Vice President Al Gore

Two GOP Senators Say Get Rid of Ethanol Subsidies; Gore Says His Support for Ethanol Subsidies a Mistake

by Fran Smith on November 23, 2010

in Agriculture, Energy, Environment, Ethanol, Global Warming

In the Washington Post’s “Plum Line” column today Greg Sargent focuses on two GOP senators’ campaign to get rid of the ethanol subsidies that are due to expire at the end of the year. It’s likely that the issue will be a divisive one on the Republican side, because some strong supporters of ethanol subsidies want to extend the 45-cent-a-gallon tax credit for blenders of ethanol and the tariff on ethanol imports.

Influential Republican Senators Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn are arguing that a clear message in the recent elections was that Americans want to reduce government spending, and the ethanol programs should be on the cutting block.

A surprise new opponent of ethanol subsidies from the other Party is former Vice President Al Gore, who was quoted as saying: “It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for (U.S.) first generation ethanol.” Gore noted that ethanol as a fuel has a small energy conversion ratio. He also explained his earlier support for ethanol subsidies as a product of his political ambition to become president:

“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.”

Many environmental and food aid groups – some of which had originally supported corn-based ethanol production - turned against this technology because of the diversion of corn crops from food to fuel production as well as the environmental damage of its production. CEI early on – in 2006 — called attention to the land and environmental costs of expanded ethanol production because of the subsidies and other incentives, especially the renewable fuels mandate. In 2007, CEI pointed to the unintended consequences of the ethanol program. Check out CEI’s global warming website for news about CEI’s continued efforts to get rid of the ethanol mandate, subsidies, and tariffs.

Yvo de Boer’s low/inflated expectations

by Marlo Lewis on September 21, 2009

in Global Warming

In today’s E&E TV interview with Monica Trauzzi (http://www.eenews.net/tv/), UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer did not balk at Trauzzi’s statement that, “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has indicated that the Senate may not see floor action on climate until next year.” Nor did he bat an eye when she said that the Obama administration seems to have ”shifted to using the Clean Air Act to regulate emissions.” Like many observers, de Boer appears to have low expectations for the Waxman-Markey bill, at least for this year.

Nonetheless, de Boer spoke as if he expected President Obama to accomplish great things at Copenhagen climate conference in December: “From an international point of view, from the point of view of U.N. negotiations it’s not essential that this legislation be finalized, but that statement of political intent from the president — that’s the thing that really counts in the international arena.”

Oh really — like President Bill Clinton’s statement of political intent when he signed the Kyoto Protocol in November 1998? Clinton’s signature proved to be worth little from ”the point of view of U.N. negotiations,” because Clinton dared not submit the treaty to the U.S. Senate for a debate and vote on ratification.

The House passed Waxman-Markey by a razor thin (219-212) margin. In the Senate, proponents will need to find a three-fifths (60-vote) super-majority to defeat a GOP filibuster.  To ratify Kyoto II, Obama would need to assemble a two-thirds super-majority. In the Copenhagen round, the EU is pushing for tougher emission reduction targets than those in Waxman-Markey.

If President Obama, Sen. Reid, and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) prove unable to assemble 60 votes to pass Waxman-Markey in the Senate, what are the odds that they could line up 67 votes to ratify Kyoto II?

Mr. de Boer is mistaken. The fate of Waxman-Markey largely foreshadows and determines the fate of Kyoto II.