First Corker, then Bush, and now Thompson
All have consumed the Ethanol kool-aid. Not good. The only positive thing about Thompson’s new position is at least he recognizes national security as part of the equation. I wish someone which teach these guys about entropy. Corn based Ethanol doesn’t help anyone. Expect for those ADM folks. And maybe some Tennessee folks.
NEVADA, Iowa (AP) — Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson acknowledged Wednesday that he’s reversed his position on ethanol subsidies, saying his new stand is based on changes in energy prices and security issues.
Thompson spoke about the issue after touring an ethanol plant, one of dozens in Iowa, which leads the nation in ethanol production. The actor and former Tennessee senator was finishing a five-day trip to the state, where precinct caucuses begin the presidential nominating process.
Meeting with reporters, Thompson acknowledged that he had switched his position on subsidies for ethanol.
“I have voted against subsidies in the Senate,” said Thompson. “But I think it’s a matter now of national security and we’ve got to avail ourselves of a lot of different resources, and I think renewable has to be a part of that picture.”
October 4th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Last I checked about 3% of the American population farms…but man they’re a powerful lobby because both parties need the flyover states to win, and hence you get boondoggles like corn based ethanol.
And the antis wonder why the NRA is so powerful…there are a lot more of us than there are farmers.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Sugarcane-based ethanol is pretty good though.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:19 am
If we go Ethanol it needs to be cellulosic, meaning the entire plant is used. Either switch grass or sugar cane.
Corn is food, not fuel. We don’t need $10 hamburgers and $50 steaks. If it must be made into Ethanol, let it be 80 proof, not 89 octane.
Question, think some of the Peta folks might like this idea as it will make beef more expensive?
October 4th, 2007 at 11:35 am
National Security? What is he smoking?
October 4th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
squeaky: personally, I’ve always said the energy diversity is key to national security, as well as our economic security. Not only does reduced need for foreign oil help, but varied alternative energy sources mean that terrorist don’t have a single target for causing massive destruction to our energy infrastructure. I’m not saying we can (or should) replace oil with ethanol, but it is ONE technology, and we should pursue it to the point that it is reasonable to do so.
On the other hand, I don’t like government subsidies. I like the free market. I think there is money to be made in ethanol, but not until the price of gas goes up further. At that point, private industry WILL provide the best solution. Artificially inflating one solution as better than another is bad policy, but we see it all-too-often from Washington.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Hm? Ethanol isn’t about low cost or good for the environment. Anyone that thinks otherwise is either missing a few screws or couldn’t pass high school chemistry.
The point is that it allows us to put further economic pressure against the Iranian marketplace, Ronald Reganing them into a more moderate viewpoint.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Or is trying to get votes in Iowa.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Folks in Mexico aren’t happy about the price of corn going up. I don’t blame them.
October 4th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
The turn towards corn-thonol is endangering Tequila production as Mexican land that wasn’t previously very valuable until the corn prices went up, is turned to that and a quick-growth cash-product ,and away from the longer-term demands of growing Agave.
October 4th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Well that tears it. I was cool with the whole boondoggle thing until they started screwing with tequila production.
October 4th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Ethanol production and usage is not energy efficient, and is a economic disaster waiting to happen.
It must be said that the German war machine in WWII operated almost exclusively on synthetic fuels and lubricants for the last two years of the war. We know it can be done. But it cannot be done at a cost lower than what we now carry, not economically nor ecologically.
I like the idea, it’s a good idea, but like a lot of good ideas, it doesn’t work on the scale we would need. Methanol production would come closer to supplying our needs in the quantities needed, but Methanol is corrosive.
There may be a future for bio-fuels from diverse sources such as surplus grains, garbage, sewage plants, etc., but we can never raise enough corn to supply our fuel needs and our food needs.
October 4th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
I should have said food and feedstock needs.
October 4th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
ethanol also absorbs water, leading to engine corrosion…it’s an all around loser, unless you’ve got a lot of corn to sell.
October 7th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Maybe this will help some guys figure out that Fred’s as “small government” as the rest of the RINOS. Ron Paul = Constitution.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:49 am
[…] Read the rest of this great post here […]