More Taxpayer subsidies to the Oil patch!

[chuckChuck]

Taxpayers for common sense.

[url]https://www.taxpayer.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/TCS-Biofuels-Subsidies-Report.pdf[/url]

Understanding U.S. Corn Ethanol
and Other Corn-Based Biofuels Subsidies?

Conclusion
It’s time the mature corn ethanol industry
survived on its own two feet without special
interest taxpayer support. After more than four
decades of federal backing, market-distorting
corn ethanol subsidies scattered throughout
the RFS, tax code, farm bill/USDA, and
elsewhere should be eliminated once and for
all. Corn ethanol production is tied to numerous
market distortions and long-term liabilities,
costs, and risks. The industry has also failed to
significantly reduce GHG emissions and benefit
the environment as once intended. Eliminating
current corn-based biofuels subsidies (and
mandates) and resisting efforts to layer on new
ones will benefit consumers, taxpayers and the
climate?

[url]https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/economics-biofuels[/url]

Economics of Biofuels

Replacing fossil fuels with biofuels—fuels produced from renewable organic material—has the potential to reduce some undesirable aspects of fossil fuel production and use, including conventional and greenhouse gas (GHG) pollutant emissions, exhaustible resource depletion, and dependence on unstable foreign suppliers. Demand for biofuels could also increase farm income. On the other hand, because many biofuel feedstocks require land, water, and other resources, research suggests that biofuel production may give rise to several undesirable effects. Potential drawbacks include changes to land use patterns that may increase GHG emissions, pressure on water resources, air and water pollution, and increased food costs. Depending on the feedstock and production process and time horizon of the analysis, biofuels can emit even more GHGs than some fossil fuels on an energy-equivalent basis. Biofuels also tend to require subsidies and other market interventions to compete economically with fossil fuels, which creates deadweight losses in the economy.

Economic models show that biofuel use can result in higher crop prices, though the range of estimates in the literature is wide. For example, a 2013 study found projections for the effect of biofuels on corn prices in 2015 ranging from a 5 to a 53 percent increase (Zhang et al. 2013). The National Research Council’s (2011) report on the RFS included several studies finding a 20 to 40 percent increase in corn prices from biofuels during 2007 to 2009. A National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) working paper found a 2 to 3 percent increase in long-run corn prices for each billion gallon increase in corn ethanol production on average across 19 studies (Condon et al. 2013). Higher crop prices lead to higher food prices, though impacts on retail food in the US are expected to be small (NRC 2011). Higher crop prices may lead to higher rates of malnutrition in developing countries (Rosegrant et al. 2008, Fischer et al. 2009).
?

[chuckChuck]

So higher grain prices don't cause processors to raise prices for their products that are passed on to retailers and then consumers?

[furrowtickler]

If you believe prices will be reduced for consumers if bio fuels get cut you are even more gullible that most of us imagined

[chuckChuck]

Sure but I thought you believed in small government and letting the market decide? Apparently not!

You are more than happy to receive higher prices that are caused by the subsidies to biofuel!

If PP and Trump decide to cut biofuel subsidies no doubt you will support their plans to reduce prices for consumers! Axe the biofuel tax on consumers!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I would argue that the price of grains ended up exactly where it would have been without the additional demand from biofuels. The price approaches the cost of production regardless of demand.
All biofuels did was incentivize South America and the FSU to drastically increase production to fill the worldwide void created by biofuels. At the end of the day, supply equals demand, and price equals the COP of the lowest cost producer, which isn't North America.

[furrowtickler]

We contribute a 100x more than the bit we receive, so give it a rest.
raining up there yet ?

[cropgrower]

would farmers keep producing food at a loss ? don't think so

[chuckChuck]

You can thank tax payers and consumers!

But the pretend libertarians still believe the "free market" is in control and farmers don't receive any handouts?

Do you think PP might axe the subsidies to biofuel that are raising food prices and hurting consumers in a misguided attempt to reduce carbon emissions?

[furrowtickler]

Thankfully, or grain prices would be half of what they are in North America

[chuckChuck]

You gotta laugh when farmers believe they are growing only crops to feed a hungry world.

I think 40 % of the US corn crop is used for ethanol and Canadian farmers are growing more and more canola for biodiesel along with crops for ethanol.

Those must be really "hungry" engines that need more biofuel.

The biofuel mandates are used to keep grain prices high which is another subsidy to agriculture biofuel production and makes consumers pay more for many products.

But don't forget we have to feed a hungry world!