Ethanol and sad cow disease

.

If there is a worse alternative energy idea than corn-based ethanol, we have yet to see it. Despite growing evidence and data that reveal what a bad deal is ethanol, we continue our tax payer-subsidized head-long plunge deeper into this horrible idea. And now, in California, we have more bad news regarding ethanol that will, no doubt, be ignored by our law-makers and regulators.


From SFGate.com:

Attempts to clean up our air and to ensure that the nation has enough milk to drink are on a collision course.

As a result, the future of California's dairy industry looks sour. Around 100 farms are expected to go bankrupt this year alone, and the trend seems likely to continue if nothing is done.

Because of the demand for grain to produce the gasoline additive ethanol - which was supposed to reduce air pollution - plus a nationwide drought, many of the state's cash-strapped farmers are selling their cows for slaughter because they can't afford to feed them. It's a "perfect storm," says Colin Carter, professor of agricultural economics at UC Davis, that could spell trouble for the county's milk supply - 1 out of 5 glasses of milk consumed in the United States comes from California cows. And the increasing price of grain is hurting all livestock industries.

The drought conditions are bad enough as it is and we compound the problem by doubling down on stupid as the federal law mandating ethanol in gasoline now consumes one-third of the nation's corn crop, a percentage that only looks to go higher.

So far, 6 states have petitioned for relief via an escape clause contained within the ethanol law. The EPA, in an emergency, can temporarily lift the mandate. Frankly, given the ideological bent of this particular EPA, we don't see that happening. Besides, even a temporarily lifting of the mandate would expose what an awful sham corn-based ethanol is.

That the actions of the Environmental Protection Agency should be so far-reaching as to effect the price of food and availability of fuel demonstrates how far outside the box the agency has grown.

By 2050, there will be 9 billion people on this planet and they are going to need to be fed but try reasoning that reality to the flat-earthers within the enviro-zealot community.

.

Finally, some good great news on both the property rights and limited government fronts

.


We had been meaning to get around to this but could not get off the dime. From last week:




After the excrable Kelo v. New London decision from the Supreme Court, we were in need of some good news on the property rights front and the same Supreme Court some 7 years on delivered a double whammy for property rights plus a smack-down of a seemingly unaccountable EPA in Sackett v. EPA .

When Mike and Chantell Sackett bought land in Idaho zoned for residential construction and acquired the necessary permits for building a home, they believed their dream of owning a custom-made house would become a reality. Instead, the EPA sent the Sacketts into a five-year nightmare of regulatory war over the supposed status of their lot as a wetland, and demanded that the Sacketts entirely undo their work on the land to comply with the Clean Water Act.

The Sacketts tried to appeal but were threatened with fines of up to $37,500 per day, and when they tried to go to court to appeal that, they discovered that the EPA had to allow them to go to court. The Sacketts sued in federal court, and yesterday finally prevailed in a unanimous Supreme Court decision that has far-reaching implications for the EPA and overreaching government intrusion.

Why wouldn't the EPA allow the Sacketts to go to court? Because the EPA claimed that the agency had not committed a "final agency action". If you are thinking that the EPA by fining the Sacketts upwards of $70,000/day sounds pretty "final" and definitely qualifies as "action", all nine of the Supremes agreed with you. Think about that for a moment: the EPA refused the Sacketts their constitutional right to appeal because the EPA had taken no action against the Sacketts... aside from that fine for every day they were out of compliance.

The EPA claimed they could keep the Sacketts in this bureaucratic limbo under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Scalia and the rest of the justices weren't buying it:

Nor did Scalia and the other members of the court buy the notion that a compliance order was just “a step in the deliberative process … rather than a coercive sanction that itself must be subject to judicial review,” as the Obama administration argued. Scalia points out that sanctions signal that deliberation has come to an end. Besides, Scalia wrote for the unanimous majority, the Sacketts had tried to get a hearing with the EPA, which the agency rejected – hardly a sign that deliberation over the issue had much of a chance of continuing.

How important was this decision?

Clearly, the EPA and the Obama administration offered a loophole that would have allowed the EPA and other government agencies to levy compliance orders without any oversight at all, had the Supreme Court accepted their arguments. That would have created a situation where defendants in these agency actions not only had to prove their innocence rather than the agency prove their guilt – it would have also left defendants with no opportunity at all to prove their innocence.

There's a reason why constitutional republics are, like, hard. Accountability, transparency, redressing of grievances and petitioning/appealing to a court of law and stuff like that normally gum up the works of a smoothly running, efficient, authoritarian form of government which we are learning more and more every day is the preferred operating mode of our political class.


Congrats, Supremes, on knocking that one out of the park.

If 10 is a bad idea can't wait to see what happens with 15

Congress finally put a stop to the ethanol boondoggle but apparently that memo didn't get to the EPA which has, wait for it... granted a waiver for the sale of E-15.

In January, the EPA issued a waiver that allowed E15 (gasoline with a 15 percent ethanol blend) to be sold for vehicles with model years 2001 and later. This decision was made at the behest of the ethanol industry, but it will come at the expense of American drivers.

While the EPA deemed E15 environmentally safe for models produced after 2001, this higher blend of gas could seriously damage cars. Don’t take my word for it, just ask those who built them.

I sent letters to the major U.S. automakers to investigate how E15 would affect people’s cars. The response was startling. Overwhelmingly , I received complaints that E15 would void warranties, damage engines, and lower fuel efficiency. To date, I have received twelve responses, and all twelve oppose the EPA’s waiver.

Just a reminder, gang: we gave billions in subsidies to a "green" energy industry who's product has a production carbon footprint larger than that of gasoline's, is more expensive to produce than gasoline, does not yield the same energy output as gasoline, makes food more expensive and is most/very likely to shorten the life span of the equipment it is powering.

That's right: Ethanol. The absolute worst energy idea of all time and the EPA doubles down by permitting the production of E-15.

Ethanol: just in time for a global food crisis

It's been a while but there's been some exciting new developments on the ethanol front. Or as we like to refer to it: the absolute worst energy idea ever.

Who's up for some food riots and sky-rocketing food prices?

World wheat and maize prices have risen 57%, rice 45% and sugar 55% over the last six months and soybeans are at their highest price for 16 months.

UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier de Schutter, says a combination of environmental degradation, urbanisation and large-scale land acquisitions by foreign investors for biofuels is squeezing land suitable for agriculture.

"Worldwide, 5m to 10m hectares of agricultural land are being lost annually due to severe degradation and another 19.5m are lost for industrial uses and urbanisation," he says in a new report.

"But the pressure on land resulting from these factors has been boosted in recent years by policies favouring large-scale industrial plantations.

"According to the World Bank, more than one-third of large-scale land acquisitions are intended to produce agrofuels."

(italics, ours)

Sure, there are many factors that go into what determines the price of food but explain to us how taking arable land out of food production helps increase the world food supply?

And on the environmental front, ethanol has proven itself to be so green and wonderful for the environment, this is what the EPA has to say about some key pollutants:

At the same time, other vehicle emissions may increase as a result of greater renewable fuel use. Nationwide, EPA estimates an increase in total emissions of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides (VOC + NOx) between 41,000 and 83,000 tons. However, the effects will vary significantly by region. Areas that already are using ethanol will experience little or no change in emissions or air quality. However, those areas that experience a substantial increase in ethanol may see an increase in VOC emissions between 4 and 5 percent and an increase in NOx emissions between 6 and 7 percent from gasoline powered vehicles and equipment.

This comes precisely at the time that the government is cracking down on both Volatile Organic Compounds and Nitrogen-Oxides.

So, armed with this knowledge, what do you think the feds do as Big Ethanol is sitting on a glut of its snake oil? Of course...

For months, administration officials have been hinting that the EPA would approve the ethanol industry’s request for an increase in blend volumes. The industry desperately needs a bailout, because it has built far too many distilleries over the past few years. As Bob Dinneen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association, explained, “We have lots of gallons of ethanol chasing too few gallons of gasoline.”

And sure enough, back on October 13th, the EPA granted Big Ethanol its wish when it approved an increase in the amount of ethanol that can be blended into gasoline from 10 percent to 15 percent. 2/3rds more of a corrosive, hydrophilic, low-heat content element will now be allowed to be blended into our fuel.

This move comes on top of the reality of an already highly-fractured market where refineries in this country produce 45 different blends of gasoline and multiple blends of diesel. The cost of managing this hydra (different fuel pumps, different underground storage tanks) will simply be passed along to the consumer.

There's actually more breaking news that we will share later but we're running long here. When the tingle wears off, go on over to our blog buddy Harrison's place, who, like us, is very excited for the prospects of ethanol.

More expensive, drives up the cost of food, not good for the environment, heavily subsidized and thus highly politicized... what's not to love about ethanol?

When 99% effectiveness isn't good enough

Current federal EPA standards dictate that any oil separating device must be good for 15 parts per million. As a practical example, if you have a fishing vessel or merchant ship, you will be generating oily waste in your engine room as a result of running your machinery plant. The oily waste that collects in the bilges of the ship can be processed by an oily water separator and the effluent discharged overboard (50 miles from shore) as long as it meets that 15 ppm standard.

How to quantify 15 ppm? You'll have to trust us on the math with this one but picture a 55 gallon drum. Now picture dropping a half-teaspoon of oil into that 55 gallon drum of water. That's approximately 15 ppm.

So, why do we bring this up? It is because the federal government is treating this 15 ppm standard as sacred and because of bureaucratic inflexibility it is unnecessarily hindering the spill clean-up effort.

After making a brief stop in Norfolk for refueling, U.S. Coast Guard inspections and an all-out publicity blitz intended to drum up public support, a giant tanker billed as the world's largest oil skimming vessel set sail Friday for the Gulf of Mexico where it hopes to assist in the oil-cleanup effort.

The Taiwanese-owned, Liberian-flagged ship dubbed the "A Whale" stands 10 stories high, stretches 1,115 feet in length and has a nearly 200-foot beam. It displaces more water than an aircraft carrier.

Built in South Korea as a supertanker for transporting oil and iron ore, the six-month-old vessel was refitted in the wake of the BP oil spill with 12, 16-foot-long intake vents on the sides of its bow designed to skim oil off surface waters

The vessel's billionaire owner, Nobu Su, the CEO of Taiwanese shipping company TMT Group, said the ship would float across the Gulf "like a lawn mower cutting the grass," ingesting up to 500,000 barrels of oil-contaminated water a day.

But a number of hurdles stand in his way. TMT officials said the company does not yet have government approval to assist in the cleanup or a contract with BP to perform the work.

And do you want to know why they haven't received government approval. Because the vessel's oil separating ability does not meet the 15 ppm standard?

TMT also paid to fly in Edward Overton, a professor emeritus of environmental sciences at Louisiana State University, to get a look at the massive skimmer.

Overton blasted BP and the federal government for a lack of effort and coordination in their dual oil-spill response and made a plea to the government to allow the A Whale to join the cleanup operation.

"We need this ship. We need this help," Overton said. "That oil is already contaminating our shoreline. We've got to get the ship out there and see if it works. There's only one way to find out: Get the damn thing in the gulf and we'll see."

(italics, ours)

Mr. Overton doesn't understand how things work with the Obama regime. You pass legislation willy-nilly to find out what's in it. However, in the face of a slow-motion environmental disaster, every single "i" must be dotted and every single "t" must be crossed before any effective action can be taken.

Obama's Gulf oil spill is becoming replete with these stories of oil containment/capturing/processing items that just aren't quite good enough for the federal government's liking.

Go on over to Left Coast Rebel, here, where KOOK has another heart-warming story of actor Kevin Costner and his brother who have developed a centrifugal separator that has been denied usage in the clean-up effort because they too just don't measure up.

Team Obama: When 99% effective just won't do.

Hooray, regulations?

We don't think it's a stretch to imagine these people back in the 60s and 70s, stinky armpits, matted hair and all, agitating and fomenting on the campus greens across our nation on behalf of free speech and the more libertine and perhaps taboo aspects of society.

Who are these people and if they are the same what the hell happened to them?

President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency is encouraging the public to create video advertisements that explain why federal regulations are "important to everyone."

The contest, which ends May 17, will award $2,500 to the makers of the video that best explains why federal regulations are good and how ordinary citizens can become more involved in making regulations. The videos must be posted on YouTube and can be no more than 60-90 seconds in length.

In the current contest, each video must include the slogan “Let your voice be heard,” and it must direct viewers to the government’s regulatory website www.Regulations.gov. The winning video will then be used by the entire federal government to promote the regulatory process and enhance the public’s participation in it.

The EPA is managing the contest, part of the government’s eRulemaking program, on behalf of the entire government.

As explained in the EPA press release announcing the contest, the purpose of the videos will be to remind the public that federal regulation touches “almost every aspect” of their lives and to promote how important those regulations are.

“The contest will highlight the significance of federal regulations and help the public understand the rulemaking process. Federal agencies develop and issue hundreds of rules and regulations every year to implement statutes written by Congress. Almost every aspect of an individual’s life is touched by federal regulations, but many do not understand how rules are made or how they can get involved in the process.”

The videos should be designed to “capture the public imagination” and to “explain” why government regulations are “important to everyone.”

So, that's what happened to them? Now sitting at the levers of power, all that "sticking it to the man" is just a wistful memory, if they happened to believe any of it at all.

But that is the psychology of the liberal-Left. Diversity of thought and action is cool as long as it's conforming to the "correct" standards as defined by...them.

And not even bothering to disguise the Mao/Dear Leader tone of the language bears this out. Because regulations touch "almost every aspect" of everybody's lives there is a oneness and a collective justice to a regulatory regime, thus there is an inherent goodness to regulations. The more the better.


Fortunately, the good people at Americans for Prosperity have made their entry



H/T: Hot Air

Great moments in the history of raging centrism

This is for all you extreme right-wing tea-partyers who fail to acknowledge the moderate path chosen by this administration.

The Obama administration is warning Congress that if it doesn't move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a "command-and-control" role over the process in a way that could hurt business.

The warning, from a top White House economic official who spoke Tuesday on condition of anonymity, came on the eve of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson's address to the international conference on climate change in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Jackson, however, tried to strike a tone of cooperation in her address Wednesday, explaining that the EPA's new powers to regulate greenhouse gases will be used to complement legislation pending in Congress, not replace it.

"This is not an 'either-or' moment. It's a 'both-and' moment," she said.

Or as we like to say around here at BwD, “If the thunder don’t get you, the lightning will.” Or as the convential energy industry would say: "We're completely hosed either way."

We will give the administration credit, though, for making no pretense about their desire to ruin jobs with their picking-winners-and-losers crony capitalism approach to “handling” the economy.

When the EPA decided to bestow upon itself the dubious powers to regulate green house emissions earlier this week, we wondered if this effectively rendered cap and trade moot. If you weren’t going to be able regulate bad stuff like what is coming out of your mouth in gaseous form as you read this, then regulate it by fiat, right?

Well, as Ms. Jackson (pictured), a priestess in the administration’s faith-based AGW cabal, indicates, they’re covering their bases.

So, forgive us if we correct that anonymous official: that's not "command and control", that’s just effective airtight governance.

We think you’re going to like 24 Hr. Fitness’s new look

In the United States, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has cleared the way for legislation that would make it possible to curb carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The EPA has formally acknowledged, for the first time, that 'greenhouse gases' such as CO2 can constitute a danger to public health.

We’re getting our marker in early: scrubber stacks atop all fitness and workout facilities.

P.S. We're out the door shortly for a vigorous hike in Mission Trails Park. We apologize ahead of time for your endangerment.

The new "C"-word

As carbon-based beings ourselves, could we be outlawed? B-Daddy nails a prediction he made during the campaign season and looks forward to more hijinks and hilarity in the court of law, here.

The making of the new "C"-word

Whether its emissions or early-stage life, M.T. Suit sees both forms of carbon-based matter as a burden to the planet and society. B-Daddy has more on Suit’s fool-proof method to beat down the economy, here.