Big Ethanol, the Environment, Gas Taxes and the GOP

That we consider corn ethanol subsidies and mandates unethical and tax payer abuse is obvious from these pages.   There are environmental aspects that should be considered, and we do, but we find them most compelling with regards to human ecology –  the impact on food prices and other aspects of the family pocketbook – and inefficient whole economy effects that weigh down job growth and distort resource allocation.

We find reports of recent studies questioning the basis for political alliances serving to prop up corn ethanol interesting even though we do not buy into the aspects containing presumptions about mankind’s carbon imprint or that CO2 at reasonably projected levels has an overall adverse effect on the environment.  The diseconomies and likelihood of environmental degradation from Big Ethanol has been reported on for years by organizations that are part of our blog roll.  We invite readers to scan their archives. What is new is the extent that studies questioning corn- ethanol have been reported in daily newspapers in the farm-belt. Gloriously they could undermine the unholy alliance between Big Ethanol and Big Enviro, to the benefit of mankind.

Two weeks ago we were surprised to see the Argus-Dispatch reporting in both the print editions (references) and in its entirety in the online edition, a major and extensive AP report challenging the economy and exposing the environmental impact of reliance on corn based ethanol for bio-fuel production. See our related posts here and here.

We wondered if we would ever see the report in the QC Times. We monitored  the print edition for about a week and were prepared to expose their spiking of the story.  It took them a week to do so, but lo and behold the QCT, did run related reports in the print and online editions. Their stories can be viewed here and here. Neither deserve big praise for doing their journalistic job, we were just surprised that they did their job.

Such mainstreaming of critiques of Big Ethanol is important to politics in Iowa even if oblique or uncertain right now.  It undermines some of the sway of Big Ethanol in the state.  Some of the political support for mandates and favored tax treatments provided the industry are implicated.  National politics are affected in that the homage of the past paid to Big Ethanol by presidential aspirants is not as compelling during the Iowa caucuses. An environmentalist cover is now provided.

Gas Tax

We note that there is likely to be a drive to increase the gas tax in the state. The effect from the reports  undermining  corn based ethanol, the third rail of Iowa politics, on the gas tax are even less certain in our crystal ball.  A gas tax increase may have bipartisan support from politicians even though the Republican Party Platform opposes it. The propaganda behind it will include all manner of scares and promises. The state maintained bridges are falling down, roads are collapsing, new interchanges need to be built, etc, etc, etc.  Where do ethanol costs fit in?  Research continues.

Of course little serious consideration will be given by proponents of a gas tax increase to the following:  Iowan’s being taxed enough already; guidance from how we paid for the infrastructure in the first place on a relative cost basis; the economic harm from increased taxes on fuel; bond issue alternatives; and if the situation is so dire, where a lot of money could be found from less dire uses of state tax dollars.

In regards to the later may we suggest the over indulged Iowa Board of Regents. Costs imposed on school districts, counties  and municipalities by state mandates could be lightened and those entities’  participation in road improvements can be increased, if they think the project is so important.  No corn-ethanol supports of any sort. The bio-fuel craze has not proved itself,  based on its efficiency compared to petroleum or petroleum’s availability, and does not deserve to be favored comparatively.

GOP

Republican Party of Iowa Platform Planks (2012) relating to Agriculture, Energy, Environment and Taxation regarding the above discussion.

2.4  We oppose efforts to control consumer food choices through selective taxation of any agricultural commodity, to include meat, dairy, or any other agricultural products or prepared packaged food items.

2.10  We call for the end of all federal subsidies in agriculture, including ethanol, and support the repeal of all federal regulations that inhibit the ability of the American farmer to compete fairly and effectively in the free market. It is not the government’s role to choose economic winners and losers.

8.5  We believe in free enterprise. Therefore, all affiliated costs of ethanol, bio-diesel, wind, clean coal, oil shale, and other forms of energy research and production should be borne by the private sector.

8.6  The use of biofuels, such as ethanol blended gasoline, biodiesel, and E-85 should be encouraged, but must not be mandated or subsidized.

9.2  We believe that claims of human-caused global warming are based on fraudulent, inaccurate information and that legislation and policy based on this information is detrimental to the wellbeing of the United States. We deplore extremist scare tactics not based on scientific evidence. We recognize it as a plan to take our freedoms and liberties away from the people through legislation.

9.7  We support Iowa Laws to ensure clean air, clean water, and safe management of wastes. However such laws and rules should be based on unbiased scientific research, risk analysis, economic impact, and common sense.

26.5  We oppose any increase in fuel taxes.

R Mall

0

0