Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama's Evolving Ethanol Rhetoric

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 04:10 PM
Original message
Obama's Evolving Ethanol Rhetoric
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/23/obamas_evolving_ethanol_rhetor.html

Obama's Evolving Ethanol Rhetoric

By Alec MacGillis
Given that energy appears likely to be a dominant issue in this election season, Barack Obama's campaign may want to settle on a more consistent message when it comes to subsidies for ethanol, the corn-based alternative fuel that is hailed by some as a key resource in weaning America off foreign oil and forestalling global warming but lambasted by others as a wasteful boondoggle that is driving up food prices.

Since entering the Senate in 2005, Obama has been a staunch supporter of ethanol -- he justified his vote for for the Bush Administration's 2005 energy bill, which was favorable to the oil industry, on the grounds that it also contained subsidies for ethanol and other forms of alternative energy, and he has sought earmarks for research projects on ethanol and other biofuels in his home state of Illinois, the second-highest corn-producing state after Iowa. Obama's support for ethanol is shared by many farm state senators (even Hillary Clinton came around after an ethanol industry took root in upstate New York) but it contrasts sharply with John McCain, who has for years been so critical of the subsidies that he decided not to compete in the 2000 Iowa caucuses.

Today, in a New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us/politics/23ethanol.html">article on Obama's support for ethanol, Jason Furman, the Obama campaign's new economic policy director, is quoted saying that Obama's stance on the issue was based on the merits, a determination that ethanol subsidies are in the national interest. "That is what has always motivated him on this issue, and will continue to determine his policy going forward," Furman said. The article continues: "Asked if Mr. Obama brought any predisposition or bias to the ethanol debate because he represents a corn-growing state that stands to benefit from a boom, Mr. Furman said, 'He wants to represent the United States of America, and his policies are based on what's best for the country.'"

It was the expected answer during a presidential campaign -- except that it flies in the face of what Obama himself said on the issue a few months ago. Asked about his support for ethanol during a press conference at a gas station in Indianapolis in April, Obama was remarkably candid in explaining why he backed the subsidies: "Look, I've been a strong ethanol supporter because Illinois ... is a major corn producer," he said. He went on to say that he was concerned about reports that ethanol was helping drive up food prices, and that he saw ethanol as merely a transitional option that would eventually give way to biofuels that were more efficient and has less of an impact on food prices, such as ones made out of switchgrass.

...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 04:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. It's easier than getting a farm bill passed.
Edited on Mon Jun-23-08 04:14 PM by rucky
as a short-term stimulus for the rural Midwest.

It's not viable (from corn) as an alternative fuel, and it's questionable to pretend it is, but the way farmers get screwed, the ends just may justify the means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC_SKP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
2. Can corn-based ethanol production facilities accept other biomass?
If these can be modified to process ag waste and other biomass, it might not be such a bad investment after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-24-08 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Yes
Process equipment is process equipment. Designed well, it can take different feedstocks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC