More Taxpayer subsidies to the Oil patch!

[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]

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

[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).
?

[cropgrower]

yes a dollar more per bushel on wheat to the farmer will cost everyone one or two cent more on a loaf of bread

[chuckChuck]

Thats all? Are you sure? The biofuel subsidy is tax on all food! Lower crop prices will help feed a hungry world!

The free market libertarian farmers support subsidies and market distortion that benefit, guess who? Themselves!

[cropgrower]

one dollar more to farmer will add less than 2.5 cent too a loaf of bread , half that on white bread ,so clearly you are barking up the wrong tree again

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck, you accidentally made multiple commodity marketing related posts relevant to agriculture. Better late than never.
??????
Perhaps the start of a trend?

Why don't you post these in the adult forum where they belong? Perhaps you should notify the administrators and request to have your adult table privileges reinstated.

[furrowtickler]

Thats all? Are you sure? The biofuel subsidy is tax on all food! Lower crop prices will help feed a hungry world!

The free market libertarian farmers support subsidies and market distortion that benefit, guess who? Themselves!

Others don’t pay our bills .

[chuckChuck]

So how is it that the pretend libertarians support biofuel mandates that result in higher prices for their crops? And all we get is crickets!

Same on more direct farm subsidies. More denial and excuses!

Better get back to feeding the hungry world!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck, you are usually referring to me when you use the word libertarian. Although I've yet to understand why you think that is a derogatory word.
If this comment was addressed to me, I will respond. I do not support the mandates for biofuels. I do not support subsidizing biofuels. I indicated higher up in this thread why I don't believe we have seen any long-term bump in grain prices due to biofuels. We have just seen an increase in worldwide production of grains.
All silly calculations about CO2 aside, ethanol can stand on its own without mandates or subsidies. It is typically cheaper per BTU than gasoline. It is a safer alternative to the other nasty oxygenates such as MTBE and lead.
Unless something drastic happens to the price of oil and Diesel and aviation fuel, renewable Diesel and sustainable aviation fuel won't exist without mandates and subsidies. Unless consumers decide they want to pay more to pretend they are saving the environment, renewable Diesel and aviation fuel do not have a future.

[WiltonRanch]

So how is it that the pretend libertarians support biofuel mandates that result in higher prices for their crops? And all we get is crickets!

Same on more direct farm subsidies. More denial and excuses!

Better get back to feeding the hungry world!

Same old rhetoric. Bloody broken record. Better get back to trolling.

[shtferbrains]

Thats all? Are you sure? The biofuel subsidy is tax on all food! Lower crop prices will help feed a hungry world!

The free market libertarian farmers support subsidies and market distortion that benefit, guess who? Themselves!

You're going to have to splain to me how farmers are the only benefactors of the clean fuel initiative.

Everything I see makes it a cornerstone in meeting our climate mitigation goals.

What comes off the cracking tower is kind of a fixed amount of gas/diesel.

Bringing large numbers of EV's as planed causes big shortages for diesel powered heavy equipment that is important to keep people from starving and a few other minor issues like shipping.

Therefore you need a kind of immaculate combustion from biofuels to keep the whole ball rolling.

If you didn't 'incentivize' climate change mitigation how would you make your net zero targets? We don't want to see any glaciers melting because we haven't met out targets here in Canada?

[chuckChuck]

Glad to hear that you guys are in favour of biofuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions even though they are of questionable value.

More likely you are interested in the higher crop prices that come from biofuel.

And you wanna be paid for carbon sequestration, but you don't think excess CO2 in the atmosphere causes climate change or is a problem?

Try to get your story straight!