ETHANOL SUFFERS BLOW IN THE SENATE

June 20th, 2011

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … malertNEWS

Time To Kill Ethanol Subsidies

May 23rd, 2011

Big Government: If Washington is truly serious about cutting the nation’s mounting debt, there’s one way to show it: Eliminate the ridiculously expensive and wasteful ethanol subsidy.

There are few products in the U.S. that are as heavily promoted, subsidized and protected by the federal government as ethanol.

First, the feds have since 2005 required the use of ethanol in gasoline — 12 billion gallons of the stuff this year, rising to as much as 36 billion by 2022.

Then, ethanol gets a 45-cents-per-gallon subsidy when blended into gasoline.

And then, to protect the domestic ethanol market, the government slaps a 54-cents-a-gallon tariff on imported ethanol.

According to news accounts, a “growing number” of lawmakers looking for ways to close the yawning budget gap are now looking at one part of this ugly picture: the $6 billion in tax credits given to ethanol producers each year.

That’s the least they should do. After all, the tax credit is just the most obvious cost of the federal government’s love affair with corn-based fuel.

Force-feeding ethanol also pushes up food costs as demand for corn — and its prices — skyrockets.

Today, nearly a quarter of all the corn grown feeds cars instead of people. A Congressional Budget Office report blamed ethanol for up to 15% of the rise in food prices in 2007 and 2008.

Not only does this hit family budgets, it also raises the cost of government food and nutrition programs by close to $1 billion a year, the CBO found.

The ethanol push also costs drivers, since the fuel delivers fewer miles per gallon than gasoline and causes additional wear and tear on cars.

To make matters worse, the renewable fuel has failed to live up to any of the boasts made about it over the past 30 years.

• It hasn’t cut imports. Adding ethanol into the fuel supply chain was supposed to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, which on the surface makes sense since ethanol is literally a homegrown energy source. But as the Manhattan Institute found, this “has no basis in fact.” Over the past decade, ethanol production climbed sevenfold and oil imports increased by more than 800,000 barrels per day.

• It hasn’t kept gasoline prices down. Just check the nearest gas station if you think ethanol is doing anything to hold down pump prices.

• It doesn’t cut air pollution. In fact, a study in Environmental Science & Technology concluded that ethanol can make the nation’s smog problem worse and that its expanded use “may be a greater overall public health risk than gasoline.”

Deficit Woes WE Need To Trim Ethanol Support

May 7th, 2011

http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=11-P13-00014&segmentID=2

Corn Hits $6 a Bushel Squeezes Ethanol Producers

May 7th, 2011

Corn Hits $6 a Bushel on Tight Supplies
Thursday April 3, 6:56 pm ET
By Stevenson Jacobs, AP Business Writer

Corn Prices Jump to Record $6 a Bushel, Driving Up Costs for Food, Alternative Energy NEW YORK (AP) — Corn prices jumped to a record $6 a bushel Thursday, driven up by an expected supply shortfall that will only add to Americans’ growing grocery bill and further squeeze struggling ethanol producers.Corn prices have shot up nearly 30 percent this year amid dwindling stockpiles and surging demand for the grain used to feed livestock and make alternative fuels including ethanol. Prices are poised to go even higher after the U.S. government this week predicted that American farmers — the world’s biggest corn producers — will plant sharply less of the crop in 2008 compared to last year.“It’s a demand-driven market and we may not be planting enough acres to supply demand, so that adds to the bullishness of corn,” said Elaine Kub, a grains analyst with DTN in Omaha, Neb.Corn for the most actively traded May contract rose 4.25 cents to settle at $6 a bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade, after earlier rising to $6.025 a bushel — a new all-time high.Worldwide demand for corn to feed livestock and to make biofuel is putting enormous pressure on global supply. And with the U.S. expected to plant less corn, the supply shortage will only worsen. The U.S. Department of Agriculture projected that farmers will plant 86 million acres of corn in 2008, an 8 percent drop from last year.Moreover, cold, wet weather in parts of theU.S. corn belt may force farmers to delay spring planting, potentially sending prices even higher.While corn growers are reaping record profits,U.S. consumers can expect even higher grocery bills — especially for meat and pork — as livestock producers are forced to pass on higher animal feed costs and thin their herd size.“Higher corn prices is going to affect meat prices. If you’re feeding with $6 corn, you’ll definitely have some (cost) pressure,” Kub said.In addition, corn and corn syrup are used in an array of products, meaning the price of everything from candy to soft drinks will eventually go up, analysts say. It’s the latest dose of bad news for U.S. consumers, who are already struggling with higher food costs from record increases in the price of wheat, soybeans and other agriculture products.Another loser in higher corn costs is ethanol producers, who are struggling to squeeze out gains as corn’s record-setting run outpaces the price of ethanol, currently at around $2.50 a gallon.“For years, corn was cheap and fermentation processes for ethanol production came to completely dominate the biofuel industry in North America,” Michael Jackson, president and chairman of Vancouver-based ethanol maker Syntec Biofuel, said this week. “Now, with corn prices well over $5 a bushel, corn ethanol economics have gone out the window.”The nation’s 147 ethanol plants now have the capacity to produce 8.5 billion gallons of fuel a year, according to the Renewable Fuels Association. Corn is the basic feedstock for most of the plants and about 20 percent of last year’s 13 billion bushel corn crop was consumed by ethanol production. That percentage is expected to increase to 30 percent for the next crop year, which ends Aug. 31, 2009, according to Terry Francl, a senior economist for the American Farm Bureau Federation.There are still plans to build or expand another 61 plants, which will add about 5.1 billion gallons of capacity. However, as corn prices have climbed over the past year or so, construction of several plants has been halted or delayed, shaving about 500 million gallons worth of capacity off the original figure, according to Broadpoint Capital analyst Ron Oster.At least one facility, the Alchem plant in Grafton, N.D., shut down late last year because of high prices.A new plant hasn’t broken ground over the past couple of quarters, Oster said, and while producers can have positive gross margins with ethanol at $2.50 a gallon and corn at $6 a bushel, that doesn’t mean companies are profitable.“Bottom line earnings are near break-even or modestly below break-even,” he said.Looking ahead, only the strongest ethanol producers will survive in an era of ever-rising corn prices, said Soleil Securities analyst Ian Horowitz.“There are going to be some particular companies that definitely have the balance sheet and efficiencies that will be able to eke out a positive return in this kind of environment,” Horowitz said. “And then there will be others that will suffer at the hands of $6 corn.”Associated Press Business Writer Lauren LaCapra contributed to this report.

Minnesotans Right To Adequate Environmental Review Threatened

March 3rd, 2011

Folks this is extremely IMPORTANT: please, read this information and take a few minutes to send a message to Governor Dayton stating you don’t want the current Environmental review process altered  or shorten. The proposed bill HF1/SF42  would basically take away the rights of all MN citizens to have adequate time to review any proposed commercial development that could potential negatively impact the quality of life for ALL MN citizens.

Sincerely,

Tom Dornack
Olmsted County Concerned Citizens, Co President

From: efsauer@mchsi.com
To: efsauer@mchsi.com
Subject: Request for help on environmental issue
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 18:50:07 -0600

Hi-

Remember when we were in the thick of the tire-burning challenge?  Remember how we used to scramble to get things done?  It seemed as if we were always getting news (at the last minute) about some action that we needed to take….immediately!  With every dawn, we seemed to become aware of another ‘fire’ to put out! Nevertheless, we did it, didn’t we?  Well, the past six years have been less harried and we have still managed to accomplish a lot on the environmental scene….thanks to you!

But, guess what?!  Today…we are ‘under the gun’ again!  Are you ready?  As many of you know, late last week, the republican-controlled MN Legislature passed a bill that would weaken the ability of the people of MN to participate in environmental review.   That’s right……..the chance of having adequate time to review proposed commercial developments would no longer be available to us!  Instead of giving the public MORE time (to research, review & find experts to consult with), the review time would be lessened and we would be required to challenge environmental review decisions in St. Paul (at the Appellate Court level) instead of in our local District Court.   So, what’s wrong with THAT picture??

Yesterday, a few leaders from our environmental advocacy community met with Governor Dayton, to urge him to veto this bill, which would weaken our efforts & ability to seek strong environmental review of proposed commercial projects.  While Governor Dayton did not commit that he would veto this proposed legislation, he was sympathetic and promised to reflect on the action he should take.  Now….here’s the news: the deadline for the Governor to veto this bill is tomorrow afternoon:  THURSDAY – MARCH 3RD, 2011…..so….. we need to move swiftly!

We need to immediately urge Governor Dayton to veto HF1/SF42.  Please….make a call to his office and urge him to veto this bill.   Call Governor Dayton at: 1-800-657-3717    or   1-651-201-3400

If you can’t find the words to say, just read the following message to the secretary:

“I am calling to request Governor Dayton to veto the HF1/SF42 bill.  The bill weakens the environmental review process and I oppose it.  Thank you for your consideration.”

If you prefer, you may email your personal message to Governor Dayton’s office (or you may cut & paste the following message) and send it to the Governor’s environmental aide, Will Seuffert at this email address:  Will.Seuffert@state.mn.us

Dear Governor Dayton,

I am writing to let you know that I oppose SenateFile 42 / House File 1.  The bill weakens environmental review.  Citizens should be able to challenge environmental review decisions in their local District Court.  We should not be forced to the Appellate Court in St. Paul, as this bill requires.  Citizens should not be required the expense of litigation bonds to seek a court order requesting enhanced environmental review on commercial projects that may potentially be dangerous or hazardous to the health, safety and welfare of the public.

Sign your name and send it off!

I am sorry for the short notice of this request.  But as you may recall, this is how it works:  Big business polluters and their buddies do their deeds quietly, thinking we won’t find out…..until the last minute & it will be too late to take any action.  They under-estimate us, don’t they?  Let’s get busy and send those messages tonight and tomorrow morning.

Thanks for your continued & dedicated effort to reduce & stop pollution. Have a pleasant evening and a great day tomorrow, hopefully with no sleet;-)

Fran Sauer

SEMEP, President

Ethanol Suffers Blow in House Rejection of E15

February 23rd, 2011

Ethanol suffers blow in House rejection of E15
10:03 AM, Feb 19, 2011 | by Philip Brasher

In a blow to the biofuel industry, the House voted heavily early today to stop an increase in the amount of ethanol that can be added to gasoline. A provision added to a budget-cutting bill passed by the House would block the Environmental Protection Agency from implementing its decision to boost the ethanol limit from 10 to 15 percent.

That House vote on ethanol is hardly the last word on the issue, because the broader legislation faces strong opposition from the Democratic-controlled Senate and the White House. But the bipartisan, 285-136 vote to stop the increased use of ethanol does demonstrate the challenges the industry faces in preserving its government incentives.

Some 79 Democrats joined 206 Republicans in voting for the measure.

While the ethanol votes may have been largely symbolic, given that the House-passed spending bill won’t pass the Senate, the defeats show the industry “there is a lot of work to be done to educate members of Congress,” said Monte Shaw, executive director of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association.

A coalition of industries including gasoline refiners, auto makers, livestock producers, food companies had lined up to support the anti-ethanol provision.

“Every American who owns a car, light-duty truck, motorcycle, snowmobile or outdoor power equipment will benefit by the House vote that has the effect of blocking the sale of gasoline containing 15 percent ethanol, known as E15,” said Charles Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association.

The EPA has approved E15 only for use in 2001 and newer cars and trucks. Opponents argued that the E15 could damage older cars, boats and power equipment if owners fill up with the fuel. The EPA plans to require service stations to put a warning label on E15 pumps to prevent misfueling. The increased ethanol content can damage parts not made to withstand it and make engines run hotter. The EPA determined that motor vehicles built since 2001 can handle the ethanol without risk of damage.

An ethanol trade group accused the industry’s opponents of putting politics ahead of science. “EPA’s consideration of E15 was based on a more exhaustive study and collection of data than any of the 11 previously-approved petitions. No other fuel mix has been tested more,” said Tom Buis, CEO of Growth Energy.

The House also approved, 261-158, a second amendment that would block subsidies for another priority for the ethanol industry – service station pumps that can dispense varying amounts of gasoline and ethanol.

Iowa’s five House members all voted against both provisions.

At least one environmentalist who has been critical of corn ethanol found himself uncomfortable with the House legislation, known as a continuing resolution, or CR, which also seeks to block some EPA regulations from taking effect. Nathanael Greene of the Natural Resources Defense Council said on his Twitter feed: “I don’t like $ for corn ethanol but CR is huge gift to oil.”

The budget bill is needed to keep the government in operation through the rest of this fiscal year and would cut about $60 billion from last year’s spending level.

Train Derailment, Ethanol Fire Forces Ohio Evacuations

February 7th, 2011

RCADIA, Ohio — A freight train carrying volatile chemicals derailed about 50 miles south of Toledo Sunday morning, causing at least 15 tanker cars to catch fire and explode and forcing evacuations of nearby homes, a fire official said. No injuries have been reported.

Capt. Jim Breyman of the Arcadia Fire Department said the call came in at about 2:15 a.m., and estimates 15 to 18 tanker cars carrying ethanol derailed.

About 20 homes were evacuated in the area about two miles west of the village of Arcadia, but it was unclear exactly how many people were in those homes, he said.

The scene was intense and dramatic.

“We’re talking fireballs,” he said of the explosion. “When they went thousands of feet in the air, they could be seen from 20-plus miles away.”

Authorities were assessing whether to send in crews to put out the blaze or to wait for it to burn out, he said. A primary concern was that one end of a string of seven chemical-filled cars was near the fire and could not be moved but had not vented or burned, creating the possibility of a chain reaction if it were to explode.

The burning cars, scattered on either side of the tracks, had been separated from most of the rest of the train.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency was testing waterways in the area Sunday morning to see if there was any contamination, but Breyman said he expected most of the fuel to be burned up in the blaze.

An initial concern was that the derailment and explosions happened next to a fertilizer plant, and Breyman said it was fortunate the fire didn’t spread there.

“I’ve been a fireman for almost 30 years now and I’ve seen a lot, never seen anything like this,” Breyman said. “It was beyond words.”

The train was headed from Chicago to North Carolina with 62 cars loaded with ethanol, and preliminary information indicated about half those cars derailed, Norfolk Southern spokesman Rudy Husband said. He said he had no information on what caused the derailment.

Video showing the horrific explosions:

http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2011/feb/06/train-derailment-fire-forces-ohio-evacuation-ar-388032/

Poison On Tap

February 2nd, 2011

Poison on tap
JOSEPHINE MARCOTTY, Star Tribune

LEWISTON, MINN.

Here in the heart of southeast Minnesota farm country, everyone knows you don’t drink the water.

“It’s just not safe,” Linda Liebfried said one recent afternoon as she watched over a couple of toddlers, including her own 2-year-old daughter, at a day care center. “Every doctor will say not to drink it.”

The city’s water is contaminated with nitrates — chemicals from fertilizer that have been linked to cancer and can cause a potentially lethal blood disorder in infants. In Lewiston they come from nitrogen, applied every season on the fields that butt right up to the edge of town.

At the State Capitol and in town halls across the state, there is growing urgency to confront the problem. Thousands of private wells have been found to exceed state health limits for nitrates, and some communities have spent millions on filtration systems to clean their drinking water.

After four decades of progress against pollution from factories and cities, environmentalists say, Minnesota cannot take the next step in preserving its lakes and rivers without addressing one of the last, biggest sources of pollution: agriculture.

Unless farm runoff is vastly reduced — and soon — environmentalists say the state may never reclaim its heritage as the land of sky-blue waters.

“There are no mechanisms to curtail the huge loading of pollution, nutrients and sediment from agricultural runoff,” said Whitney Clark, executive director of the Friends of Mississippi, an advocacy group. “We have to find a new way to do that.”

Agricultural groups say farmers already are doing a lot to keep the state’s waters clean, and that farm pollution today is far less than it was decades ago.

More importantly, farmers say, it’s easy to blame agriculture in the absence of better research to identify the source of specific problems in each of Minnesota’s 81 watersheds.

“One of biggest issues is the knowledge gap,” said Warren Formo, executive director of the Minnesota Agricultural Water Resources Coalition. “What are agricultural effects on water quality, and how do we sort it out?”

A critical moment

Environmentalists say Minnesota’s water is much cleaner than it was decades ago, thanks to the 1972 federal Clean Water Act, better farm practices and more recent state laws.

Nonetheless, 40 percent of the state’s lakes and rivers are impaired, and with nearly half of the state’s land mass devoted to crops, the vast amount of chemical runoff that comes from agriculture is a major factor. Unless agriculture moves faster, they say, the $80 million a year in clean-water funds that will flow from the 2008 Legacy Amendment water could be wasted.

Because time is running out.

Earlier this month Deborah Swackhamer, a University of Minnesota water quality expert, presented the Legislature with a 150-page, 25-year plan to clean up the state’s waters. One of the primary recommendations: new laws that would require farmers to adhere to limits on pollution because the voluntary guidelines they are expected to follow now are not working fast enough.

“A lot could go downhill in the next 10 years,” she said.

Vulnerable region

For some agriculturally intensive parts of the state, including the area around Lewiston, that future is now.

Last year Jeff Broberg, a geologist and clean water activist who lives nearby, was shocked to find out he is already living “the poisoning of the rural landscape.” Broberg tested his well after the water coming out of his tap became fizzy from nitrogen gas. The results showed 19.2 parts per million of nitrates — more than twice the health limit set by state and federal regulations.

Now he and his wife drink bottled water — and “my wife is insisting we move,” he said.

Broberg can look out his window and see the cause. The farmer who rents his land grows corn, the state’s primary crop and one that demands enormous amounts of fertilizer. To make matters worse, up on the hill there’s a huge blue tank that holds manure from the 3,000-hog operation next door. Each season that manure is spread over the land, adding more nitrogen.

But he also sees below the snow-covered fields to what makes the southeast corner of the state so vulnerable to groundwater contamination: its particular geology.

Broberg’s house is smack in the middle of the state’s “driftless area,” known for its beautiful deep valleys, spring-fed streams and rich farmland.

This is where, 10,000 or more years ago, the last glacier stopped — right along a line now marked by Hwy. 52. Here, there’s no glacial “drift” — the 500-foot layer of gravel, dirt and rock that was left behind when the ice receded and that in other parts of Minnesota protects groundwater. Here, bedrock laced with fissures and sinkholes lies close the surface. It acts as a giant sieve, so that water — and pollutants — percolate down through layers of rock within hours of a rainfall and into underground aquifers.

Drilling deeper

Wells in the area’s shallowest aquifers, 80 to 150 feet down, have been banned since the 1980s because of health concerns. Broberg’s contaminated well is at 400 feet. A new one would have to be 500 feet and would cost $35,000.

Instead, he and the farmer who works his land, Bruce Gilbeck, had a talk out in the field. Broberg gave him a primer on soil and the area geology, and they came to an agreement. Gilbeck would change his practices in a way that would reduce fertilizer applications by more than a third. Gilbeck said he was following the best recommended practices for fertilizer application. Farmers, he said, don’t want to put down more than they need because it’s a waste of money. Still, cutting back on fertilizer will reduce his yields, he said.

“Nitrogen is a tough subject,” he added. “I have friends who are organic farmers. I joke all the time — if everyone went organic, there would be a lot of people starving.”

For Broberg’s well, it’s too late.

“This is not coming back,” Broberg said. “There is nothing I can do for the next generation to restore this water.”

Deeper wells are not always the answer. Lewiston drilled a deeper well 10 years ago, but now the lower rock has contaminated it with radium, a heavy metal that can cause cancer. The city is blending water from two wells to weaken both health risks and is debating whether to build a new filtration system. Meanwhile, many residents are spending $800 or more for filtering systems for their homes.

“We have to pay extra for Culligan,” said Courtney Matzek of Lewiston, who has an infant daughter and 3-year-old son. “It’s a financial burden.”

Officials from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency say they can’t say whether the problem of nitrate contamination is getting worse, or how much of the contamination comes from agriculture, as opposed to septic tanks or other sources.

Still, long-term measurements from around the state show that, while there have been declines in agricultural contaminants such as phosphorus and bacteria, nitrate concentrations are getting worse.

A state Department of Agriculture survey of 52,000 wells found that 10 percent exceed health limits for nitrates, and the rate is higher in agricultural areas. But the estimate could be low: About half the well owners said they never tested their wells.

Taking charge

But regulation? Even some landowners with contaminated wells are doubtful that’s the answer. Two years ago, organic dairy farmers Arlene and LaVern Nelson put in a $26,000 well to protect their cows from nitrate concentrations that were nearly five times the health limit for humans.

Farmers, Arlene Nelson said, are trying to survive in an agricultural economy that rewards production over environmental stewardship. Regulations will only force the small ones out of business. The solution, she said, is to find a way they can thrive by “obeying the rules of nature instead of the rules of money.”

That kind of effort is already underway in communities around the state, including the Whitewater River Watershed district, where the Nelsons farm. Last week the watershed board started regular meetings with farmers and landowners around the middle fork of the Whitewater River and Logan Creek to figure out how reduce the overload of nitrogen and sediment.

“The main issue is to get farmers to act on this so we don’t have to have the Legislature put regulations on them,” said Rudie Spitzer, chair of the Whitewater Watershed Board, whose jurisdiction includes the river and trout streams in Whitewater State Park. “It’s coming. But if we can do the job ourselves, so much the better.”

But others, including many environmentalists, are skeptical. With rising demand and skyrocketing corn prices, the 8 million acres of Minnesota devoted to corn will only increase — as it has for the past decade.

Voluntary efforts are well and good, Broberg said.

“But I am dubious,” he added.

Josephine Marcotty 612-673-7394

Ethanol KICKBACK: Corn Fed Hypocrisy

December 15th, 2010

We the people get screwed again read this corrupt BS!

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/556810/201012141847/Ethanol-Kickback-Corn-Fed-Hypocrisy.htm

Dark side of Nitrogen

December 14th, 2010

How nitrogen is destroying our nations important fisheries  AND MUCH MORE

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-11-11-the-dark-side-of-nitrogen