Showing posts sorted by relevance for query ethanol. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query ethanol. Sort by date Show all posts

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions


The Law of Unintended Consequences has not been repealed. In our zeal, post-Katrina to find alternative sources of energy for our cars, we, as a government, are rushing pell-mell into ethanol production. Never mind that ethanol has less energy per gallon than gasoline and costs a fortune in agricultural inputs, it is the wave of the future. Enter market economics. As the cover of World Magazine shows, not everyone is happy with our national goal of giant corn distilleries. It seems that our push for ethanol is driving up the price of corn, in some cases, doubling it. And the poor folks who have it as a staple of their diet are suffering.

Never mind that there is ample oil off the coast of the United States in the Gulf of Mexico and California, not to mention the ANWR debacle. U.S. companies are not allowed to drill for oil in these zones, but Cuba is. Cuba, with the help of Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez, is planning to drill for oil within sight of Florida. So much for the environmentalists cause there.

This reminds me of a 235 year-old letter written by John Wesley "To the Editor of 'Lloyd's Evening Post'" in 1772. The text is below, courtesy of the Wesley Center for Applied Theology at Northwest Nazarene University. It seems that not much has changed since then. We take food crops and use them for other purposes and disadvantage those who are most vulnerable. Read John Wesley's letter below

To the Editor of 'Lloyd's Evening Post' [25]]

DOVER, December 9, 1772.

SIR,--Many excellent things have been lately published concerning the present scarcity of provisions. And many causes have been assigned for it; but is not something wanting in most of those publications? One writer assigns one cause, another one or two more, and strongly insists upon them. But who has assigned all the causes that manifestly concur to produce this melancholy effect? at the same time pointing out how each particular cause affects the price of each particular sort of provision?

I would willingly offer to candid and benevolent men a few hints on this important subject, proposing a few questions, and adding to each what seems to be the plain and direct answer.

I. 1. I ask first, Why are thousands of people starving, perishing for want, in every part of England? The fact I know: I have seen it with my eyes in every corner of the land. I have known those who could only afford to eat a little coarse food every other day. I have known one picking up stinking sprats from a dunghill and carrying them home for herself and her children. I have known another gathering the bones which the dogs had left in the streets and making broth of them to prolong a wretched life. Such is the case at this day of multitudes of people in a land flowing, as it were, with milk and honey, abounding with all the necessaries, the conveniences, the superfluities of life!

Now, why is this? Why have all these nothing to eat? Because they have nothing to do. They have no meat because they have no work.

2. But why have they no work? Why are so many thousand people in London, in Bristol, in Norwich, in every county from one end of England to the other, utterly destitute of employment?

Because the persons who used to employ them cannot afford to do it any longer. Many who employed fifty men now scarce employ ten. Those who employed twenty now employ one or none at all. They cannot, as they have no vent for their goods, food now bearing so high a price that the generality of people are hardly able to buy anything else.

3. But to descend from generals to particulars. Why is breadcorn so dear? Because such immense quantities of it are continually consumed by distilling. Indeed, an eminent distiller near London hearing this, warmly replied, Nay, my partner and I generally distil but a thousand quarters of corn a week.' Perhaps so. Suppose five-and-twenty distillers in and near the town consume each only the same quantity. Here are five-and-twenty thousand quarters a week --that is, above twelve hundred and fifty thousand quarters a year--consumed in and about London! Add the distillers throughout England, and have we not reason to believe that half of the wheat produced in the kingdom is every year consumed, not by so harmless a way as throwing it into the sea, but by converting it into deadly poison--poison that naturally destroys, not only the strength and life, but also the morals of our countrymen!

Well, but this brings in a large revenue to the King.' Is this an equivalent for the lives of his subjects? Would His Majesty sell an hundred thousand of his subjects yearly to Algiers for four hundred thousand pounds? Surely no. Will he, then, sell them for that sum to be butchered by their own countrymen? But otherwise the swine for the Navy cannot be fed.' Not unless they are fed with human flesh? not unless they are fatted with human blood? O tell it not in Constantinople that the English raise the royal revenue by selling the blood and flesh of their countrymen!

4. But why are oats so dear? Because there are four times the horses kept (to speak within compass), for coaches and chaises in particular, than were some years ago. Unless, therefore, four times the oats grew now as grew then, they cannot be at the same price. If only twice as much is produced (which perhaps is near the truth), the price will naturally be double to what it was.

As the dearness of grain of one kind will naturally raise the price of another, so whatever causes the dearness of wheat and oats must raise the price of barley too. To account, therefore, for the dearness of this we need only remember what has been observed above, although some particular causes may concur in producing the same effect.

5. Why are beef and mutton so dear? Because most of the considerable farmers, particularly in the northern counties, who used to breed large numbers of sheep or horned cattle, and frequently both, no longer trouble themselves with either sheep or cows or oxen, as they can turn their land to far better account by breeding horses alone. Such is the demand, not only for coach- and chaise-horses, which are bought and destroyed in incredible numbers; but much more for bred horses, which are yearly exported by hundreds, yea thousands, to France.

6. But why are pork, poultry, and eggs so dear? Because of the monopolizing of farms, as mischievous a monopoly as was ever yet introduced into these kingdoms. The land which was formerly divided among ten or twenty little farmers and enabled them comfortably to provide for their families is now generally engrossed by one great farmer. One man farms an estate of a thousand a year, which formerly maintained ten or twenty. Every one of these little farmers kept a few swine, with some quantity of poultry; and, having little money, was glad to send his bacon, or pork, or fowls and eggs, to market continually. Hence the markets were plentifully served, and plenty created cheapness; but at present the great, the gentlemen farmers, are above attending to these little things. They breed no poultry or swine unless for their own use; consequently they send none to market. Hence it is not strange if two or three of these living near a market town occasion such a scarcity of these things by preventing the former supply that the price of them will be double or treble to what it was before. Hence (to instance in a small article) in the same town, where within my memory eggs were sold eight or ten a penny, they are now sold six or eight a groat.

Another cause why beef, mutton, pork, and all kinds of victuals are so dear is luxury. What can stand against this?

Will it not waste and destroy all that nature and art can produce? If a person of quality will boil down three dozen of neat's tongues to make two or three quarts of soup (and so proportionately in other things), what wonder if provisions fail? Only look into the kitchens of the great, the nobility, and gentry, almost without exception (considering withal that the toe of the peasant treads upon the heel of the courtier), and when you have observed the amazing waste which is made there, you will no longer wonder at the scarcity, and consequently dearness, of the things which they use so much art to destroy.

7. But why is land so dear? Because on all these accounts gentlemen cannot live as they have been accustomed to do, without increasing their income, which most of them cannot do but by raising their rents. The farmer, paying an higher rent for his land, must have an higher price for the produce of it. This again tends to raise the price of land. And so the wheel goes round.

8. But why is it that not only provisions and land but well-nigh everything else is so dear? Because of the enormous taxes which are laid on almost everything that can be named. Not only abundant taxes are raised from earth and fire and water, but in England the ingenious statesmen have found a way to tax the very light! Only one element remains, and surely some man of honour will ere long contrive to tax this also. For how long shall the saucy air blow in the face of a gentleman, nay a lord, without paying for it?

9. But why are the taxes so high? Because of the national debt. They must be while this continues. I have heard that the national expense in the time of peace was sixty years ago three millions a year. Now the bare interest of the public debt amounts to above four millions. To raise which, with the other expenses of government, those taxes are absolutely necessary.

II. Here is the evil. But where is the remedy? Perhaps it exceeds all the wisdom of man to tell. But it may not be amiss to offer a few hints even on this delicate subject.

1. What remedy is there for this sore evil? Many thousand poor people are starving. Find them work, and you will find them meat. They will then earn and eat their own bread.

2. But how shall their masters give them work without ruining themselves? Procure vent for it, and it will not hurt their masters to give them as much work as they can do; and this will be done by sinking the price of provisions, for then people will have money to buy other things too.

3. But how can the price of wheat be reduced? By prohibiting for ever that bane of health, that destroyer of strength, of life, and of virtue, distilling. Perhaps this alone will answer the whole design. If anything more be needful, may not all starch be made of rice, and the importation of this as well as of wheat be encouraged?

4. How can the price of oats be reduced? By reducing the number of horses. And may not this be effectually done (1) by laying a tax of ten pounds on every horse exported to France, (2) by laying an additional tax on gentlemen's carriages. Not so much for every wheel (barefaced, shameless partiality!), but ten pounds yearly for every horse. And these two taxes alone would nearly supply as much as is now given for leave to poison His Majesty's liege subjects.

5. How can the price of beef and mutton be reduced? By increasing the breed of sheep and horned cattle. And this would be increased sevenfold if the price of horses was reduced, which it surely would be half in half by the method above mentioned.

6. How can the price of pork and poultry be reduced? First, by letting no farms of above an hundred pounds a year. Secondly, by repressing luxury, either by example, by laws, or both.

7. How may the price of land be reduced? By all the methods above named, all which tend to lessen the expense of housekeeping; but especially the last, restraining luxury, which is the grand source of poverty.

8. How may the taxes be reduced? By discharging half the national debt, and so saving at least two millions a year.

How this can be done the wisdom of the great council of the land can best determine.--I am, sir,

Your humble servant.

Thursday, May 01, 2008

Am I just dense?


Or is there something here that escapes me? You know my issues with the incoherent energy policy in these United States. So I wrote my congressman, who happens to chair the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Here is his response to my concerns dated April 28, 2008:

Dear Mr. Richardson:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding drilling off the shore of the United States. I appreciate hearing from you.

We can all agree that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil; however, I do not think that new drilling off our coasts is the best solution. Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have worked for a balanced energy policy, which takes care of our needs as a nation while conserving one of our natural resources. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce is the committee through which much of our environmental legislation must go, and as Chairman of that Committee I must often make decisions regarding the environment. To this end, during the 110th Congress I intend to look into investing in clean and renewable energy.

You may be pleased to know that during the 109th Congress, the House took a number of actions meant to financially encourage the development and usage of alternative energy. In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress mandated that 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol would have to be incorporated as a gasoline additive by 2012. Ethanol, a much cleaner alternative to gasoline, would significantly decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Hybrid cars also are being promoted to consumers via tax credits. Up to $3200 is available in tax credits for a new owner of a hybrid. Congress already offers many other smaller tax credits to conscientious consumers. This type of encouragement on the homeowner level provides motivation for manufacturers to continue to invent and produce more energy efficient models of appliances.

Though these incentives are a good start in promoting continued exploration of alternative energy practices, they are not the finish line. Energy efficiency is a worthy aim and one that our government's policies and practices should seek to encourage, but not at the cost of our environment. You may rest assured that that I will keep your views in mind should legislation regarding alternative energy come before me for consideration.

Again, thank you for being in touch. For news on current federal legislative issues, please visit my website at www.house.gov/dingell; you can also sign up there to receive my e-newsletter. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me again if I may be of assistance with this or any other matter of concern.

With every good wish,

Sincerely yours,

John D. Dingell Member of Congress

So, if I understand what Rep. Dingell is saying, he is advocating diverting our food supply to fuel to protect the environment. Never mind the starvation and gross immorality of that action, the environment is more important than the people who live in it.

That is eye-opening to say the least.

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

The Morality of Ethanol


I hate to say "I told you so" but I will say it. Actually, I take a little satisfaction in saying that. It seems that I was prescient in my thoughts on this. Global food prices are rising, and we still continue to divert food to energy production while ignoring the oil reserves in our own country.

In the meantime, food prices are rising and putting more pressure on the poor, who are struggling to feed their families. This is just plain wrong, at so many levels. Yet no one in Washington seems to listen or care.

I just have a nagging sense that we are being sold out. This is completely irrational at a policy level, yet it continues.

Wednesday, January 02, 2008

How is this a good idea?


This week begins the official portion of the 2008 Presidential Beauty Contest. The Hawkeye Caucii (or Iowa Caucus) kicks off the season, and all political eyes are on Iowa. This brings a few questions to mind for me.

1. Why does Iowa get to go first? It is a relatively small state that requires candidates to pander to the ethanol and farm lobbies.

2. Is Iowa representative of America? Fewer than 150,000 people, or less than 5% of Iowans will probably participate in a non-secret ballot format, and this will determine delegates to a nominating convention?

3. Is making people stand in squares in the high school gym the best way to pick a president?

All of this just boggles my mind. And the folks in Iowa treat this as their birthright, as if they were destined to be the arbiters of who is elected. By the time this rolls through Iowa and New Hampshire (another bunch of self-important election snobs) half of the candidates will be knocked out of the process. Two relatively small states function as the winnowing agent? I just don't get it.

Sunday, May 04, 2008

This was in my local paper


I just love the editorial cartoon, especially since we recently studied Revelation in our adult small group. The article is a good read from the outgoing Prime Minister of Italy.

One quote stood out to me from the piece:

People can no longer be allowed to starve to death in Africa simply because there are some people in the US or inside the European Union who consider that the votes of farmers or landowners are worth more than the survival of millions of men and women. It is true that today's policies were decided at a time when we thought we were living in an energy-poor and food-rich world. But that is no longer the case today.

I heard on the radio news that the U.S. has diverted 1/3 of its corn crop to ethanol production, while people starve around the world and food prices rise. Now that the Iowa caucuses are over, can we please stop pandering to the farm lobby and create an energy policy that makes sense and does not cause people to starve to death?

Thursday, August 14, 2008

Back to the Stone Age


It seems that no matter what we do energy-wise, we are doomed. Let's just face it. We need to go back to a pre-industrial revolution lifestyle so that no one can damage the planet or be damaged by any of the modern technology that we are so dependent on.

To wit, I've listed some of the problems with the current and future sources of energy that are being bantered about.

Wind turbines chop up birds and cause medical problems
. So much for the "clean, renewable" source of energy. Not to mention that they are unattractive.

Ethanol raises food prices and is inefficient. There goes the Iowa farmer subsidy program. Thank goodness the presidential candidates won't be back there handing out our money for a fuel that is less efficient than gasoline. And I don't see large amounts of acreage dedicated to switchgrass.

Drilling for oil on our coasts would be a catastrophe. So much so that Nancy Pelosi won't even allow the House of Representatives to vote on the issue. Just discussing it would cause harm.

Nuclear Power is fraught with peril. Didn't we all see The China Syndrome? And what to do with the waste since Harry Reid won't allow the Yucca Mountain containment facility to be built.

Hydroelectric power destroys fish habitat. Salmon can't migrate past those massive dams.

Coal causes global warming. And we know Al Gore and his private jet are running around showing his movie and Nobel prize to remind us of that.

Solar power technology is not there yet. Presumably because Big Oil has the secret formula locked away with the 100 mpg carburetor somewhere in their vault.

My advice to you all is to go buy some land and livestock, and begin reading the Little House on the Prairie books for advice on how to live. If the politicians get their way, we will all need to step into our "Way Back Machine" and dramatically reduce our energy usage. Learn to cook over a wood fire and use all-natural materials. The 21st century is calling.

Come Lord Jesus, Come.

Thursday, February 07, 2008

I hate to say I told you so


One month after all of the pandering in Iowa is over, this story comes out. It seems that diverting our food supply into an inefficient method of propelling cars isn't such a good idea. Where have I heard that idea before? Oh yeah, I said that one year ago. Maybe I am just ahead of the curve. Or maybe buying votes just catches up with us eventually.

It seems that the production of ethanol will create 2x the level of greenhouse gases as the gasoline it would replace. You can read the article for all the details, but this quote is priceless:

"Using good cropland to expand biofuels will probably exacerbate global warming," concludes the study published in Science magazine.

Just remember, you heard it here first.

Monday, April 21, 2008

Earth Day 2008


Tuesday, April 22 is Earth Day, and there will be much hoopla over the rising price of gas, oil and food caused by the increased production of ethanol. Rather than engage in endless hand-wringing and navel-gazing, I offer you some tips. Most of them come from Creation Care, a site I encourage you to visit.

Stop junk mail. It reduces landfill waste.

Check out these guidelines from Creation Care.

Stop buying bottled water. Install a filter and use a reusable water bottle.

Ride your bike or walk instead of driving. It will help your body and save you some gas money.

Plant a garden and grow your own veggies. It will save on cost and transportation fuel use to get your food to market.

This is but a partial list. There are many more, and I encourage you to check out the Creation Care website.

Enjoy the world God has given us. But remember to worship God and not the creation.