The corn pone continues:
The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is a USA federal program that requires transportation fuel sold in the U.S. to contain a minimum volume of renewable fuels. Of course corn farmers and ethanol producers in Iowa love it. Unfortunately corn ethanol does not do what it was marketed to the body politic to do.
It does not reduce pollution, it is not energy efficient so it does not reduce our dependance on foreign oil, the later pretty much obviated by our own petroleum developments, and it increases food costs. A somewhat larger group than Big Ethanol rent seekers, rank and file car drivers and people who eat food, should oppose it. Positioning oneself as a champion of that larger group, should have the upper political hand even in Iowa. Surely with any competent campaign there is no need to bow to Big Ethanol.
And so candidate for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate, Sam Clovis disappointed us last week when we read that he, along with candidate Mark Jacobs, support the Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) that is up for reconsideration in Congress. According to The Iowa Republican (whose editor supports continuing the RFS) :
Both Clovis and Jacobs backed the Renewable Fuels Standard that the EPA wants to eliminate. Clovis admitted that his position on the issue has evolved as he’s studied the issue. Jacobs has backed maintaining the Renewable Fuels Standard as it an important catalyst to the Iowa economy and because it helps guarantee that consumers have a choice at the pump.
Clovis has not elaborated on his epiphany but Jacobs’ comment ( a parroting of Big Ethanol talking points) about guaranteeing choices is just plain silly. The implications as a rational are just endless, magnifying the ridiculousness.
Dr Margo Thorning is senior vice president and chief economist with the American Council for Capital Formation and director of research for its public policy think tank. In an article posted today in The Hill, among several other important points, she writes:
The RFS is also raising prices at the pump. A NERA Economic Consulting study concluded that the new Renewable Fuel Standards will cause a 30 percent gas price increase and a 300 percent diesel price increase in 2015. On top of raising prices, the RFS leads consumers to buy more gasoline because ethanol reduces fuel efficiency. U.S. News reports that ethanol delivers 25 percent fewer miles per gallon than gasoline does.
Furthermore, the RFS is intended to lower carbon dioxide emissions, and does not even succeed in its most important goal. Life-cycle analyses of corn ethanol production have shown that there is actually a negative effect from emissions associated with planting and harvesting. There would be a positive effect from advanced biofuels, but the technology is not currently commercially viable. The RFS is a broken federal policy that has sought for too long to mandate production and use of a fuel that is unfeasible
An article also posted today, by columnist Debra Saunders, in the San Francisco Chronical provides a succinct list of the economic negatives. She also addresses the practical political negatives which we think actually extend to most informed Iowans.
While voters in the Hawkeye state may support the Renewable Fuel Standard, . . . “corn ethanol is unbelievably unpopular” in three key primary states. In New Hampshire, voters blame it for engine damage. In South Carolina, it drives up the cost of raising chickens. There’s “not a lot of corn grown in Nevada,” but there is livestock . . .
Maybe there was a time when Washington’s ethanol policies seemed smart and green. Now they carry the stench of failed ranches, high food prices and unnecessary environmental damage. So Congress should clean up after its mistake – and quickly.
The Iowa Republican also reported that candidates Joni Ernst and Matt Whitaker oppose renewing the RFS. That Ernst opposes RFS is as surprising to us as Clovis now taking a position in support. Ernst is pretty clearly the candidate darling of the Governor, who champions corn ethanol at every turn. We applaud Ernst and Whitaker for their positions.
As regards Clovis, well we are disappointed. We did not expect anything different from Mark Jacobs. But then we admit that we still like Steve King as a candidate, although not running for the Senate nomination, and he is a proponent of the RFS. We remain pleased that the Republican Party has a field of good candidates. But we cannot help but feel that in the unlikely event that Braley came out in opposition to RFS, Republican proponents would have to change the subject. It seems to us, opposing it is good politics and good positioning as a Senator intent on doing something about special interest politics.
For more on the subject refer to the articles linked above, and to these posts on our own pages, (among others), here, here, and here. R Mall
