U.S. corn ethanol "was not a good policy" - Gore

[Psephos]

Source: Reuters

ATHENS, Nov 22 (Reuters) - Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore said support for corn-based ethanol in the United States was "not a good policy", weeks before tax credits are up for renewal. U.S. blending tax breaks for ethanol make it profitable for refiners to use the fuel even when it is more expensive than gasoline. The credits are up for renewal on Dec. 31. Total U.S. ethanol subsidies reached $7.7 billion last year according to the International Energy Industry, which said biofuels worldwide received more subsidies than any other form of renewable energy.

"It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for (U.S.) first generation ethanol," said Gore, speaking at a green energy business conference in Athens sponsored by Marfin Popular Bank. "First generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small.

"It's hard once such a programme is put in place to deal with the lobbies that keep it going."

He explained his own support for the original programme on his presidential ambitions. "One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president."

<snip>

Read more: http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE6AL0YT20101122?sp=true

[thereismore]

1. Our farming policies have always been fucked up. Remember dumping of food

during the '30s?

[Botany]

2. It killed the domestic cat fish industry

n/t

[ileus]

3. Putting food in a gas tank is never smart...

[Uncle Joe]

4. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Psephos.

[backtomn]

5. Al is a completely A-hole

As someone in this industry......I could have told him that this was a bad idea....and I am no one. What an idiot. Under the current system, this would always take more energy than it produced.......and everyone involved in it knew it. How much money did his financial group make on this??

Many may congratulate him on his honesty.....but where was it years ago?? Maybe he was busy with a massage therapist. (sorry, couldn't help it)

How about some real alternative energy initiatives??

[rayofreason]

6. Food should be used for...

...., um, food.

[backtomn]

7. I agree...that is my first stand.

Food might be better for energy than food......but PROVE IT !!!

[Xenotime]

8. I think there is something going on here. Something he is not telling us.

Why would he just 'change' like that?

[gratuitous]

9. Pointing up once again the unintended consequences

The intent was to cut the use of gasoline, encourage production of a renewable resource, and funnel some of those Treasury dollars to farmers who would raise corn. It might have worked better as a limited production model, or with a shorter shelf life, but it's very difficult once a program is in place to terminate it (don't ask, don't tell, and others far too numerous to mention). In response to the policy decision encouraged by legislation, lots of people move in that direction, and some of them will invariably "win" by working the system harder and better than anyone else. Then they become "players" who need to protect their turf, handing out contributions and blunting any efforts to scale back or reverse the mistake.

Our system is awash in corn and corn products. In and of itself, corn is a perfectly fine commodity. But when it's used for sugar replacement, gasoline supplement, livestock feed and other uses for which it's not suited, it enlarges so much it gains its own gravity and distorts policy decisions, drawing attention and money far out of proportion to its actual utility.

It's pretty easy, in retrospect, to say that "Oh, this was a stupid idea, nobody liked it." The reality is that there were good reasons to try something, but as is almost inevitable, the idea became a means to an end and eventually became an end in itself. We have to continue massive corn subsidies because so many agricultural conglomerates are dependent on them, without regard to whether they're actually good for us or not anymore, without regard to the results achieved versus the results hoped for.

[Mayflower1]

10. I wonder how many of us supported this policy

because Al Gore promoted it. I know I believed in him and trust him to know more than most people on this subject.

Feeling pretty stupid at the moment. Thanks Al.

[Uncle Joe]

11. That's why it pays to think for yourself and not support a policy

just because a political leader supports it.

You're less likely to be disappointed in the future because your judgment isn't clouded by the need to obtain power in order to make what you believe to be necessary changes.

Welcome to D.U. Mayflower.:hi:

[Psephos]

12. Looks like a case of best intentions, but incomplete understanding of long-term effects.

I'm encouraged that Gore admitted a mistake. We all make them. By admitting them, we turn them into a tool for better results.