<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Bush to ethanol industry: don&#8217;t worry, you&#8217;re gonna get your fat mandate]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by Tasermons Partner</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/corn-ethanol-to-the-max/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2007 00:54:58 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/corn-ethanol-to-the-max/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Damn...</strong></p><p>The RFS was probably the only thing that would make him sign a bill with the RES 15% standard in it. &nbsp;If he does really go and finds a way around it, then he'll be far less likely to sign a bill with the 15% standard.</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Damn...</strong></p><p>The RFS was probably the only thing that would make him sign a bill with the RES 15% standard in it. &nbsp;If he does really go and finds a way around it, then he'll be far less likely to sign a bill with the 15% standard.</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #2 by odograph</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/corn-ethanol-to-the-max/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2007 01:14:33 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/corn-ethanol-to-the-max/2</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>economics<p>I fall back to the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVp8UGjECt4" rel="nofollow">stand-up economist. &nbsp;People are stupid but not that stupid.<p>
We'll try corn ethanol for a while, but I think we'll figure out the downsides after a time.</p></a></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>economics<p>I fall back to the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVp8UGjECt4" rel="nofollow">stand-up economist. &nbsp;People are stupid but not that stupid.<p>
We'll try corn ethanol for a while, but I think we'll figure out the downsides after a time.</p></a></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #3 by Ron Steenblik</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/corn-ethanol-to-the-max/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2007 01:19:12 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/corn-ethanol-to-the-max/3</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>No we shouldn't be</strong></p><p>But apparently those who like the Energy Bill think we should be, and that even if we are upset about the RFS we should shut up, lest the other parts of the Energy Bill be thrown out with this increasingly fetid bathwater.</p><p>
By the way, one of the stories on FarmPolicy.com (sent to me by e-mail) contains the following quote:</p><p>
"People at EPA think it's crazy to mandate such a large volume of renewable fuels," Mike Leister, fuels technology manager for Marathon Petroleum Co. in Findlay, Ohio, told DTN.</p><p>
I guess we should be grateful to learn that there are still sensible people working for the EPA. Unfortunately, those that make the policies have their own agendas.</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>No we shouldn't be</strong></p><p>But apparently those who like the Energy Bill think we should be, and that even if we are upset about the RFS we should shut up, lest the other parts of the Energy Bill be thrown out with this increasingly fetid bathwater.</p><p>
By the way, one of the stories on FarmPolicy.com (sent to me by e-mail) contains the following quote:</p><p>
"People at EPA think it's crazy to mandate such a large volume of renewable fuels," Mike Leister, fuels technology manager for Marathon Petroleum Co. in Findlay, Ohio, told DTN.</p><p>
I guess we should be grateful to learn that there are still sensible people working for the EPA. Unfortunately, those that make the policies have their own agendas.</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #4 by Ron Steenblik</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/corn-ethanol-to-the-max/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2007 01:33:07 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/corn-ethanol-to-the-max/4</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Huh??</strong></p><p>Odograph, I'm touched that you have such faith in humanity, but this issue is not about people but about power politics.</p><p>
You say, "We'll try corn ethanol for a while, but I think we'll figure out the downsides after a time." WE (that is to say, ADM and their political friends) have been trying corn ethanol for almost 30 years now. And once a big mandate is established, how do you see it being unravelled? Mandates are forever, and the only way out of them is to make a massive pay-off to the industry.</p><p>
Moreover, even if the government succeeds in keeping production of ethanol from corn starch to 15 billion gallons a year, corn will not disappear from the scene. Ethanol from other parts of the corn plant, and sweet sorghum (also a crop with soil-erosion problems, albeit less demanding of nitrogen fertilizer), will qualify as "advanced" biofuels.</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Huh??</strong></p><p>Odograph, I'm touched that you have such faith in humanity, but this issue is not about people but about power politics.</p><p>
You say, "We'll try corn ethanol for a while, but I think we'll figure out the downsides after a time." WE (that is to say, ADM and their political friends) have been trying corn ethanol for almost 30 years now. And once a big mandate is established, how do you see it being unravelled? Mandates are forever, and the only way out of them is to make a massive pay-off to the industry.</p><p>
Moreover, even if the government succeeds in keeping production of ethanol from corn starch to 15 billion gallons a year, corn will not disappear from the scene. Ethanol from other parts of the corn plant, and sweet sorghum (also a crop with soil-erosion problems, albeit less demanding of nitrogen fertilizer), will qualify as "advanced" biofuels.</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #5 by Ron Steenblik</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/corn-ethanol-to-the-max/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2007 02:07:20 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/corn-ethanol-to-the-max/5</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Good quote from the Washington Post<p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/11/AR2007121101834.html" rel="nofollow">Robert J. Samuelson writes in today's Washington Post:<p>
This is not a case of unintended consequences. A new generation of "cellulosic" fuels (made from grasses, crop residue or wood chips) might deliver benefits, but the adverse effects of corn-based ethanol were widely anticipated. Government subsidies reflect the careless and cynical manipulation of worthy public goals for selfish ends. That the new farm bill [sic]may expand the ethanol mandates confirms an old lesson: Having embraced a giveaway, politicians cannot stop it, no matter how dubious.<p>
To anybody who maintains that we need not worry, and who believes that Congress will wake up and smell the coffee and reverse the RFS (next year, the year after that?), I ask them to describe how that is going to happen. To repeat: "Having embraced a giveaway, politicians cannot stop it, no matter how dubious."</p></p></a></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Good quote from the Washington Post<p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/11/AR2007121101834.html" rel="nofollow">Robert J. Samuelson writes in today's Washington Post:<p>
This is not a case of unintended consequences. A new generation of "cellulosic" fuels (made from grasses, crop residue or wood chips) might deliver benefits, but the adverse effects of corn-based ethanol were widely anticipated. Government subsidies reflect the careless and cynical manipulation of worthy public goals for selfish ends. That the new farm bill [sic]may expand the ethanol mandates confirms an old lesson: Having embraced a giveaway, politicians cannot stop it, no matter how dubious.<p>
To anybody who maintains that we need not worry, and who believes that Congress will wake up and smell the coffee and reverse the RFS (next year, the year after that?), I ask them to describe how that is going to happen. To repeat: "Having embraced a giveaway, politicians cannot stop it, no matter how dubious."</p></p></a></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #6 by odograph</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/corn-ethanol-to-the-max/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2007 02:32:32 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/corn-ethanol-to-the-max/6</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>what's the plural of backlash?<p>I liked the old <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;as_qdr=all&amp;q=corn+hataz+site%3Agristmill.grist.org&amp;btnG=Search" rel="nofollow">corn hataz articles here at grist, and the parallel set of <a href="http://www.google.com/search?as_q=ethanol+dominoes&amp;hl=en&amp;num=10&amp;btnG=Google+Search&amp;as_epq=&amp;as_oq=&amp;as_eq=&amp;lr=&amp;cr=&amp;as_ft=i&amp;as_filetype=&amp;as_qdr=all&amp;as_nlo=&amp;as_nhi=&amp;as_occt=any&amp;as_dt=i&amp;as_sitesearch=www.env-econ.net&amp;as_rights=&amp;safe=images" rel="nofollow">ethanol dominoes articles at env-econ.<p>
I am (as I was once accused) an optimist who thinks he is a pessimist on this one?<p>
I really expect higher food prices to sink in, or a light bulb to go on, when the shopping moms connect higher grocery prices to ethanol policy.</p></p></a></a></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>what's the plural of backlash?<p>I liked the old <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;as_qdr=all&amp;q=corn+hataz+site%3Agristmill.grist.org&amp;btnG=Search" rel="nofollow">corn hataz articles here at grist, and the parallel set of <a href="http://www.google.com/search?as_q=ethanol+dominoes&amp;hl=en&amp;num=10&amp;btnG=Google+Search&amp;as_epq=&amp;as_oq=&amp;as_eq=&amp;lr=&amp;cr=&amp;as_ft=i&amp;as_filetype=&amp;as_qdr=all&amp;as_nlo=&amp;as_nhi=&amp;as_occt=any&amp;as_dt=i&amp;as_sitesearch=www.env-econ.net&amp;as_rights=&amp;safe=images" rel="nofollow">ethanol dominoes articles at env-econ.<p>
I am (as I was once accused) an optimist who thinks he is a pessimist on this one?<p>
I really expect higher food prices to sink in, or a light bulb to go on, when the shopping moms connect higher grocery prices to ethanol policy.</p></p></a></a></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #7 by amazingdrx</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/corn-ethanol-to-the-max/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2007 03:23:24 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/corn-ethanol-to-the-max/7</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Know when to fold 'em</strong></p><p>Hehey, to quote the dreadful song. &nbsp;Usually in this hypester type of market action, the big money is made on the upside about a year or two before it is big political news. &nbsp;They sold 'em, or rather got rid of their long positions quite a while back.</p><p>
Too late now, unless you short them. &nbsp;But even those short positions were best 6 months ago as ethanol profits went from 3 bucks per gallon to only 25 cents per gallon. &nbsp;A glut of ethanol and no way to mix it into the gas supply fast enough was the culprit.</p><p>
Maybe taking long positions in plugin battery electric car equipment makers would be a good idea for the next big boom. &nbsp;But it might take a year or two to develop.</p><p>
When consumers start seeing the audi plugin and maybe even the volt, they are going to want one too. &nbsp;How fast will it ramp up? &nbsp;How fast did Prius sales ramp up? &nbsp;These plugins will actually save enough gas to be worth the financial investment to family economics too. </p><p>
Unlike the Prius, it has a longer payback,less fuel saved, &nbsp;feel good green, but not green as in more cash. &nbsp;The plugins will improve your cash flow, by maybe 1000 bucks per year on average.

<p>http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog</p></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Know when to fold 'em</strong></p><p>Hehey, to quote the dreadful song. &nbsp;Usually in this hypester type of market action, the big money is made on the upside about a year or two before it is big political news. &nbsp;They sold 'em, or rather got rid of their long positions quite a while back.</p><p>
Too late now, unless you short them. &nbsp;But even those short positions were best 6 months ago as ethanol profits went from 3 bucks per gallon to only 25 cents per gallon. &nbsp;A glut of ethanol and no way to mix it into the gas supply fast enough was the culprit.</p><p>
Maybe taking long positions in plugin battery electric car equipment makers would be a good idea for the next big boom. &nbsp;But it might take a year or two to develop.</p><p>
When consumers start seeing the audi plugin and maybe even the volt, they are going to want one too. &nbsp;How fast will it ramp up? &nbsp;How fast did Prius sales ramp up? &nbsp;These plugins will actually save enough gas to be worth the financial investment to family economics too. </p><p>
Unlike the Prius, it has a longer payback,less fuel saved, &nbsp;feel good green, but not green as in more cash. &nbsp;The plugins will improve your cash flow, by maybe 1000 bucks per year on average.

<p>http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog</p></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #8 by traveler255</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/corn-ethanol-to-the-max/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2007 03:35:08 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/corn-ethanol-to-the-max/8</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Biofuel not really bio</strong></p><p>You need about two gallons of oil to produce one gallon of biofuel. And in Indonesia they destroy the entire rain forest in order to plant biofuel producing trees. What a nonsense.

<p>Never stop using your brain!</p></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Biofuel not really bio</strong></p><p>You need about two gallons of oil to produce one gallon of biofuel. And in Indonesia they destroy the entire rain forest in order to plant biofuel producing trees. What a nonsense.

<p>Never stop using your brain!</p></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #9 by Delay And Deny</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/corn-ethanol-to-the-max/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2007 03:36:59 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/corn-ethanol-to-the-max/9</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Jersey Boys Got Oil<p>Why bother -- there's plenty of fuel:<p>
<a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/exxon-proposes-floating-liquid-natural-gas/story.aspx?guid=%7B8F01BD4C%2DE8F7%2D425B%2DBEAC%2D64B8F10B87F4%7D" rel="nofollow">http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/exxon-proposes-floa ...<p>
Exxon Mobil Corp. announced late Tuesday that it's proposing a $1 billion, floating liquid natural-gas terminal located 20 miles off the coast of New Jersey.<p>
The company is calling it a way around the often-crippling "not in my backyard" opposition facing the development of energy infrastructure in the United States.<p>
"The floating ocean terminal will not be visible from the shoreline" it said on a Web site for the project, called BlueOcean Energy.

<p><b><a href="http://log.texeme.com" rel="nofollow">My Log</a></b></p></p></p></p></a></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Jersey Boys Got Oil<p>Why bother -- there's plenty of fuel:<p>
<a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/exxon-proposes-floating-liquid-natural-gas/story.aspx?guid=%7B8F01BD4C%2DE8F7%2D425B%2DBEAC%2D64B8F10B87F4%7D" rel="nofollow">http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/exxon-proposes-floa ...<p>
Exxon Mobil Corp. announced late Tuesday that it's proposing a $1 billion, floating liquid natural-gas terminal located 20 miles off the coast of New Jersey.<p>
The company is calling it a way around the often-crippling "not in my backyard" opposition facing the development of energy infrastructure in the United States.<p>
"The floating ocean terminal will not be visible from the shoreline" it said on a Web site for the project, called BlueOcean Energy.

<p><b><a href="http://log.texeme.com" rel="nofollow">My Log</a></b></p></p></p></p></a></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #10 by justlou</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/corn-ethanol-to-the-max/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2007 03:39:59 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/corn-ethanol-to-the-max/10</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>15 Billion Gallons to the Rescue<p>How much corn does it take to make 15 billion gallons of ethanol? &nbsp;<p>
The amount would surpass over half of US corn crop in 4 of the last 6 years and over 40% of the 2007 production boosted by a substantial increase in acreage. &nbsp;We saw big jumps in food prices this year when ethanol was set to take about 25% of the crop. &nbsp;So what can we expect in the future when ethanol takes 50% or more? &nbsp;More importantly, what severe effects might we see if corn production falls as it regularly does in the corn belt? &nbsp;<p>
Agricultural economists give us a good window on future corn production scenarios. &nbsp;One, that I cited in an earlier post can be read at:<p>
2007 U.S CORN PRODUCTION RISKS: WHAT DOES HISTORY TEACH US? <br>
<a href="http://www.farmdoc.uiuc.edu/marketing/mobr/mobr_07-01/mob" rel="nofollow">http://www.farmdoc.uiuc.edu/marketing/mobr/mobr_07-01/mob ... ...<p>
My earlier comments containing excerpts from this study are in the thread at the tail of:<br>
<a href="http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/6/162114/094" rel="nofollow">http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/6/162114/094<p>
One noteworthy excerpt:<br>
An important public policy question, then, is, with an extreme shortfall in production, would the market be allowed to allocate the crop among users or would such a shortfall in corn production induce government intervention? The norm from past experience with rationing has been to allow the market to allocate the crop, with the largest adjustments taking place in the livestock sector. However, there has been one exception. Short supplies and high soybean prices in 1973 resulted in an embargo on U.S. exports. Such an embargo on corn exports might be considered following a large shortfall in production, but the potential negative impact on longer-term trade relationships would make an embargo a very unpopular alternative. The financial implications of high corn prices for livestock producers might evoke intervention in the allocation of supplies between domestic livestock producers and processors of corn. <p>
In Bush's last year look out for all kinds of rule writing that work against our interests. &nbsp;The foxes are prowling and Bush and his agency cronies are holding the hen house door wide open. &nbsp;Are feathers hanging from Congress' mouth? &nbsp;</p></br></p></a></br></p></a></br></p></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>15 Billion Gallons to the Rescue<p>How much corn does it take to make 15 billion gallons of ethanol? &nbsp;<p>
The amount would surpass over half of US corn crop in 4 of the last 6 years and over 40% of the 2007 production boosted by a substantial increase in acreage. &nbsp;We saw big jumps in food prices this year when ethanol was set to take about 25% of the crop. &nbsp;So what can we expect in the future when ethanol takes 50% or more? &nbsp;More importantly, what severe effects might we see if corn production falls as it regularly does in the corn belt? &nbsp;<p>
Agricultural economists give us a good window on future corn production scenarios. &nbsp;One, that I cited in an earlier post can be read at:<p>
2007 U.S CORN PRODUCTION RISKS: WHAT DOES HISTORY TEACH US? <br>
<a href="http://www.farmdoc.uiuc.edu/marketing/mobr/mobr_07-01/mob" rel="nofollow">http://www.farmdoc.uiuc.edu/marketing/mobr/mobr_07-01/mob ... ...<p>
My earlier comments containing excerpts from this study are in the thread at the tail of:<br>
<a href="http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/6/162114/094" rel="nofollow">http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/6/162114/094<p>
One noteworthy excerpt:<br>
An important public policy question, then, is, with an extreme shortfall in production, would the market be allowed to allocate the crop among users or would such a shortfall in corn production induce government intervention? The norm from past experience with rationing has been to allow the market to allocate the crop, with the largest adjustments taking place in the livestock sector. However, there has been one exception. Short supplies and high soybean prices in 1973 resulted in an embargo on U.S. exports. Such an embargo on corn exports might be considered following a large shortfall in production, but the potential negative impact on longer-term trade relationships would make an embargo a very unpopular alternative. The financial implications of high corn prices for livestock producers might evoke intervention in the allocation of supplies between domestic livestock producers and processors of corn. <p>
In Bush's last year look out for all kinds of rule writing that work against our interests. &nbsp;The foxes are prowling and Bush and his agency cronies are holding the hen house door wide open. &nbsp;Are feathers hanging from Congress' mouth? &nbsp;</p></br></p></a></br></p></a></br></p></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>