New York Delegation Not As Outraged As Bloomberg
As Azi reported yesterday, Mike Bloomberg doesn’t seem to be a fan of the sweeping Energy Bill that President Bush signed yesterday – in particular, its mandate for an massive increase in ethanol production.
Bloomberg called the ethanol provision “an outrage” and said it would drive up food costs and “have worldwide implications on the food supply.” Ethanol, of course, is a sacred product in Iowa, the key caucus that the presidential candidates dare not offend.
So did New York’s Congressional delegation agree with the mayor? Apparently not: 28 of 29 New Yorkers in the House voted for the bill when it came up for its final vote last week (it cleared the chamber on a 314-100 vote). The lone exception was Staten Island’s Vito Fossella, who didn’t show up to vote. The bill cleared the Senate on an 86-8 vote, with Chuck Schumer voting yes and Hillary Clinton, perhaps too busy campaigning in Iowa, not voting.
In fairness, earlier versions of the bill produced slightly less unanimity. The initial version passed by the House (on a 264-143 vote) was supported by all of New York’s Democrats but only three Republicans: Randy Kuhl, John McHugh and Jim Walsh. Tom Reynolds, Peter King, and Fossella votes against it.
- Poll
- Obama (D)
- McCain(R)
- Spread
- RCP Average
- 46.4
- 41.6
- Obama +4.8
- Candidate
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Spread
- Obama
- 55.7
- 32.7
- +23.0
- McCain
- 52.4
- 34.7
- +17.7
It's very unfortunate for the nation that the energy bill was voted on just before the Iowa caucuses or a more intelligent discussion of ethanol might have occurred. Mike Bloomberg is right: corn ethanol is energy inefficient, uses vast amounts of water, raises the cost of food throughout the world and our emphasis on it delays the development of sounder biofuel alternatives. Between direct payments to producers and tariffs on Brazilian ethanol, we're subsidizing it by $1 a gallon, half the current wholesale price of gasoline. Once again, politics triumphs over intelligence.
********************************************
"I BILLIONAIRE", is the outrage...
Off the page, again....
The Environmental Elite = The Enemy of The Poor & Hungry
Bloomberg is right.
They are using taxdollars to buy the election, just as Hillary is using all those TAX-EXPEN$IVE Xmas gifts in her ad.
If the US really wanted energy independence they would jump start research that would learn to use non-corn products and convert the USPostalService to electric delivery vehicles.
Harrumph
PS Plus, if more services were delivered at night, they would become more efficient and crime would drop with all those extra eyes on the streets.
The mayor is correct: The plants that produce ethanol seem to be working overtime burning up the corn crop. This may help the farmers, however, I can see nothing here but big business poking their finger in another tax payers pocket and attempting to take the heat off of the oil imports.
Blomberg for President!!!...all the others disgust me.
What we need now is competency, personified by Bloomberg. And a president who doesn't "need" to be President, who doesn not need to profit by it either.
Mayor Bloomberg is right, corn based ethanol has a very low heat value and just leads to poorer gas mileage even though the octane rating is upped so that it will be able to burn hotter. Sugar cane based ethanol works great for Brazill, unfortunately we don't have large sugar cane crops. The comment above about the postal service and other government agencies running electric vehicles. The postal service running on electric would save tax payers millions in fuel. The government doesn't seem to understand how important energy is in this country. It seems like they just throw any legislation out there to try and prolong fixing the problem.
I was impressed by Tom Vilsack when he was running. Even though he is a former governor of Iowa, he was not in favor of an expansion in ethanol production.
The Mayor is spot on about this, this rush to ethanol is crazy and destructive to the environment, using huge amounts of water, and yes fossil fuels in it's production. It is pork politics at it's worst. As for the Postal Service, it is not technically subsidized by the tax payer per se, although there are arguments for and against that point. It is a self supporting government chartered corporation (although it does not pay property taxes on it's enormous land holdings); the public does not pay for fuel for the USPS, unless you count postage stamps and bulk mail (advertising flyers) deliveries!
Bloomberg is correct. Ethanol made by corn is energy inefficient, causes more CO2 emissions and drives up food prices. Getting ethanol from corn requires more energy than it produces. It has always been that way and it's not going to change w/o breakthrough technology. Same goes for cellulosic ethanol. Normally, the negative energy balance would show up in a higher price for the fuel, but since it's subsidized heavily it goes undetected by most consumers.