|
Just to be clear, that move by some of our elected geniuses is to reduce the 'mandate' of ethanol volume requirement, not necessarily reduce the % of ethanol stuffed into most of our gasoline...
From the WSJ the other day, a guest op-ed piece, albeit by the CEO of Smithfield, the pork factory CEO is way overpaid, even by most CEO standards, imo:
..."But aggravating the problem and adding to the crisis is the U.S. government's Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which requires that a certain volume of ethanol (15.2 billion gallons in 2012, mainly derived from corn) be blended into gasoline. This is an arbitrary figure, set irrespective of market supplies, demands or price. It applies to corn that's desperately needed for livestock feed and food for consumers.
The RFS has diverted so much corn as a questionable substitute for gasoline that in the face of this drought-depleted harvest, major food-producing companies such as Smithfield are being forced to seek alternative markets for grain to meet the demands of their livestock and at more affordable prices. Ironically, if the ethanol mandate did not exist, even this year's drought-depleted corn crop would have been more than enough to meet the requirements for livestock feed and food production at decent prices. "
I love the elected self back patters and showpiece rules makers. Some of these same idiots couldn't wait to vote for the orig mandate, so they could go back to their districts on the weekend fundraising meets and tell all the farmer constituents and ethanol conversions companies that 'they' were watching out for their interests and getting America out from under 'that furrin' oil'.
Back at the Bureaucratic Ranch, The EPA while not immune to political pressure, can just smile at that move, unless the orig law/parameters are changed by Congress. And, the EPA are the same EPA knuckleheads that browbeat the move to ~15% ethanol, which no refiner has yet adopted that I am aware of...
We deserve what we get, these days.
GL, mD
|