advertisement

WHAT OTHERS SAY: End ethanol mandate

Monday, September 3, 2012 | 4:40 p.m. CDT

The Obama administration should heed the calls of livestock producers and suspend the federal mandate that gasoline contain ethanol. Congress should then move to end the mandate permanently.

The mandate that gasoline include a specified minimum amount of ethanol began in 2006 and was aimed at reducing our nation's dependence on foreign oil and helping farmers — two worthy goals. But the ongoing drought has helped push corn prices to more than $8 a bushel, which is taking a toll on the livestock and poultry industries.

Not only are feed prices higher but so is the cost of fuel, as most ethanol is made from corn. These high costs are causing some ranchers to sell off livestock.

But the mandate didn't make much economic sense even before the drought.

It costs $1.78 in subsidies for each gallon of gasoline that corn-based ethanol replaces, according to a 2010 study by the Congressional Budget Office. For cellulosic ethanol, the subsidy is $3 per gallon of gasoline replaced.

This, and other ethanol mandates, contribute to higher food prices, as about 40 percent of corn is diverted to fuel production. Although ethanol supporters say this has minimal impact on food costs, Texas A&M University estimated that the diversion costs Americans about $40 billion in higher food prices over the past four years.

And producing ethanol isn't efficient. About as much or more energy is expended to plant, fertilize, harvest, transport and convert corn into ethanol as it replaces.

But eliminating ethanol mandates and subsidies has been politically difficult. Presidential candidates from both parties tend to promise to protect the subsidies while campaigning in Iowa. And many Republican lawmakers, who normally are against government interference, support ethanol because it is good for corn farmers in their home states.

Still, last year Congress let expire a credit of 45 cents per gallon that refiners got for blending ethanol, so the politics may be changing.

And the Environment Protection Agency announced recently that it had begun weighing requests from some state governors to suspend the ethanol mandate. It is seeking public comment and has until Nov. 13 to make a decision on the waivers.

Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Wichita, raised a valid concern about temporarily ending the mandate. Pompeo, who opposes all energy subsidies, noted that energy markets are complex and that turning government mandates on and off could roil the markets and hurt market participants.

But it doesn't make sense to stay on this path, especially when it is harming livestock producers. A suspension of the blending mandate might finally give Congress the political courage to do what it should have done years ago: End the mandate.

Copyright Wichita Eagle. Reprinted with permission. Questions? Contact Opinion editor Elizabeth Conner.

 


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements