skip to main content

→ Top Stories:
Fracking
Safe Chemicals
Defending the Clean Air Act

Sasha Lyutse’s Blog

Editorials make case against corn ethanol subsidies, industry can't get all it wishes for anymore

Sasha Lyutse

Posted December 9, 2010 in Moving Beyond Oil, Solving Global Warming

Tags:
, , , , , , , ,
Share | | |

Yesterday, we talked here about just how far we’ve come from early this year, when the corn ethanol industry was demanding $31 billion in subsidies over 5 years, to today, when they’re begging for a fraction of that. And now, as the Senate nears a vote on the possible extension of tax incentives for renewable energy, editorials in The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune are once again making the case for ending the wasteful and redundant corn ethanol tax credit—know as the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit or “VEETC”—once and for all.  

Together with the Wall Street Journal, the nation’s four major newspapers highlight the massive costs to U.S. taxpayers of redundant corn ethanol subsidies and just how little we receive in return.

The Washington Post editorial argues:

“For decades, the idea behind corn ethanol has been that fuel derived from the crop could diminish America's dependence on distasteful foreign regimes for fuel…Congress established an overlapping and expensive system of subsidies, requiring that billions of gallons of ethanol be blended into the nation's gasoline, slapping tariffs on foreign ethanol and handing those who blend the fuel into gasoline a tax credit of 45 cents a gallon.

In other words, the government pays the industry for the privilege of selling to a captive market, spending $6 billion in 2009 on the tax credits alone. Without the tax credits, the amount of corn ethanol produced would still increase over the next 10 years, the Agricultural Policy Research Institute at the University of Missouri calculates. Yet the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that taxpayers still pay $1.78 to replace a gallon of gasoline with its energy equivalent of corn ethanol."

The Chicago Tribune editorial agrees:

“The fiscal tab of the federal tax credit comes to about $6 billion a year, which is more than the entire savings from President Obama's two-year freeze on federal civilian pay. The more dire our fiscal predicament grows, the harder it is to justify this special-interest expense.”

The New York Times editorial makes clear that ethanol industry lobbyists like Growth Energy and the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) pushed hard all year for a 5-year extension of the main corn ethanol tax credit for a total of more than $31 billion in subsidies.

But as The Washington Post points out:  

“Typically, the farm lobby has won out on such issues. But this year it's meeting stronger than usual opposition from a bloc of fiscal conservatives and environmentalists, backed by such strange bedfellows as Tea Party organizer FreedomWorks and ultra-liberal pressure group MoveOn.org - even Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Al Gore.”

RFA and Growth Energy started off the year calling for a five-year, $0.45 cent-per-gallon extension of the VEETC. But it’s clear that they won’t always get what they wish for anymore. At most, it seems that lawmakers will approve a short-term VEETC extension, most likely at the reduced rate of $0.36 cents-per-gallon. That’s a big win for U.S. taxpayers. But there’s still time for Congress to stand up and sunset the VEETC entirely, ending wasteful, unnecessary tax breaks for mature, mainstream and polluting corn ethanol, while showing their support for smart tax incentives for clean energy projects like wind, solar and energy efficiency.

Share | | |

Comments

Tom KoehlerDec 9 2010 01:16 PM

Sasha, we've never met and i assume you are newly assigned to the bash corn ethanol beat? You seem to be doing everything the paid consultants for the Junk food and Meat industry are asking you to do. Good timely job.

Could you explain to me why displacing 10% imported oil with American made ethanol from corn is a bad thing? Is corn ethanol that evil? The tenor of NRDC's comments on this issue is alarming. Good energy policy is hard to achieve with such rancor and closed mindedness. But i suppose you have to do what ever your money backers are telling to do. In this case i wonder why you are taking money and working with the Junk Food and Meat industry against the American farmer and displacing mideast oil?

J. Thaddeus ToadDec 9 2010 01:56 PM

NRDC taking money from the "junk food" and meat industries?

These conspiracy theories are quite unhelpful.

This is an environmental advocacy group; the issues are land, soil, water, biodiversity, toxics and carbon. Please resist the temptation to trivialize the debate with absurd ad hominems and deliberate mischaracterizations of the opponents' views.

John JamesDec 9 2010 06:05 PM

An environmental group that continues to rip corn ethaol, our countries only readily available alternative to oil? An environmental group that spends so much time and money going after a $6 billion dollar subsidy but doesn't touch oil subsidies which total $200 billion plus? Oil, possibly the worst thing we could put into the environment, just ask folks in the gulf. So is the NRDC funded by Oil? Because it seems they are supporting policy that would continue to hold America hostage to foregin oil. Wouldn't you think an environmental group would get behind a product that burns 52% cleaner (according to the epa)? What is the NRDC really worried about? The environment or staying in big oil's pocket?

Josh MogermanDec 10 2010 12:17 AM

Wow. Quote editorials from the nation's most respected newspapers and you are a lackey. Quite a leap folks. Quite a leap.

Tom KoehlerDec 10 2010 02:23 PM

Josh - Do editorials across the nation, virtually on the same day occur with a coordinated well financed campaign? Its reported fact that the Junk food and Meat Industry is spending millions with high powered DC lobbying and PR firms to stop the one alternative fuel that has really made a difference in terms of displacing oil. Not a big leap if you know how things work, though i will admit very disappointing. Public interest groups are supposed to be beyond corruption and money influence but in today's world that is not the case. No wonder America politics the way it is....

Comments are closed for this post.

About

Switchboard is the staff blog of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the nation’s most effective environmental group. For more about our work, including in-depth policy documents, action alerts and ways you can contribute, visit NRDC.org.

Feeds: Sasha Lyutse’s blog

Feeds: Stay Plugged In