Politicians weigh in on the future of ethanol
The political conventions are over, and the confetti and deflated balloons have been swept away. Now that the spotlights are off, voters are looking at the platforms passed at the two conventions, and ethanol advocates are not happy about the Republican stance on ethanol.
“I don’t know how you could say something more devastating,” Minnesota Corn Growers Association’s Executive Director Bruce Stockman told reporters.
Stockman said the policy was seen as somewhat of a slap in the face to the entire Midwest.
“It’s my view that so-goes the Midwest goes the election of the president,” Stockman said. “To be so opposed to the renewable fuel standard as a platform seems like not a good decision.”
In the platform, passed unanimously Sept. 1, Republicans changed the party’s direction from the Bush administration’s views on ethanol and biofuels. The 2004 Republican platform supported expanding the use of ethanol as a way to reduce dependence on foreign oil and increase revenue for farmers.
The 2008 policy platform states the U.S. government “should end mandates for ethanol and let the free market work.” The policy vows to continue the development of cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels but did not specify what types of feedstocks or how the industry would be supported.
Although the party opposes all ethanol mandates, it supports long-term tax credits for “renewable power sources” including solar, wind, geothermal and hydropower.
Regarding the platform, Stockman said it seems clear that the it represents the views of the presidential ticket. In May, McCain joined 23 other Senate Republicans in sending a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency asking it to consider waiving ethanol mandates.
However the platform reads, it clearly does not represent how the entire Republican Party feels about ethanol.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told reporters that federal mandates have been good for the ethanol business in the United States.
“If we were going to have $140-a-barrel oil our whole life, we may not need mandates,” he said. “But if we didn’t have mandates, we wouldn’t have the vibrant energy business we have right now.”
Grassley said that without the mandates, there wouldn’t be the investment in ethanol that there has been to date.
“We get 5 percent of fuel for our vehicles from renewables, and if we didn’t, we’d be getting 5 percent more from foreign oil,” he said. “It would be sending billions of dollars more to Arabs, and I just don’t think that’s good economic security. It’s not national security, it’s not good foreign policy.”
Grassley wasn’t the only senator opposed to the ethanol plank in the platform.
“It’s proof that Republicans are not always right,” Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters. “On this one, they just got it wrong.”
The Renewable Fuels Association was also displeased with the plank. According to a statement, “It is inconceivable that the Republican Party would adopt a platform that limits the energy options available to the American people. Ethanol is the only technology in use today helping reduce our nation’s reliance on foreign oil.”
Meanwhile, in Denver, the Democrats issued a platform that didn’t address ethanol directly, but included billions of dollars in investments to “establish a green energy sector that will create up to five million new jobs.”
According to the platform, which proposed investing in cellulosic ethanol and other biofuel research and development, “We must summon all of our ingenuity and legendary hard work, and we must invest in research and development, and deployment of renewable energy technologies such as solar, wind, and geothermal, as well as technologies to store energy through advanced batteries and clean up our coal plants.”
So there you have it. Bad news and no news for ethanol supporters from the national parties, and some encouragement from farm state senators. It will be interesting to watch how it all plays out.
Barb Kromphardt is a staff writer at the Bureau County Republican. She can be reached at bkromphardt@bcrnews.com.
