise up in blogged anger when told about ethanol subsidies, but is the solution to oil dependence to isolate them and take them away? I am accusing this community of misplaced anger re: subsidies.

Consumers here and all around the world are dancing with glee that they have reduced the welfare to the American farm industry ($6 billion-3.5 billion) by paying higher prices for the corn they must purchase thanks to more government distortion of the market.
You rob Peter to pay Paul ... squeeze the cost of ethanol to the taxpayer from one end of the balloon to the other. This is your opportunity to explain why the retail cost of gasoline is the same within a few cents in Europe, Canada, and the United States when adjusted for taxes. Are they all coincidentally applying the same government subsidies to gasoline or could the reality be that the price of gasoline is primarily controlled by the market value of global crude oil and that subsidies make little difference in the cost of gasoline at the pump?

I've made my argument here. I think most reasonable people would conclude that if oil companies had to pay the tens of billions of dollars they should pay in taxes, and billions more getting their product to market, that the price at the pump would reflect that. Why do you think the current federal oil tax reform bill is failing? Oil repubs are saying "over my dead body." Why? Because it doesnt really matter to oil companies? This is just a strange argument. Heck, futures market experts now recognize that the price of oil now includes a "risk premium" of at least 20%. Imagine the risk premium if our military didn't guard all the pipelines, shipping lanes, etc. for these billion dollar multi-national companies?

Odd, your list is missing other studies that show corn ethanol is worse than fossil fuels. The above studies were all unaware of the higher nitrous oxide release, found by the international team of researchers headed by a Noble Laureate. You need to compare all positives and all negatives to come up with a net positive or negative, as this study did:

That was my point. The Grist biofuel writers are obsessed with the studies that whack ethanol ... they are all over this site ... I was adding the ones that are ignored. And no, the researchers I mentioned were not unaware of nitrous oxide. They just aren't silly enough to assume that all corn would go away if not for biofuels. Not even 20% of corn in this country is grown for ethanol. All these studies are based on a set of assumptions. I agree that they should all be considered together ... except that's not what happens here.

why not advocate for carbon standards to incent good ethanol?
First, because Tom's article isn't about the carbon market. Secondly, because carbon standards assume energy schemes would compete with each other based on a price on greenhouse gases -- corn would be crushed by a GHG standard. A recent study in the Atmospheric Journal of Chemistry and Physics has shown it may be up to 50% worse than fossil fuels, because of greater than realized nitrous oxide emissions.

C'mon. This is more of the same from you. Isolating reports and forgetting to look under the hood. I have commented on that study. If the goal is to quantify real impacts and your fundamental assumption is silly, then is the conclusion silly? Generally, the life cycle GHG picture is pretty clear for ethanol. Policy should incent the cleaner ethanol production, which the proposed energy policy does (not to perfection, but does). Models should include more upstream emissions for BOTH ethanol and petroleum. Over time, carbon should become part of the regulatory scheme, and most likely the driver. This is what people are working on right now.

A recent study in Science shows plowing up Conservation Reserve carbon sinks to plant more corn releases twice as much carbon as the corn would remove over a thirty year period (15-30% of US emissions are being absorbed by our carbon sinks). The Swiss study above gives corn ethanol an environmental score that is many times worse than fossil fuels.

Ok, great. And other studies give it a good score compared to gasoline. The point is we need to better incorporate upstream impacts into the GHG analysis. It is no surprise that tearing up sensitive lands to plant biofuels feedstock is not a good thing, for GHG especially.

The absurdity is that more corn is being planted in place of other crops, by plowing under Conservation Reserve land and other carbon sinks. You are telling us that the less corn we plant, the less environmental damage it will do. And you are right. And you just shot yourself in the foot.

My feet are looking good. You missed the point. See above. Because there are bad ways to produce ethanol does not mean either that" all ethanol is produced that way, or that all ethanol is bad.

[On cellulosic] go read the link provided by greyflcn. Read a few more of his links while you are at it. You seem to be a little behind the learning curve. You seem to think that because gamblers wanting to get richer have plowed dough into cellulosic it must be a sure bet. Have you mortgaged your home and put it all into cellulosic?

Stop reading Gray Falcon and start doing basic analysis of the industry. Investments being made. Price of enzymatic breakdown in last five years. Real progress you will find.

It is a moot argument in any case. We don't need to provide infrastructure for your coming ethanol economy, or someone else's hydrogen or biodiesel economy. If a real consumer market were to ever spring into existence, manufacturers would respond in very short order with the necessary hoses in the engines and tanker trucks and gas stations because they would all be motivated to do so to make this dough.

I agree with some of this. First, the part I don't agree with. There is no real consumer market in the energy space. There are some free market forces, but real markets? The free market crowd is living in denial if they try to apply it to U.S. energy markets. Waiting for market forces is a recipe for more of the same. On the infrastructure side, I agree that when the markets emerge, whatever the spark, the service side of the industry will respond. If they don't, because they are all bought up by oil companies, break up the oil companies or deal with it accordingly.

Wrong. If not ethanol, use less oil. Burning E85 in a car that gets the American average of 24 MPG is a ham-fisted and comically inefficient way to use less oil and reduce GHGs. Burning gasoline in a car that gets 48 MPG is less destructive, less wasteful.

I share your frustration about E85 loopholes. But this just comes back to you thinking that ethanol is a dumb idea, and my thinking that it is part of the solution. Disagreement.

Actually not. Using less oil is far less environmentally destructive and far, far less expensive than replacing oil with ethanol.

Wow. Seriously? Oil imports now account for about a third of our 700+ billion dollar trade deficit. Did you include that? While criticizing the impact of mono crops on biodiversity, did you also take into account the public health impacts of petrochemicals? Asthma? Cancer? What about military expenditures (not all of them, but ones directly traceable to resource protection)? I don't find this as credible argument. You have Greenspan now admitting that the Iraq War is largely about oil. I mean, the expense of oil dependence is off the charts.

Blogs might save this planet.

I agree that blogs now take a lot of information "to the people." But I think you go too far here.

Your erroneous comments on the price of ethanol along with your lack of understanding of why the global market for crude is the primary driver of the price of gasoline at the pump, combined with your ignorance of the ramifications of crop leakage to other parts of the planet, suggests to me that this shoe belongs on your foot.

Again, your pricing analysis needs serious readjustment (mixing up retail and wholesale pricing will not produce accurate results). I agree that crude is the driver here, but I don't agree that oil companies will mysteriously absorb billions of dollars every year, if made to pay proper taxes and expenses. We've beaten that one to death.

The contributors and commenters here know the score as well as anyone anywhere. Take a gander at this excellent forum while you're here.

I don't agree. My guess is your definition of knowing the score is different than mine. My original criticism was that Tom didn't seem to understand why the RFS was necessary. You don't seem to understand what's going on in the pricing markets. Others gobble up oil industry talking points like M&Ms. Knowing the score is a prerequisite to getting things done in today's policy world, not simply knowing how things are and how they should be.

Until then, keep playing their fiddle ... biofuels are bad, biofuels are bad.

Will do, El Capitan! Biofuels have turned out to be not only more expensive but also more environmentally destructive than what they were meant to replace. On a planet of 6.5 billion people, we find a biofuel with a razor thin to non-existent return on energy and GHG reductions being propped up by politicians who are funneling tax dollars to the farm industry in return for votes. The only beneficiary of this policy is that miniscule percentage of the global population who grow corn in America and the politicians buying votes from them.

Again, it is relatively easy to point out the ills of this country's energy and farm policies (or some of the more unappealing realities of democracy). There is little return on investment here though, because the biggest advocates of reform are disorganized from a group strategy perspective. Further, the advocacy community often cherishes the role of antagonist, even if it produces no discernable results. But anyway, I don't agree that these policies only benefit the bad guys. Visit some of these states. I bet you live on a coastline somewhere.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, people are starting to get hungry. Hopefully, other countries will grow grain to replace that being burned in American gas tanks before famine sets in. Unfortunately, they will have to do so by increasing global warming via the destruction of more ecosystem carbon sinks.

This is the type of sensationalistic, oversimplified rhetoric that, in my opinion, undercuts the useful debate you want to have here. Throw the studies this way, because I know you will, but in reality the food issue is quite simple. Big Livestock (what about them?) is annoyed that they cannot buy corn for "below cost" prices; trust me, they enjoy farm subsidies more than the farmers. In other words, they have to share more of the consumer food dollar that "trickles" to them with corn growers. So they jack this issue politically and from a PR perspective, with much help from the oil companies (seem to have aligned interests!). Food was the primary point of opposition to the federal RFS from people like Exxon this year. People think that increased corn prices must be hurting them in the grocery aisle, until they realize that: (1) grain is only a small part of food costs (~ 20 cents per lb of meat); (2) only 19 cents of the consumer food dollar makes it back to the farm, and only a portion of that is grain related; (3) most of the cost of food is in marketing, distribution and packaging (the Nabisco part), which is highly sensitive to increased oil prices. This "starving the poor" argument is even more ridiculous, because we don't alleviate starvation with corn (or even food exports). We don't send any corn to the world's poorest nations, but Japan gets a lot of it. If you want an interesting report about this, see ...

http://www.agobservatory.org/library.cfm?refid=100001.

This food issue is about livestock profit margins. So which "poor" person are you talking about?

That said, we do need to make sure that the increase in biofuels production and use does not throw everything out of whack. This could happen if we get too drunk on the biofuels. But we are a ways away from that. To this end, making sure that protections are built into policies is key.

Thanks for the chance to debate this important issue with someone with a different perspective. You guys, along with global warming skeptics, seem to be getting fewer and further between.

Too much sarcasm on this site. I assume it is the unfortunate consequence of pack syndrome. But thanks for putting in the time to respond. This community definitely is interested in having a debate, even if I am suspicious of their ability to reconsider biofuels.

My hunch is many of you will dismiss these arguments as oft-heard. There wont be much refuting them ... they just dont fit your "anti farmed fuel" position. Either way, I dont find the biofuels information here balanced or informed. Plain and simple.

The bottom line is this: auto companies could have long ago put oil out of business. In addition, oil companies ride a wave of subsidies every year while preaching free market to the legions. Go find a political pressure point and run with it. We cant break this juggernaut with puffs of smoke.On The global nature of global warming posted 1 year, 12 months ago 70 Responses

More Abstract

This seems like more of the abstract to me.

The "if not ethanol then oil" comment is an on-the-ground reality. Paraphrasing your line, that you wish ethanol would just go away, what are we going to use instead right now, on-the-ground? Oil. There is simply no question about it.

As for public transportation, are you seriously blaming ethanol subsidies for this? I believe history shows that our policy commitment to the automobile, fired by petrol, together with a little inside politics by auto, tire and oil companies, is the culprit here. Ethanol? Ethanol was an illegal beverage when these decisions were being made.

On fantasy island, where we could simply flip a switch and stop burning liquid fuels all together, I would agree with you. Neither. Internal combustion is not exactly the vanguard in transportation technology. But we're currently 200 billion gallons per year of liquid fuel combustion away from fantasy island (aka blog island).

While ivory tower positions look good on the Gristmill and probably fire up the unplugged, this will be the only domain of the green movement if those positions don't become more based in political and economic reality. Just an opinion.On The corn industry hopes Congress will pull its fat out of the fire posted 2 years ago 44 Responses

And ...

Greyflcn ... check your facts. The President wanted 36 BGY of alternative fuels (yes, with coal in mind), but his proposal was DOA in Congress. The Senate passed a RENEWABLE fuels standard of 36 bgy. How do so many people miss the basics?On The corn industry hopes Congress will pull its fat out of the fire posted 2 years ago 44 Responses