SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the add-your-own-butter-and-salt dept.
Submitted via IRC for SoyGuest31999
In an October 19 letter to corn-belt lawmakers, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt said that he won't seek any rollback to biofuel blending rules, according to Reuters.
The agency had been considering some changes to rules set by the Obama administration that ratchet up the amount of renewable biofuel that refineries must blend into the gas and diesel they sell. According to Bloomberg, the EPA had specifically been considering "a possible reduction in biodiesel requirements" as well as "a proposal to allow exported renewable fuel to count toward domestic quotas." In early October, the EPA asked for public comment on cutting biodiesel quotas.
The Bloomberg story cited unnamed sources who said President Trump personally directed Pruitt to back off any proposals that would relax biofuel quotas after pressure from lawmakers from corn-producing states like Iowa, Nebraska, and Illinois. Trump, who courted both fossil fuel interests and corn-belt states in his campaign, has had pressure from each side on this debate. Uncertainty surrounding the future of biofuel use during Trump's administration has caused volatility in biofuels markets for months, Reuters notes.
(The Bloomberg story also cites one unnamed "top EPA official" who said that Trump's directive to Pruitt didn't matter because Pruitt wasn't going to alter renewable fuel standards anyway.)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @06:02PM (51 children)
Shouldn't the markets determine how society allocates resources and sets prices?
There needs to be a Separation of Business and State.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday October 25 2017, @06:17PM (4 children)
Because someone needs to arbiter the conflicts between the various forces at play, to enable the customers to receive a consistent product, which does not endanger them or threaten the proper conduct of their daily lives.
Incidentally, it's also because the US government has been in the business of securing fuel flows for Americans for over a century, and happens to be the biggest fuel consumer on the planet.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @06:21PM (2 children)
You're reasoning is contradictory gibberish that is closer to religion than rationality.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:00PM
kind of like your spelling
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:20PM
Your reading comprehension is appalling.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 26 2017, @04:47PM
Requiring corn ethanol doesn't do that. We need to keep in mind the numerous drawbacks to this scheme such as lower quality and more corrosive fuel (at the levels mandated by the US government), more oil required to make ethanol than it replaces, and increased global food prices (due to resources diverted away from making food).
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Wednesday October 25 2017, @06:26PM (4 children)
There is no separation of business and state, and they're never has been. Ever.
Corn biofuel is complete utter bullshit. All the experts and scientists say it is a poor biofuel compared to other avenues like switchgrass and vertical algae farms. What is had was excellent politics. Already fitting in with the farm subsidies, where the government currently manipulates our farming industry, you have huge producers of corn (not the little farmer so much anymore) turning it into biofuel instead. It's a win-win-win for all the politicians and corporations. We the public pay for the corn, and they get to turn it into biofuel for extra profit.
It doesn't help the environment all that much since it is a blend and not a replacement for fossil fuels, especially once you take into account the damage from commercial farming with pesticides and fertilizers. At most it's an expensive fuel addon that we all pay for. So some rich men can get richer. The EPA isn't keeping biofuel quotas because it is a win for the environment.
TL;DR;
Some rich fuckers complained that their money was under attack, used the benefit of their payments to their politicians, so that they could exert the only influence on politics that matters; The Wallet. All of the sudden Orange Anus after speaking with their politicians, reverses course personally.
Nothing new ,moral, ethical, or intelligent happened here. Avarice & Money at work in politics.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @06:30PM
Thank goodness we moved past those naysayers.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:17PM (2 children)
You forgot to add that the states that benefit from this are the ones that are very vocal about keeping the government out of their lives and businesses.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:23PM
Big Business is not necessarily representative of the people who live in those states.
That's the problem with you collectivists; you can't see the trees for the forest. (Yes, I got that right.)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 26 2017, @02:21PM
The government can stay out of their lives, as long as they're pumping in the cash via "working" channels like land ownership: the CRP program pays landowners substantial amounts to NOT farm their land - artificially propping up the value of the land, farm subsidies stabilize market prices and buy excess product in surplus years, and of course programs like mandatory ethanol in gasoline create demand where it never existed in the free market.
We could go on about how infrastructure like roads, electricity, telecommunications, etc. are not cost effective to deliver in the rural areas, but our government taxes the cities to fund infrastructure in the rural areas, etc. But, let's not give a single dime to those lazy city dwellers who don't have a job to pay for their rent and food.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @06:26PM
Because if it was based solely upon economics, there wouldn't be any used because corn-based biofuels are too expensive. The biofuel requirement is Congressional corporate welfare benefiting the ag industry. Corn-based biofuel is not cost sustainable, but it turns out that all those midwestern red states are really good at growing corn.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by unauthorized on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:30PM (34 children)
They are. The wealthy buy the laws that suit them and everyone else has to eat their shit. Can you and are you willing to buy different laws? No? Then off to the corn fields serf!
In before "but that's not real
communismcapitalism" and "but if governments didn't exist this would never happen".(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:36PM
What could your point possibly be, then?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday October 26 2017, @05:28AM (32 children)
The wealthy buy the laws that... bla bla bla
That's only because your favorite crooked politicians win reelection over and over. Nothing will be done about the wealthy until people quit voting for their goons over and over every two years.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @01:21PM (31 children)
Did you vote? If so, doesn't that make you part of the problem?
Since voting keeps crooked politicians in office, are there any other ways to deal with those problems? Because if not, you're going to ride that out-of-control train straight into the wall at full speed.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday October 26 2017, @06:15PM (30 children)
Since voting keeps crooked politicians in office, are there any other ways to deal with those problems?
Yes, by voting for different politicians. It's all up to the voter. The choice is simple.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @07:26PM (29 children)
I... see. So when you voted, you voted for crooked politicians? Because if you claim that you didn't vote for crooked politicians, you've just demonstrated that voting isn't working for you.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday October 27 2017, @01:45AM (28 children)
Wrong again...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 27 2017, @04:13AM (27 children)
Which of your two claims is the right one? That voting is the way to get rid of crooked politicians, or that the reason we have crooked politicians is that people vote?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday October 27 2017, @04:29AM (26 children)
the reason we have crooked politicians is that people vote for crooked politicians. That is their prerogative. Such is life.
Keep trying, my friend, comprehension is at hand.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 27 2017, @09:46AM (25 children)
You've just circled back around to "voting keeps crooked politicians in office" [soylentnews.org].
Which approach keeps crooked politicians out of office? Voting? It can't be voting, as that keeps crooked politicians in office.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday October 27 2017, @04:02PM (24 children)
*sigh* you're still misreading, must be trolling actually. Nobody can seriously be this obtuse.
Voting doesn't keep crooked politicians in office, voters do that, by choice. Talk to them.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 27 2017, @04:18PM (23 children)
And what is it that voters do...?
And when do you expect voting voters to turn this ship around? For one small example, we've gone from a tax on a single beverage in 1791, to today's taxes that eat no less than 50% of ALL a worker's production (arguably 88% after "costs of compliance" are factored in). When is this vote-thing or vote-ers going to make things better rather than incredibly worse? What if someone doesn't feel like waiting another two hundred and twenty-six years for someone else (i.e. voting) to start fixing problems?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday October 27 2017, @04:31PM (22 children)
And when do you expect voting voters to turn this ship around?
If and when they want. It's up to them. The choice is still theirs. There is no other solution.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 27 2017, @04:36PM (21 children)
Sounds like you're enjoying blaming the victims.
Wow, really? Do you work for the government?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday October 27 2017, @04:40PM (20 children)
Sounds like you're enjoying blaming the victims.
No, it's you playing the classic victim card. Learned helplessness. A self built prison.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 27 2017, @05:02PM (19 children)
That's quite an assumption you've made, and incorrect, as I'm already doing things other than voting to address the socio-political problems I see.
You are the one stuck in the "vote or nothin'" prison, blind to the results of its 200+ year track record of failure: "Oh well, I voted. Nothin' else I can do." What was that about "projection" [soylentnews.org]?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday October 27 2017, @10:55PM (18 children)
You are the one stuck in the "vote or nothin'" prison
That is your thought, not mine. And of course you offer nothing better.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @09:42AM (17 children)
No, it is your thought [soylentnews.org].
One step at a time, please. Voting's effectiveness or lack thereof does not change in regards to there being or not being better solutions. Truth be told, however, I've previously told you of several means to address socio-political problems. We can revisit those once you are able to question your own words that you wrote in this very thread about there being no other solution than voting. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday October 28 2017, @04:14PM (16 children)
The voters determine the effectiveness of voting. I never said anything to the contrary. You still misread everything so far. That is the only issue here.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @05:32PM (15 children)
Round and round we go: so tell me, again, when do you expect voting voters to work at bringing the criminality in government to a halt? It's been on a tear for the last 200+ years - at which point do you expect a change and why? Because until that point, voting voters aren't a solution - they're a problem.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday October 28 2017, @07:49PM (14 children)
voters aren't a solution - they're a problem.
Nope, they're both. Just like that guy's cat...
So, cough it up, who/what else is there? You are the one in the circle [youtube.com]
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @08:02PM (13 children)
You made the claim, now back it up: "that guy's" box has been open for 200+ years, and the cat inside has long since turned to dust. At which point during that process did voting voters reduce criminality in government?
Wait, what? Why? As long as you keep insisting that there's only your one "voting voters" "there is no other solution" solution, why in the world would you be interested in anything else?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday October 28 2017, @08:28PM (12 children)
:-) You are the definition of obtuse. Thanks for the laughs...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @08:37PM (10 children)
Unsurprising. When directly challenged, you immediately give up. Just one post after you insinuate I would die from exhaustion [soylentnews.org], you cut and run when you are apparently unable to come up with even a token example of evidence to support your claim that "voting works and is the only solution" to get rid of crooks in government.
Have fun voting. I'm sure it'll start working sometime over the next 200 years or so...
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday October 28 2017, @09:17PM (9 children)
:-) Well, you have fun protesting, complaining, or whatever it is you do... Wake us up when you have something better and more effective, you know, lottery, conscription, I'm open to any old thing. Just name it..
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @09:46PM (8 children)
No, I'm not going to repeat myself regarding other options so long as you continue to publicly advocate, without evidence, a failed approach of voting voters to keep government from doing illegal things. You're not intellectually ready for another step down this path until you can critically and honestly examine your own premises.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday October 29 2017, @01:52AM (7 children)
Eh, there ya go, you're just trolling...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @09:44AM (6 children)
Deflection is not intellectually honest, nor does it answer the question of when you expect your "only solution" of voting voters to get rid of criminality in government, since it hasn't been working over the last 200+ years. When you can either answer the question, or admit that you CANNOT answer and therefore are ready to examine your premises and discard any that do not hold up to scrutiny, we can start moving past this point.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:36PM (5 children)
I answered everything you asked. Intellectual honesty is not your forte, you have yet to show any.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:59PM (4 children)
And now you resort to blatant lying. A vapid response that has no bearing on the question does not equate to answering the question (e.g. "you're obtuse", "you're trolling", "no I didn't say that (even though I said that just a post or two ago)").
Those are just a sample of the unanswered questions I asked of you in this thread in response to your freely-offered commentary [soylentnews.org] on the cures and/or causes of criminality in government.
As for your accusation of dishonesty, I add another question to the pile of unanswereds: where and how was I intellectually dishonest? I'm the only AC responding to you in this thread thus far.
Though if you want to turn over a new leaf and start examining the topic of your own post at the top of this thread, an answer to just the first blockquoted question of mine will do.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday October 29 2017, @06:47PM (3 children)
I left nothing unanswered. It's all there for you to see. You simply choose not to. I can't help that.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @07:15PM (2 children)
The thread's right above you for you to read. You answered exactly ZERO of my blockquoted questions above. Here they are again:
The top question is the most relevant, though ALL are still unanswered and because of your claim to have "answered every question" ALL make you out to be a liar, easily proven by this same thread.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday October 29 2017, @07:30PM (1 child)
Just checked. Everything has been answered. You rejected them. Not my problem. Toodles...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @08:50PM
Again, you lie. Not a single one of those four questions has an answer (the "it's the voters" is a non-answer considering that the voters, as I had to explicitly detail for you, do the voting, and you completely ignored the "why" portion of the same question), and the bottom three have not even a pretense of an answer. Lies upon lies. All the more curious as to what station in life you fell into that tolerates such behavior to the extent that you can sustain your existence.
The top blockquoted unanswered question is still the most germane one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @11:28PM
What was there to be obtuse about? You brought up Schrödinger's cat [wikipedia.org] first (a thought experiment in which a cat in a box is simultaneously both alive and dead), and the next post also referenced it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NewNic on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:03PM (3 children)
Not when no-one involved in those markets is paying the real cost of the externalities.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:25PM
You're basically saying that in the American society, property rights aren't strong enough.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:33PM
You imply that Government is handling externalities on behalf of the public, but here they are promoting a business scheme that exploits externalities! GTFO!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Osamabobama on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:49PM
The market is working just fine, but it's not the fuel market or the corn market you should be looking at. It's the market for votes and politicians that is driving the policy.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:50PM
Too late. I was looking at windfarm land in Western Nebraska around 2004. At that time, you could get land for about $500 per acre, because wind power is speculative and unproven, and there was no market for the corn or wheat that could be grown on the land. In Western Nebraska, wind power is still speculative and unproven, but as soon as the ethanol in gasoline mandate was passed, all that land I was looking at jumped up to between $2500 and $3000 per acre, because suddenly it could be leased to corn farmers. Millions of acres quintupling in value overnight, Billions in value "created" - with the associated tax revenue streams.
Kill the ethanol subsidy and suddenly, all that land that has been trading hands at $3000 per acre for the past 10+ years will lose its value. People will be sad, people with money, that's bad for politics, and the politicians are the deciderators, that is: they make the decisions, or so said GW Bush back then.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Informative) by Snotnose on Wednesday October 25 2017, @06:26PM (8 children)
It's expensive, it turns food into fuel, it doesn't have the energy density of gas, and it can harm some engines.
Given the choice I wouldn't go near ethanol. Except the the ethanol that fuels me, of course.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:21PM (4 children)
Granted Ethanol is a net loss. Has been since inception. It was never about making gasoline cheaper, or cleaner.
It was always about stretching gas supplies and having domestic alternatives, and reducing refinery work loads.
The Obama rules were going to increase ethanol percentage above the current 10%. Quite harmful to engines and fuel systems.
EPA was also looking at reductions to blend at lower percentages. Saves engines, would't really lower the price of food.
In the end, it became cheaper (politically and economically) to do NOTHING. Any change would cost some money, either in government regs, costs imposed on users, engine tuning, mixing plants, etc.
So there's no story here - other than the foolishness of ethanol is still used for fuel. Nothing is changing. The current nonsense prevails, as it has since the Jimmy Carter era. This problem is going to slowly start solving itself as electric and plug-in-hybrids cars become a greater percentage of the fleet along with miles per gallon improvements.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NewNic on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:10PM
Ethanol has never been anything but a giant subsidy to certain farming interests. It doesn't reduce the need for oil significantly (growing corn for ethanol is ridiculously inefficient and uses massive amounts of fossil fuels to make fertilizer and power farm machinery).
Corn is grown to produce ethanol mostly in states where their votes have an outsize influence on the electoral college.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 26 2017, @02:27PM (2 children)
A whole lot of the land that's growing corn for ethanol right now would be converted to CRP (conservation resource program) land if the ethanol demand for corn went away. So, instead of subsidizing corn for fuel, food, and various other programs, the taxpayers would instead be paying land owners to not grow anything.
Personally, I prefer the CRP option, I think subsidized corn has gone too far and it's extending the lifespan of the fossil fuel economy. CRP is good for wildlife, but wildlife doesn't vote.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Thursday October 26 2017, @05:28PM (1 child)
CRP isn't that good for wildlife. It's not like they just let the land go fallow and let nature take it back. No, each state has a department that decides what has to grow there, and they change every couple years, so all that habitat will be plowed yo, new stuff planted, every few years. It's better than corn for miles and miles, but it still sucks.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 26 2017, @09:32PM
True enough, pheasant and some other birds do pretty well on CRP, but, yeah, those "good for the wildlife" claims should really be stated like you did "better than corn."
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:06PM (1 child)
Where is Ethanol-fueled these days?
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @07:07AM
Out standing in his field
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:52PM
CA gas is 10% ethanol. I suppose it's better than MTBE that poisoned our watertable.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Wednesday October 25 2017, @10:19PM (1 child)
This is a must-see for everyone:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/war-on-the-epa/ [pbs.org]
Yea, let's just put the EPAs biggest enemy in charge of it right? There isn't any EPA anymore for all intents and purposes. It's a fake government agency run by the energy industry, climate deniers, and climate don't-give-a-fuck-ers. There's just no other way to sugar coat it. I don't think this level of fox guarding the hen house occurred even in the gilded age.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 26 2017, @02:31PM
It's not just the EPA. Trump is demonstrating the power of the presidency, stretching it to its limits. Thankfully, there are limits, and some of the agencies that have been "re-headed" by political appointment are revolting at the lower ranks. What this all really shows is that the very same thing has been happening at the EPA and other agencies since their inception, but previous presidents handled it without such hamhanded obviousness.
🌻🌻 [google.com]