You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
Hillary Talks Up Ethanol In Iowa; But Voted Against It 17 Times
2007-01-30
She may end up with more flip-flops than John Kerry.
During her first visit as a presidential candidate to early-caucus state Iowa, Sen. Hillary Clinton spoke out strongly in favor of boosting the production of ethanol in the United States. But that’s a complete turnaround from her earlier actions regarding the alternative fuel, which is made from corn – and could provide a big boost to the economy of agricultural Iowa.

At a town hall meeting in Des Moines, the state capital, on January 27, Clinton said: "I believe we’ve got to take a strong stand on limiting our dependence on foreign oil. And we have a perfect example here in Iowa about how it can work with all of the ethanol that’s being produced here.”

According to an article in the Chicago Tribune cited in a release from the Republican National Committee, Clinton "took questions and spoke of boosting production of ethanol.” And the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Clinton "genuflected before ethanol, which is big business in Iowa.”

But as a Senator from New York, Clinton has voted at least 17 times against measures promoting ethanol production, the RNC noted.
But as a Senator from New York, Clinton has voted at least 17 times against measures promoting ethanol production, the RNC noted. During a question-and-answer session in 2004, Clinton was asked about "her outspoken opposition to legislation that would double the use of ethanol as a gasoline additive,” the Des Moines Register reported at the time. "She was momentarily stumped by a question as to why she opposed the ethanol mandate, but then said she was concerned that it would raise gasoline prices for her constituents.”

Clinton reportedly said: "I have to look to first protecting and supporting the needs of the people I represent right now.” In 2002, Clinton even signed a letter that read in part: "There is no sound public policy reason for mandating the use of ethanol.”

It’s not surprising that Clinton would have a change of heart regarding ethanol when addressing Iowa voters, considering that the ethanol industry generates $2.49 billion in total sales back to local communities, according to the Iowa Corn Growers Association. Also, "more than 14,750 Iowa jobs are affected by ethanol,” the Association notes, "including 2,550 directly related to ethanol production.”
Posted by:Anonymoose

#22  Should have brought Ted Kennedy with her. Ted's been a long time supporter of ethanol.
Posted by: DMFD   2007-01-30 23:06  

#21  All I know is that the price of taccos in Mexico have gone up 30-60%. Which if you think about it is pretty funny.
Posted by: Icerigger   2007-01-30 17:52  

#20  The US will run out of corn well before it repolaces a sizable fraction of gaoline. The US used 140 billion gallons of gasoline in 2005 or 200 billion gallons of ethanol equivalent energy. Estimated 2006 ethanol production is 5 billion gallons using 20% of the corn crop. So 100% of the corn crops (25B gal) would only replace 12.5% of the gasoline used. But since Jan 2006, corn prices have increased from $2/bushel to $3/bushel. May 2007 corn futures are at $4/bushel. Great for farmers, terrible for consumers.

To top all that, almost at much fossil fuel energy goes into making ethanol as you get out of it. The net energy gain is 1.34 according to DoE, lower according to most research papers. For comparision, oil drilling to gasoline production energy balance is 15. Add in labor and capital and it's a losing proposition kept alive by tax subsidies and environmental laws.

Btw, Hilary loves ethanol. How you you think she got Bill?
Posted by: ed   2007-01-30 17:42  

#19  We have the room to grow all the corn we need to make the ethanol we need to replace all the oil we need. (With about 30% to spare, if memory of the ol' Popular Mechanics article holds.)

What was a little hazy was how much diesel was used to plant, harvest and transport that corn to make that ethanol.

And we'd have to replace the oil imports with FOOD IMPORTS.
Posted by: eLarson   2007-01-30 17:02  

#18  #8 wx: "Which side are they on again?"

Hint: Not ours.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2007-01-30 15:47  

#17  "But Voted Against It 17 Times"

Of course she did.

After all, her first language is lying hypocrite.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2007-01-30 15:45  

#16  
At least the ethanol boondoggle is raising the price of corn for Iowa farmers...

That's the idea.

It's a a cliche but our oil is under their sand, so we need to make an understandable offer.
Posted by: Shipman   2007-01-30 13:10  

#15  Anguper Hupomosing9418: I love the "war tax" idea. But use it to conquer, occupy and exploit all "Arab" and "Persian" oil fields. The tax vanishes as soon as the matter is in hand.
Posted by: Excalibur   2007-01-30 12:46  

#14  Plus, of course, to grow corn, you need OIL - lots of it. Fuel for farm machines, fertilizer, processing, etc. I haven't seen the figures of how much oil it takes to produce a gallon of ethanol, but I'll bet it's at least a good portion of a gallon.
Posted by: Rambler   2007-01-30 12:42  

#13  One of the other results of higher corn prices means higher feed prices for livestock. Those higher prices will get passed on to the consumers in the form of higher prices for beef, pork, chicken, milk, cheese, and eggs as well as all corn-derived products. Cereals, corn meal,canned and frozen corn, all will increase in price. I'm not trying to deny corn farmers a decent price for corn , merely showing wahat a higher price means for the rest of us. This is nothing short of consumer subsidization of the ethanol industry.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2007-01-30 12:23  

#12  #11 - it's a boondoggle when tariffs and tax supports are essential to promote ethanol use & development. Let the industry sink or stand on its own. I can see the government investing tax money in research to make ethanol production more efficient and less costly, but not in articially propping up the entire industry.
If W's recent proposal to use alternative fuels actually happens, more than the entire US annual corn production will be used for ethanol production before his proposed goal is reached. The hitch there is than corn is needed for other uses also. Are we supposed to start importing corn so we can produce tariff-supported ethanol?
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2007-01-30 10:11  

#11  It's not just Iowa, either, there are several states with abundant grain production that stand to gain by investments in bio fuels. It's putting Americans to work doing what can be done to replace dependancy on lunatic Arabs. There's a lot more to be gained in bio fuels than in stem cell research.
Posted by: wxjames   2007-01-30 10:05  

#10  #8 - we know most of the congressional donks are working for the jihad.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2007-01-30 10:04  

#9  The cheap oil in the US has already been extracted. Now drilling for more domestic oil makes more sense the higher the price of imports becomes. Higher priced oil encourages consumers to find alternate ways to live their lives, and not just by using oil more efficiently.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2007-01-30 10:03  

#8  I've read that as part of their first 100 hours, the House donks have pushed a bill that is nothing more than a tax on domestic oil production.
Which side are they on again ?
Posted by: wxjames   2007-01-30 09:57  

#7  Call the tariff a "war tax", raise it $1 a gallon every 2 years until it gets to $5. Use the funds to pay for the counter-jihad & all associated costs, like supporting a degree of energy independence, caring for the wounded, widows & orphans of the conflict. Not. Going. To. Happen.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2007-01-30 09:56  

#6  Why not drill for more Oil and increase your refining capabilities until you know what you are going to do? Everybody talks about alternative until the rubber meets the road and then they learn that it is just too expensive or inefficient. Don't even go into the subsidy game. That is one sure way to fail.
Posted by: newc   2007-01-30 09:54  

#5  We can assess a tax of $1.00 a gallon and use the money to subsidise ethanol.
Posted by: Ptah   2007-01-30 09:35  

#4  I don't think Hillary knows squat about the details of ethanol use as a motor fuel, but then none of the other politicians (including W) know either. The MSM plays along with this political pandering by always omitting the key facts. On Jan. 17 the wholesale price of ethanol in Des Moines was $2.04. Ethanol only delivers 2/3 the energy of gasoline as a motor fuel, this would be like paying $3.10 wholesale for pure gasoline without ethanol, about $3.60 after fuel taxes are applied. Yesterday's price at the Murphy USA on the NE side of Des Moines was $1.89/gal, probably for 10% gasohol, it would have been cheaper if they left the ethanol out!
US ethanol production is made financially possible by a $0.54 a gallon tariff on imports. This had been set to expire in October, but our gracious Congress voted last month to extend it through 2009. (Hillary's record on this?) Congress also supports the industry by tax breaks to refiners & wholesalers.
I think the US would be better off by putting the same tariff on imported petroleum and letting the ethanol industry live or die on its own merits. This will not happen. For the next 17 months or so we will all have to suffer from this s*****y posing, reporting and analysis, from pols and newsmen alike.
At least the ethanol boondoggle is raising the price of corn for Iowa farmers...
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2007-01-30 09:10  

#3  She voted for the Iraq Resolution ... before she voted against it. What a superficial maroon!
Posted by: doc   2007-01-30 08:17  

#2  Farmers are saying that there is a limited ability to make major increases in corn production.

Supply countries like Nigeria could extract much more oil if there was greater stability. The US could assist in that regard.
Posted by: Sneaze Shaiting3550   2007-01-30 07:40  

#1  Well, darn! I agree with her (when not in Iowa). Corn ethanol is a boondoggle.
Posted by: Jackal   2007-01-30 07:19  

00:00