<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" ><channel><title>GlobalWarming.org &#187; ethanol tariff</title> <atom:link href="http://www.globalwarming.org/tag/ethanol-tariff/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.globalwarming.org</link> <description>Climate Change News &#38; Analysis</description> <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2012 22:16:31 +0000</lastBuildDate> <language>en-US</language> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator> <item><title>Ethanol&#8217;s Future and the Tax Credit Expiration</title><link>http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/12/06/ethanols-future-and-the-tax-credit-expiration/</link> <comments>http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/12/06/ethanols-future-and-the-tax-credit-expiration/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2011 17:13:00 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Brian McGraw</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category> <category><![CDATA[ethanol]]></category> <category><![CDATA[ethanol mandate]]></category> <category><![CDATA[ethanol tariff]]></category> <category><![CDATA[ethanol tax credit]]></category> <category><![CDATA[renewable fuel standard]]></category> <category><![CDATA[VEETC]]></category><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalwarming.org/?p=11648</guid> <description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s now all but certain that the ethanol tax credit will expire at the end of the year, and the ethanol producers continue to claim credit for &#8220;giving it up&#8221; despite that it was obviously lost due to larger political considerations, and the fact that they lobbied initially for its extension and then eventually for [...]]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a class="post_image_link" href="http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/12/06/ethanols-future-and-the-tax-credit-expiration/" title="Permanent link to Ethanol&#8217;s Future and the Tax Credit Expiration"><img class="post_image aligncenter" src="http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/ethanol_corncob.jpg" width="400" height="346" alt="Post image for Ethanol&#8217;s Future and the Tax Credit Expiration" /></a></p><p>It&#8217;s now all but certain that the ethanol tax credit will expire at the end of the year, and the ethanol producers continue to claim credit for &#8220;giving it up&#8221; despite that it was obviously lost due to larger political considerations, and the fact that they lobbied initially for its extension and then eventually for a substitute which would have still funneled money into their industry. The tariff on ethanol imports also expires at the end of the year, and is likely to expire, though a <a href="http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/article.asp?articleid=93964">bill</a> was just introduced to extend it. It has no chance of passing through normal legislative means but its not impossible for it to be attached to larger omnibus bills in order to appease ethanol interests.</p><p>There are a few problems here. First, restrictions on trade are not normally good, but the fact that much of ethanol consumption is due to the renewable fuel standard mandate (and not market forces) complicates things. If imports of sugarcane ethanol are merely going to cut down on corn ethanol consumption/production, then it seems that the removal of the trade barrier would be a neutral/good thing. However, if imports of sugarcane ethanol require that Americans purchase additional ethanol relative to a baseline with the tariff, then an argument could be made for keeping the tariff. There are also other longer term political considerations: if sugarcane ethanol is kept out, the corn ethanol folks might lobby to lift the cap on corn ethanol and allow it to qualify as an advanced biofuel. Or, Congress might scrap the advanced biofuel RFS altogether as cellulosic ethanol is yet to exist.</p><p><span id="more-11648"></span>However, the conversation has largely moved beyond the tax credit/tariff question. Now, environmental and free-market groups have yet again joined to request a <a href="http://www.foe.org/news/archives/2011-11-a-broken-policy-coalition-calls-for-hearings-on-the">hearing</a> on the renewable fuel standard:</p><blockquote><p>Yesterday a diverse coalition of hunger and development organizations, agriculture groups, budget hawks, free marketers and environmental groups called on the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works to hold hearings on the impacts of the Renewable Fuel Standard. A number of studies have recently been released criticizing the Renewable Fuel Standard for damaging the environment and increasing food price volatility, while a scandal involving fake credits has brought the Renewable Fuel Standard&#8217;s compliance system into question by the EPA and industry alike.</p></blockquote><p>CEI has signed onto this letter along with groups like Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Americans for Tax Reform, ActionAid USA, Oxfam America, and a number of industry groups. Naturally, the ethanol industry countered with their own <a href="December 5, 2011 The Honorable Barbara Boxer Chair Committee on Environment and Public Works U.S. Senate The Honorable James Inhofe Ranking Member Committee on Environment and Public Works U.S. Senate Dear Chair Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe: A recent letter to you from several anti-biofuel organizations grossly misrepresented and distorted the findings of recent studies by the National Academies of Sciences (NAS) and United Nations Committee on Food Security (CFS).1 We are writing to address the letter’s obvious mischaracterizations of these two studies, particularly as they relate the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). Judging by their erroneous description of the studies’ key conclusions, it seems the authors of the November 30th letter likely did not even read the studies to which they refer. While the November 30th letter suggests the NAS report offers definitive conclusions about the environmental impacts of biofuels, the co-chairs of the panel distinctly emphasize in the study’s preface that “…our clearest conclusion is that there is very high uncertainty in the impacts we were trying to estimate. The uncertainties include essentially all of the drivers of biofuel production and consumption and the complex interactions among those drivers: future crude oil prices, feedstock costs and availability, technological advances in conversion efficiencies, land-use change, government policy, and more.” Further, the November 30th anti-biofuels letter conveniently omitted the NAS report’s finding that “…using biofuels holds potential to provide net environmental benefits compared to using petroleum-based fuels…” Nothing in the NAS study conclusively states that the RFS “is likely…exacerbating global warming,” as the November 30th letter suggests. Rather, the panel found that, “We do not have generally agreed upon estimates of the environmental or GHG impacts of most biofuels.” In fact, one of the co-chairs of the NAS panel, along with authors at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), recently published a paper finding that “…we estimate that U.S. corn ethanol at present, on average, results in a life-cycle reduction in GHG emissions of 24 percent (including land use change emissions) relative to the emissions associated with gasoline…” and “…cellulosic ethanol achieves overwhelming GHG reductions.”2 In general, the NAS report was admittedly inconclusive, especially because the report did not compare the possible environmental and economic impacts of biofuels to the impacts of the 1 Letter signed by ActionAid USA et al. Nov. 30, 2011 2 M. Wang, J. Han, Z. Haq, W.E. Tyner, M. Wu, A. Elgowainy. Energy and greenhouse gas emission effects of corn and cellulosic ethanol with technology improvements and land use changes, Biomass and Bioenergy, Volume 35, Issue 5, May 2011, Pages 1885-1896, ISSN 0961-9534, 10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.01.028. 2 transportation fuels they replace (i.e., gasoline and diesel fuel). The co-chairs acknowledged the limitations of the report when they wrote, “The bottom line is that it simply was not possible to come up with clear quantitative answers to many of the questions.” In addition, we note that some of the NAS study panelists themselves have questioned the usefulness and balance of the study’s findings. For example, it has been reported by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (publishers of the journal Science) that Dr. Virginia Dale, an ecologist at the DOE’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory, believes the NAS report “is not based on the most current information” and could be &quot;misleading if the assumptions of the analysis are not considered.”3 Dr. Dale encouraged readers to “read the details with care,” an admonition the authors of the November 30th letter clearly ignored. The November 30th letter also references a recent report by the U.N. CFS as another study that puts the RFS “under scrutiny.” In fact, the brief CFS report, which simply summarizes recent discussions by the committee’s expert panel on food security and nutrition, doesn’t even mention the RFS a single time. Moreover, in regard to biofuels, the report recommends only that the expert panel should consider a review process that considers both the positive and potentially undesirable impacts of biofuel policies around the world. Much more of the report is focused on constructive recommendations to address food security concerns, including reducing food waste and post-harvest losses, “tightening up” speculation on the futures market to “avoid price manipulations,” revisiting international trade rules, increasing investment in agriculture technology and research, and other actions that impact global food security. In closing, we urge you to ignore the November 30th letter’s blatant misrepresentations of these recent studies. The groups clearly twisted the findings of these studies in an attempt to support their request for hearings on the RFS. And, should your Committee decide that hearings are indeed warranted, we ask that your witness lists be fairly balanced to include representatives from the biofuels industry, and academics such as Dr. Dale who understand the enormous promise of biofuels. Sincerely, Bob Dinneen President &amp; CEO 3 See http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/10/panel-doubts-us-biofuels-goals.html">letter</a>.</p><p>We hope that the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works will consider a hearing on whether it might be a good idea to stop the RFS in its place or perhaps remove it entirely and allow more efficient market based policies to govern our liquid transportation fuel sector.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> ]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/12/06/ethanols-future-and-the-tax-credit-expiration/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Free Market Coalition Urges Congress to Let Ethanol Tax Breaks and Trade Protection Expire</title><link>http://www.globalwarming.org/2010/10/21/free-market-coalition-urges-congress-to-let-ethanol-tax-breaks-and-trade-protection-expire/</link> <comments>http://www.globalwarming.org/2010/10/21/free-market-coalition-urges-congress-to-let-ethanol-tax-breaks-and-trade-protection-expire/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:50:12 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Marlo Lewis</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category> <category><![CDATA[American Conservative Union]]></category> <category><![CDATA[ethanol]]></category> <category><![CDATA[ethanol tariff]]></category> <category><![CDATA[FreedomWorks]]></category> <category><![CDATA[national center for public policy research]]></category> <category><![CDATA[National Taxpayers Union]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Tom Vilsack]]></category> <category><![CDATA[VEETC]]></category><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalwarming.org/?p=6235</guid> <description><![CDATA[Yesterday on this site I explained why a &#8220;Do Nothing Congress on Ethanol Would Do a Lot of Good.&#8221; I also mentioned that today, a coalition of free market groups would be publishing an open letter advising Congress to let the clock run out on tax favoritism and trade protection for corn ethanol. The groups issuing the joint letter are [...]]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>Yesterday on this site I explained why a &#8220;<a href="http://www.globalwarming.org/2010/10/20/a-do-nothing-congress-on-ethanol-would-do-a-lot-of-good/">Do Nothing Congress on Ethanol Would Do a Lot of Good</a>.&#8221; I also mentioned that today, a coalition of free market groups would be publishing an open letter advising Congress to let the clock run out on tax favoritism and trade protection for corn ethanol.</p><p>The groups issuing the joint letter are the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), Freedom Action, the American Conservative Union, Freedom Works, National Center for Public Policy Research, and National Taxpayers Union.</p><p>CEI&#8217;s <a href="http://cei.org/news-releases/tax-subsidized-ethanol-boondoggle-set-expire">press release</a> appears below. It includes commentary by yours truly on Obama Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack&#8217;s announcement of new biofuel initiatives at a press conference this morning, a link to the coalition letter, and a link to video excerpts of a speech in 2006 by then Gov. Tom Vilsack. The video illustrates the famous French adage, <em>plus ca change, plus c&#8217;est la meme chose</em> (loosely translated, &#8221;The more things change, the more special-interest politics stays the same&#8221;).<br />  </p><p>CEI&#8217;s press release follows:</p><p> </p><blockquote><p>Contact:<br /> Nicole Ciandella, 202.331.2773<br />  <br /> <strong><a href="http://cei.org/news-releases/tax-subsidized-ethanol-boondoggle-set-expire">Tax-Subsidized Ethanol Boondoggle Set to Expire<br /> </a>Coalition Urges Congress to End Tax Breaks Tariff Protection for Ethanol</strong></p><p> </p><p>Special tax credits and tariff protection for ethanol are set to expire at the year’s end. To counter the corn ethanol lobby, which urges Congress to reauthorize these special-interest giveaways plus enact new mandates and subsidies, a coalition of free-market groups advises Congress to “do nothing” and let the clock run out on the tax credit and tariff.</p><p>The domestic ethanol industry currently enjoys a 45¢ per gallon “Volumetric Ethanol Tax Credit” (VEETC), which costs taxpayers $5-6 billion annually, and a 54¢ per gallon protective tariff, which prevents lower-cost Brazilian ethanol from competing in U.S. markets.</p><p>“Congress has a rare opportunity to avoid $25-30 billion in new deficit spending, ease consumers&#8217; pain at the pump, and scale back political manipulation of energy markets by literally doing nothing,” the coalition told Congress in a letter today.</p><p>The groups issuing the joint letter are the <strong>Competitive Enterprise Institute</strong>, <strong>Freedom Action</strong>, <strong>American Conservative Union</strong>, <strong>Freedom Works</strong>, <strong>National Taxpayers Union</strong>, and <strong>National Center for Public Policy Research</strong>.</p><p>The coalition released its letter today because Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack held a press conference this morning announcing new Obama Administration biofuel initiatives.</p><p>Vilsack said the VEETC should be extended on a “short-term, fiscally responsible” basis, but would not define what that means. Similarly, he said the tariff should “eventually” expire, but would not propose a timetable for phasing it out.</p><p>“In 2006, when Secy. Vilsack was Governor of Iowa, he said the exact same things – that the tariff and tax credit eventually had to end,” said Marlo Lewis, Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “Gov. Vilsack didn’t say then when the phase out should start – and Secy. Vilsack is still not saying.” A video excerpt of Gov. Vilsack’s 2006 remarks on ethanol is <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmyxnfeRd30">available on Youtube</a>.</p><p>“For fiscal, humanitarian, and environmental reasons, the ethanol tariff and tax credit must go,” said Lewis.</p></blockquote><p><a href="http://cei.org/sites/default/files/VEETC%20and%20Tariff%20Free%20Market%20Coalition%20Letter.pdf">Read the full coalition letter here</a>.</p> ]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.globalwarming.org/2010/10/21/free-market-coalition-urges-congress-to-let-ethanol-tax-breaks-and-trade-protection-expire/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>1</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>A &#8220;Do Nothing Congress&#8221; on Ethanol Would Do a Lot of Good</title><link>http://www.globalwarming.org/2010/10/20/a-do-nothing-congress-on-ethanol-would-do-a-lot-of-good/</link> <comments>http://www.globalwarming.org/2010/10/20/a-do-nothing-congress-on-ethanol-would-do-a-lot-of-good/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:00:08 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Marlo Lewis</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category> <category><![CDATA[biofuel mandate]]></category> <category><![CDATA[ethanol]]></category> <category><![CDATA[ethanol tariff]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Tom Vilsack]]></category> <category><![CDATA[VEETC]]></category><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalwarming.org/?p=6228</guid> <description><![CDATA[Congress has a rare opportunity to shave $25-30 billion from the national debt, ease consumers&#8217; pain at the pump, and scale back political manipulation of energy markets by literally doing nothing. At the stroke of midnight on December 31 of this year, statutory authority for the 45¢ per gallon Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) [...]]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>Congress has a rare opportunity to shave $25-30 billion from the national debt, ease consumers&#8217; pain at the pump, and scale back political manipulation of energy markets by literally doing nothing.</p><p>At the stroke of midnight on December 31 of this year, statutory authority for the 45¢ per gallon Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) and the 54¢ per gallon tariff on imported ethanol will expire.</p><p>For economic, humanitarian, and environmental reasons, Congress should sit back and let the grim policy reaper sweep these special-interest giveaways into history&#8217;s dustbin, as I explain this week on <a href="http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2010/10/should-obama-back-ethanol.php#1671282">National Journal&#8217;s Energy Blog</a>.</p><p>Tomorrow, at the National Press Club, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack will discuss the Obama Administration&#8217;s &#8220;strategy&#8221; to grow the biofuel industry.</p><p>I&#8217;ve seen no inside info on what Vilsack will say. However, the corn ethanol lobby is pushing for &#8220;reforms&#8221; that would not only reauthorize the tariff and tax credit but also mandate the production and sale of ethanol-fueled vehicles and provide new subsidies to build a gigantic ethanol pipeline network and install 200,000 ethanol fuel pumps at service stations.</p><p>Just in case Vilsack decides to join this bandwagon, and on general principles, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Freedom Action, and other free-market groups will send an open letter tomorow urging Congress to embrace the unheard of option of doing nothing, thereby benefiting taxpayers, consumers, and the environment.</p><p>I plan to attend the Vilsack press conference. Will he come out swinging for renewal of the tariff and tax credit? Will he propose new mandates and subsidies? Or will he keep things vague? Stay tuned.</p> ]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.globalwarming.org/2010/10/20/a-do-nothing-congress-on-ethanol-would-do-a-lot-of-good/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>4</slash:comments> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Database Caching 2/12 queries in 0.007 seconds using disk: basic
Object Caching 387/429 objects using disk: basic

Served from: www.globalwarming.org @ 2012-12-13 21:12:25 --