Actually ...
The corn lobby in the US is just as formidable as the oil lobby right now, because they have been given a "blank check" by "popular environmentalism." They are taking advantage of the "popular environmentalism" movement to move to ethanol, by
using foodstuffs (and even getting subsidies to boot -- which is even more ludicrous). As the US is moving towards a 10% ethanol economy,
nearly 1/3rd of all foodstuffs are being used for (or adapted to) fuel production now. The mandate is 22% in the next few decades, moving that to well over half.
I believe in ethanol (and methanol) as a good move. But it's only a good move when
non-foodstuffs are used. That's because the last few years have seen the
total elimination of the surplus corn, grain and other output. Unlike
any other aspect of the agricultural economy of the US,
the federal government has no control over this, and the 'free market' effects are now being seen. That's why states are the ones that have to address this.
So, right now, a few Congressmen and women are braving crossing the corn lobby, of which they will
certainly fail. It's not just reps of petroleum states,
but many mid-western, agricultural states too (which basically now ***** their chance of being re-elected). Again, the US has basically eliminated its surplus agriculture in just a few years of this. And that has sent everything skyrocketing world-wide. It was just 20 years ago that other nations "complained" about the low-prices of food because of the US surpluses, which ****** their exports. Now we're seeing the opposite.
Because nearly 1/3 of US agriculture is already, or switching too, using its foodstuffs for fuel production. It will be over 1/2 in 2 decades if the mandates hold. What we need are mandates that
largely non-foodstuffs be used. Until then, the corn lobby will keep taking advantage of the 'popular environmentalism' movement, and their ignorance to this fact. It's the repeat them: Why market when ignorant 'popular environmentalism' will give you an avenue to push your agenda. With 85% of the American public blaming oil companies, and not the real culprit -- the commodities market (and those factors) -- why not? I mean, if I'm in the corn lobby, I'm living it up right now!
It's not that engineers and economists are against ethanol (or methanol). It's that engineers and economies are against ethanol (or methanol) based on
food stuffs. That has got to stop. But because the corn lobby is pretty damn powerful, it's hard to tell them what to use, and you can be sure they are going to use food stuffs to drive prices through the roof. A recent study showed that if the US moved to over 50% ethanol usage for just its gasoline needs, our agriculture couldn't support it (even at 100% fuel production) -- unless new technologies were developed to use non-foodstuffs (of which the corn lobby isn't going to be putting money towards
).
"It's the commodities market stupid" -- common investor statement I hear regularly
