Moving To Eliminate Ethanol Subsidy

[BRG]

Given the whole red state, blue state thing, plenty of cattle producers would have lost money betting that sensible legislation aimed at curtailing government ethanol subsidies would come from the East or Left Coasts. But it has, from both sides of the country.

Last Monday, Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY) and Rep. Mary Mack (R-CA) introduced the Affordable Food and Fuel for America Act in the House of Representatives. It aims to phase out both the blender's tax credit and tariffs for corn-based ethanol within five years.

"For too long billions of taxpayer dollars have been used to incentivize (her word) corn ethanol, without getting needed results and causing numerous unintended consequences, like rising food prices, that don't benefit our economy or our environment," said Mack.

Of course, she's also one of eight Republicans who voted in favor of cap and trade, but no need to square the logic of one with the other.

"After 30 years of support, corn-based ethanol is still reliant on government support to be commercially viable. It is time to allow it to compete on a level playing field, and to stop propping up one industry at the expense of another," Gary Voogt, president of the National Cattlemen's Association (NCBA), said Wednesday. "Soaring feed costs and government payments to the ethanol industry are hurting small businesses and family ranches. Cattle producers don't ask for subsidies, just equal footing… The legislation introduced by Representatives Crowley and Mack allows for a market-based approach to our nation's competing demands for corn, and helps us meet both our food and fuel needs."

 

[burnt]

"For too long billions of taxpayer dollars have been used to incentivize (her word) corn ethanol, without getting needed results and causing numerous unintended consequences, like rising food prices, that don't benefit our economy or our environment," said Mack.

"Like rising food prices that don't benefit our economy"

What the heck is this about? I do not understand the attitude that consumers feel entitled to have the worlds best and most abundant food supply at the world's lowest cost as well!!! And does she think that the economy of the food producing sector doesn't consider it beneficial when the price of food rises??

The people who form the governments in the free world know that they have their biggest support base in the non-agricultural sector of society thus allowing them full liberty to ignore the needs of ag producers.

While I do not see that there is any sense in, or long term future for ethanol production as an alternative fuel, I do not mind that it moved the price of corn higher (if, in fact, it did) because the grain producers also deserve to make a living.

What would the true cost of food be if grain and meat prices were to have risen along with historical inflation rates? I don't need to point out to anyone on here that we are getting the same prices for ag. commodities as we received 30 (well on second thought, almost 40) years ago when I started farming.

Rather than pitting one ag sector against the other in order to try to keep food costs low, government should be seeing that an environment exists that allows food producers to actually make enough on their work to stay in business.

Crowley and Mack and their kind can take their rosy rhetoric and stuff it.

 

[katrina]

Well this will be real interesting.... :roll: :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

Vilsack says ag would make money on climate change bill

By Rita Jane Gabbett on 7/22/2009


USDA analysis shows the economic benefits to agriculture from proposed climate change legislation recently passed by the House will likely outweigh the costs in the short term, and the economic benefits from offsets markets will easily outpace increased input costs over the long term.

"The agriculture sector will benefit directly from allowance revenues allocated to finance incentives for renewable energy and agricultural emissions reductions during the first five years of the HR 2454 cap and trade program. Funds for agricultural emissions reductions are estimated to range from about $75 million to $100 million annually from 2012-2016," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in testimony before the Senate Agriculture Committee.

"Our analysis indicates that annual net returns to farmers range from about $1 billion per year in 2015-20 to almost $15-20 billion in 2040-50, not accounting for the costs of implementing offset practices," he said, adding, "We believe these figures are conservative because we aren't able to model the types of technological change that are very likely to help farmers produce more crops and livestock with fewer inputs."

Higher grain prices

Vilsack also said farmers will likely receive higher commodity prices "as a result of enhanced renewable energy markets and retirement of environmentally sensitive lands domestically and abroad."

He used the following example to illustrate possible financial consequences of the bill:

A Northern Plains wheat producer, for example, might see an increase of $.80 per acre in costs of production by 2020 due to higher fuel prices. Based on a soil carbon sequestration rate of 0.4 tons per acre and a carbon price of $16 per ton, a producer could mitigate those expenses by adopting no-till practices and earning $6.40 per acre.

"It's quite possible that this wheat farmer could do even better if technologies and markets progress in such a way that allows for the sale of wheat straw to make cellulosic ethanol," Vilsack concluded.