Tag Archives: standard

Falling Stock Markets? Blame China.

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Over at Wonkblog, Ylan Mui writes about the plummeting stock market:

Is this the beginning of “Rate Rage”?

You could be forgiven for thinking so, judging by all the blame that’s been heaped on the Federal Reserve for the selloff in stock markets over the past three days. The blue-chip Dow Jones Industrial Average has plunged 500 points, and the broader Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index erased its gains for the year. Markets Friday morning were already beginning to edge down.

We must read wildly different stuff. I haven’t noticed anyone blaming the Fed for falling stock markets. The headlines have all been like this one in the Wall Street Journal: markets are dropping because investors are afraid that China is about to go belly up. As Mui points out, the Fed’s actions have been widely anticipated, and the timing of the market drop doesn’t really match up with anything new from the Fed anyway. It does match up with investors finally getting nervous after weeks of increasingly bad news from China.

In any case, this is yet another reason the Fed might want to rethink a rate rise later this year. The global economy is not looking especially robust at the moment, with Europe barely growing and China possibly entering a serious slowdown. We don’t really need to add to these problems.

See more here: 

Falling Stock Markets? Blame China.

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Falling Stock Markets? Blame China.

The 8 Best Lines From the Supreme Court Decision That Saved Obamacare

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The members of Congress may occasionally be sloppy boobs, but we must defer to them when their intent is clear. That’s the main message of the Supreme Court decision handed down this morning that protects Obamacare. The issue at hand was whether what was essentially a typo—a poorly worded sentence in the law—could be used to deny health care insurance subsidies to millions of Americans in states where the federal government (not the state government) set up an exchange in which consumers can purchase insurance. Writing for the majority in the 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts told the conservative plaintiffs who had tried to exploit a drafting error (which mentioned only exchanges created by states and not the federal government) to get out of town.

The majority opinion is mostly dry, with Roberts devoting much attention to justifying the court’s decision to consider the full intent of the law and not just the meaning of a few words in a single sentence. Here are some of the best passages:

1. When analyzing an agency’s interpretation of a statute, we often apply the two-step framework announced in Chevron, 467 U. S. 837. Under that framework, we ask whether the statute is ambiguous and, if so, whether the agency’s interpretation is reasonable. Id., at 842–843. This approach “is premised on the theory that a statute’s ambiguity constitutes an implicit delegation from Congress to the agency to fill in the statutory gaps.” FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U. S. 120, 159 (2000). “In extraordinary cases, however, there may be reason to hesitate before concluding that Congress has intended such an implicit delegation.” Ibid.

This is one of those cases… If the statutory language is plain, we must enforce it according to its terms. Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 560 U. S. 242, 251 (2010). But oftentimes the “meaning—or ambiguity—of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context.” Brown & Williamson, 529 U. S., at 132. So when deciding whether the language is plain, we must read the words “in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.” Id., at 133 (internal quotation marks omitted). Our duty, after all, is “to construe statutes, not isolated provisions.” Graham County Soil and Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 559 U. S. 280, 290 (2010).

2. If we give the phrase “the State that established the Exchange” its most natural meaning, there would be no “qualified individuals” on Federal Exchanges. But the Act clearly contemplates that there will be qualified individuals on every Exchange.

As we just mentioned, the Act requires all Exchanges to “make available qualified health plans to qualified individuals”—something an Exchange could not do if there were no such individuals. §18031(d)(2)(A). And the Act tells the Exchange, in deciding which health plans to offer, to consider “the interests of qualified individuals . . . in the State or States in which such Exchange operates”—again, something the Exchange could not do if qualified individuals did not exist. §18031(e)(1)(B). This problem arises repeatedly throughout the Act. See, e.g., §18031(b)(2) (allowing a State to create “one Exchange . . . for providing . . . services to both qualified individuals and qualified small employers,” rather than creating separate Exchanges for those two groups).

These provisions suggest that the Act may not always use the phrase “established by the State” in its most natural sense. Thus, the meaning of that phrase may not be as clear as it appears when read out of context.

3. The upshot of all this is that the phrase “an Exchange established by the State under 42 U. S. C. §18031” is properly viewed as ambiguous. The phrase may be limited in its reach to State Exchanges. But it is also possible that the phrase refers to all Exchanges—both State and Federal—at least for purposes of the tax credits.

4. The Affordable Care Act contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting.

5. Anyway, we “must do our best, bearing in mind the fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.” Utility Air Regulatory Group, 573 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 15) (internal quotation marks omitted). After reading Section 36B along with other related provisions in the Act, we cannot conclude that the phrase “an Exchange established by the State under Section 18031” is unambiguous.

6. Petitioners’ arguments about the plain meaning of Section 36B are strong. But while the meaning of the phrase “an Exchange established by the State under 42 U. S. C. §18031” may seem plain “when viewed in isolation,” such a reading turns out to be “untenable in light of the statute as a whole.” Department of Revenue of Ore. v. ACF Industries, Inc., 510 U. S. 332, 343 (1994). In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.

7. In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined—”to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan.

8. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter. Section 36B can fairly be read consistent with what we see as Congress’s plan, and that is the reading we adopt.

Source article: 

The 8 Best Lines From the Supreme Court Decision That Saved Obamacare

Posted in alo, Anchor, Casio, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The 8 Best Lines From the Supreme Court Decision That Saved Obamacare

Obama and the EPA’s Choice: American Jobs and Innovation, Or Oil Industry Profits?

back

Obama and the EPA’s Choice: American Jobs and Innovation, Or Oil Industry Profits?

Posted 19 June 2015 in

National

The EPA recently issued a proposed rule that sides with oil companies and puts the future of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) at risk, putting hundreds of thousands of American jobs in jeopardy. Sign our petition to tell the President Obama and the EPA to stand up to Big Oil and support a strong RFS.

The post below was authored by Brent Erickson, an Executive Vice President at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a member of Fuels America. It is cross-posted from Medium. Released before the EPA released its proposed rule, it lays out the stakes for rural economies and our energy future if the EPA sides with the oil lobby.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) hold the future of the nation’s renewable fuels policy in their hands. The future of America’s energy security and economy will turn on the EPA’s decision in the coming weeks whether to maintain the foundation of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) or give in to the oil industry’s construction of a “blend wall” when the agency proposes new rules for the 2014, 2015 and 2016 RFS obligations. The agency has a stark choice to make and two disparate options: either cave to the oil lobby and allow oil companies to maintain monopoly control of the motor fuel market or choose our rural economies and advance American innovation.

The RFS was enacted to stimulate investment in research, development and infrastructure for renewable fuel, particularly to produce advanced biofuels. The law gives the EPA responsibility for developing and implementing rules to ensure that there will be a market for all domestic renewable fuel produced up to the volumes prescribed in the statute. Back when Congress was considering the RFS, oil companies fought tooth and nail against a part of the bill that I call the “Consumer Choice Provision” (CCP). This provision directs the EPA to set annual Renewable Volume Obligation (RVO) levels based on the renewable fuel industry’s ability to produce and supply biofuels. The oil lobby instead wanted a law that would have allowed the EPA to set RVO levels below those in the statute if the oil industry simply refused to invest in renewable fuel infrastructure. Essentially, this would have allowed the oil industry to control the way EPA calculates renewable fuel volumes under the RFS — and block competition in our motor fuel marketplace. Had Congress granted the oil lobby what it asked for, oil companies would have had a regulatory mechanism guaranteeing their monopoly at the pump forever, leaving America with more foreign oil imports, more pollution and spills, and more jobs and investment shipped overseas.

Instead, Congress designed the RFS to increase America’s energy security, lessen our dependence on foreign oil (which often comes from hostile regions), extend its commitment to America’s rural communities and green energy investors and innovators, and encourage infrastructure development. The RFS now supports more than 852,000 jobs across America. And thanks to the promise of the RFS, green energy investors have brought three commercial scale cellulosic ethanol facilities online, producing the world’s cleanest motor fuels from agricultural residue.

In the face of this challenge to their market monopoly, the oil industry has grown increasingly reluctant to comply with the RFS. More and more, oil companies have refused to invest in infrastructure for renewable fuel, despite their obligation to do so under the law. Instead, the oil industry has invested in a lobbying effort with hundreds of millions of dollars behind it, pressuring the EPA to thwart the spirit and intent of the RFS. Even oil interests from Saudi Arabia have entered the fight.

In 2013, the EPA caved to oil lobbyists and issued a proposed rule that tossed aside the Consumer Choice Provision, changing the rules on renewable fuel investors midstream and threatening hundreds of thousands of jobs. Just as the advanced biofuels industry was reaching a commercial stage where new biorefineries could be built at lower capital costs, the EPA’s proposed rule chilled investment in the industry. The Administration later took the disastrous proposal off the table, but much of the damage has already been done; since 2013, an estimated $13.7 billion of investment in advanced biofuels has been frozen. $13.7 billion.

When the EPA releases the proposed rules for 2014, 2015 and 2016 in the next week, it must choose between rural economies and American innovation on the one hand and oil company profits on the other. Oil companies are pouring millions into a lobbying effort to convince EPA to do what Congress refused to do nearly a decade ago: propose a rule that would set lower RVO levels based on the oil industry’s refusal to comply with the law.

It isn’t just the biofuels industry that should be worried. If the EPA allows the world’s cleanest motor fuels — a product of American labor, innovation, and investment — to be threatened, simply because the oil industry refuses to live up to its commitments under the law, what can we expect will happen to other clean energy and climate policies? The choice is clear: America’s rural economies or more imported oil from hostile foreign regions; 852,000 American jobs supported by the RFS, or more pollution and spills. Let’s hope that instead of protecting the oil industry’s monopoly and stranglehold on our gas prices, the EPA decides to choose rural economies and American green energy innovation.

Fuels America News & Stories

Fuels
More here: 

Obama and the EPA’s Choice: American Jobs and Innovation, Or Oil Industry Profits?

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, green energy, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama and the EPA’s Choice: American Jobs and Innovation, Or Oil Industry Profits?

America Uses Fahrenheit. The Rest of the World Uses Celsius. America Is Right. The Rest of the World Is Wrong.

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Vox has a post up called “Why Americans still use Fahrenheit long after everyone else switched to Celsius.” In it Zack Beauchamp sides with the standard line that America should jump on the Celsius train and leave Troglodyte Station.

The bizarre measurements commonly used in the US, including Fahrenheit, are bad for its scientific establishment, its kids, and probably its businesses.

Susannah Locke lays out the case for Celsius and the rest of the metric system very persuasively, but here’s a brief recap. The simpler metric scales make basic calculations easier and thus less error-prone. American companies incur extra costs by producing two sets of products, one for the US and one for the metric using world.

American parents and caregivers are more likely to screw up conversion rates when they give out medicine, sending some children, who are more susceptible to overdoses, to the hospital. Further, American students have to be trained on two sets of measurements, making basic science education even more difficult.

Going back to Jefferson there have been many movements to get the US to metricate. Lincoln Chaffee wants to get the US to adopt the metric system, too.

But I am a red-blooded American boy who likes listening to Tom Petty and riding motorcycles and wearing blue jeans and using Fahrenheit so Vox‘s post made me think of this great chart from the wonderful site isomorphismes which explains why our temperature measurement system is the best temperature measurement system.

“Fahrenheit uses its digits more efficiently than Centigrade” isomorphism

Link to article: 

America Uses Fahrenheit. The Rest of the World Uses Celsius. America Is Right. The Rest of the World Is Wrong.

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on America Uses Fahrenheit. The Rest of the World Uses Celsius. America Is Right. The Rest of the World Is Wrong.

EPA’s Choice: American Jobs and Innovation, Or Oil Industry Profits?

back

EPA’s Choice: American Jobs and Innovation, Or Oil Industry Profits?

Posted 27 May 2015 in

National

This post was authored by Brent Erickson, an Executive Vice President at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a member of Fuels America. It is cross-posted from Medium.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) hold the future of the nation’s renewable fuels policy in their hands. The future of America’s energy security and economy will turn on the EPA’s decision in the coming weeks whether to maintain the foundation of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) or give in to the oil industry’s construction of a “blend wall” when the agency proposes new rules for the 2014, 2015 and 2016 RFS obligations. The agency has a stark choice to make and two disparate options: either cave to the oil lobby and allow oil companies to maintain monopoly control of the motor fuel market or choose our rural economies and advance American innovation.

The RFS was enacted to stimulate investment in research, development and infrastructure for renewable fuel, particularly to produce advanced biofuels. The law gives the EPA responsibility for developing and implementing rules to ensure that there will be a market for all domestic renewable fuel produced up to the volumes prescribed in the statute. Back when Congress was considering the RFS, oil companies fought tooth and nail against a part of the bill that I call the “Consumer Choice Provision” (CCP). This provision directs the EPA to set annual Renewable Volume Obligation (RVO) levels based on the renewable fuel industry’s ability to produce and supply biofuels. The oil lobby instead wanted a law that would have allowed the EPA to set RVO levels below those in the statute if the oil industry simply refused to invest in renewable fuel infrastructure. Essentially, this would have allowed the oil industry to control the way EPA calculates renewable fuel volumes under the RFS — and block competition in our motor fuel marketplace. Had Congress granted the oil lobby what it asked for, oil companies would have had a regulatory mechanism guaranteeing their monopoly at the pump forever, leaving America with more foreign oil imports, more pollution and spills, and more jobs and investment shipped overseas.

Instead, Congress designed the RFS to increase America’s energy security, lessen our dependence on foreign oil (which often comes from hostile regions), extend its commitment to America’s rural communities and green energy investors and innovators, and encourage infrastructure development. The RFS now supports more than 852,000 jobs across America. And thanks to the promise of the RFS, green energy investors have brought three commercial scale cellulosic ethanol facilities online, producing the world’s cleanest motor fuels from agricultural residue.

In the face of this challenge to their market monopoly, the oil industry has grown increasingly reluctant to comply with the RFS. More and more, oil companies have refused to invest in infrastructure for renewable fuel, despite their obligation to do so under the law. Instead, the oil industry has invested in a lobbying effort with hundreds of millions of dollars behind it, pressuring the EPA to thwart the spirit and intent of the RFS. Even oil interests from Saudi Arabia have entered the fight.

In 2013, the EPA caved to oil lobbyists and issued a proposed rule that tossed aside the Consumer Choice Provision, changing the rules on renewable fuel investors midstream and threatening hundreds of thousands of jobs. Just as the advanced biofuels industry was reaching a commercial stage where new biorefineries could be built at lower capital costs, the EPA’s proposed rule chilled investment in the industry. The Administration later took the disastrous proposal off the table, but much of the damage has already been done; since 2013, an estimated $13.7 billion of investment in advanced biofuels has been frozen. $13.7 billion.

When the EPA releases the proposed rules for 2014, 2015 and 2016 in the next week, it must choose between rural economies and American innovation on the one hand and oil company profits on the other. Oil companies are pouring millions into a lobbying effort to convince EPA to do what Congress refused to do nearly a decade ago: propose a rule that would set lower RVO levels based on the oil industry’s refusal to comply with the law.

It isn’t just the biofuels industry that should be worried. If the EPA allows the world’s cleanest motor fuels — a product of American labor, innovation, and investment — to be threatened, simply because the oil industry refuses to live up to its commitments under the law, what can we expect will happen to other clean energy and climate policies? The choice is clear: America’s rural economies or more imported oil from hostile foreign regions; 852,000 American jobs supported by the RFS, or more pollution and spills. Let’s hope that instead of protecting the oil industry’s monopoly and stranglehold on our gas prices, the EPA decides to choose rural economies and American green energy innovation.

Fuels America News & Stories

Fuels
See the article here: 

EPA’s Choice: American Jobs and Innovation, Or Oil Industry Profits?

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, green energy, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on EPA’s Choice: American Jobs and Innovation, Or Oil Industry Profits?

3 Fact Checks You Should Read

back

3 Fact Checks You Should Read

Posted 10 April 2015 in

National

From ethanol subsidies that don’t exist to drawing incorrect conclusions from shaky research, Big Oil and its allies have been busy this week — spreading outright lies and misinformation about biofuels and the Renewable Fuel Standard. Luckily, organizations like Media Matters for America and the Renewable Fuels Association have been holding them accountable. Check out some of the best fact checks from the past week in this round-up.
 

The Motley Fool Criticizes Ethanol Subsidies That Don’t Exist
The multimedia financial services company The Motley Fool criticized ethanol for allegedly relying on government subsidies — despite the fact that subsidies for corn ethanol, which comprises the vast majority of ethanol used in the country, ended years ago.
Read the fact check from Media Matters for America.
 
Study: Big Oil Tells the EPA One Thing & Shareholders Another on the Renewable Fuel Standard
A new study published this week by University of Calgary professor James Coleman shows that for years, Big Oil hasn’t been completely honest about the RFS. They’ve been telling the EPA one thing (that the RFS is a horrible, economy-killing law) and telling their shareholders another thing (that it’s no big deal).
Read the full story in the Des Moines Register.
 
Study Based on Shaky Foundation of Faulty Data and Conclusions
A recent study published in Environmental Research Letters by authors at the University of Wisconsin uses error-prone satellite data to suggest that growth in U.S. corn and soybean production from 2008 to 2012 drove massive conversion of grassland, forest, and other “native” lands to cropland. The authors attribute these purported land conversion events, in part, to “increased demand for biofuels.”
However, contrary to the study’s results, there is no empirical evidence to support the argument that U.S. cropland has expanded since 2008, let alone that large tracts of native grassland and forest have been converted to crops.
Read the fact check from the Renewable Fuels Association.

 

Fuels America News & Stories

Fuels
See original article: 

3 Fact Checks You Should Read

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 3 Fact Checks You Should Read

Winners &amp; Losers? Changing the Equation at the Pump

back

Winners & Losers? Changing the Equation at the Pump

Posted 27 March 2015 in

National

Opponents of the commonsense, bipartisan Renewable Fuel Standard like to say that Washington “shouldn’t pick winners and losers” when it comes to energy policy.

It’s hard to make this argument with a straight face, however, especially since Washington has been favoring oil companies with special tax breaks, an oil spill bailout fund, and other favorable policies for more than a century.

It was, after all, President Woodrow Wilson who signed the “percentage based depletion allowance” into law back in 1913 … a tax break which is, incredibly, still on the books after more than 102 years. In contrast, the ethanol tax credit expired in 2012.

The dominance of oil companies has given them a near monopoly on the marketplace and the power to use exclusive supplier/distributor contracts to dictate which fuels retailers can and cannot make available to consumers. There is a long, well documented history of oil companies exerting this control to prevent consumers from having access to a wider range of renewable fuel options — higher octane options that deliver better engine performance but cost less and cut into their bottom line.

The Renewable Fuel Standard changes that equation, and ensures that homegrown, American made renewable fuel has a chance to access the marketplace. It is providing new fueling options for American consumers and creating market certainty so that businesses are investing billions of dollars in next generation technologies like cellulosic ethanol production. Without it, that investment would quickly shift overseas, and America would become ever more dependent on foreign oil.

Gutting the RFS means allowing oil companies to prevent competitors from accessing the market. Now THAT is picking a winner … the same winner Washington has been picking for a century.

Fuels America News & Stories

Fuels
View post:

Winners &amp; Losers? Changing the Equation at the Pump

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Winners &amp; Losers? Changing the Equation at the Pump

New Analysis: Giving Consumers Access to Renewable Fuel Yields Environmental Benefits

back

New Analysis: Giving Consumers Access to Renewable Fuel Yields Environmental Benefits

Posted 20 March 2015 in

National

A new analysis produced by the University of Illinois at Chicago’s principal research economist Dr. Stefen Mueller found that giving consumers more access to cleaner fuel options like E15 would provide significant environmental benefits. E15 is a cleaner burning, high-octane, high-performance fuel that also costs about 5 cents less per gallon than regular gasoline.

In Kansas, giving consumers the choice to use E15 would reduce carbon pollution by 184,226 metric tons per year.
In North Carolina, offering E15 would reduce carbon pollution by 617,870 metric tons per year.
In Ohio, offering E15 would reduce carbon pollution by 711,179 metric tons per year.
In Michigan, offering E15 would reduce carbon pollution by 661,051 metric tons per year.
In Wisconsin, offering E15 would reduce carbon pollution by 351,272 metric tons per year.
In Iowa, offering E15 would reduce carbon pollution by 220,821 metric tons per year.
In Illinois, offering E15 would reduce carbon pollution by 663,646 metric tons per year.

While regular gasoline contains about 10% ethanol as a way to deliver added octane and limit emissions, E15 fuel contains 15% renewable, American made ethanol — helping to create jobs across the country and lower our dependence on foreign oil.

Because it improves engine performance and burns with fewer emissions, E15 has been adopted throughout professional auto racing.

Under the commonsense, bipartisan Renewable Fuel Standard, clean burning E15 is expected to become more widely available to consumers alongside regular gasoline — giving consumers an additional choice and the opportunity to save money each time they fill up. Maintaining a strong Renewable Fuel Standard is a smart and effective way to substantially reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

Read the full report.

Fuels America News & Stories

Fuels
Link:  

New Analysis: Giving Consumers Access to Renewable Fuel Yields Environmental Benefits

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on New Analysis: Giving Consumers Access to Renewable Fuel Yields Environmental Benefits

NY Times Fails To Disclose Oil Funding Behind Pro-Oil Op-Ed

back

NY Times Fails To Disclose Oil Funding Behind Pro-Oil Op-Ed

Posted 12 March 2015 in

National

In a recent New York Times op-ed, the Manhattan Institute’s Robert Bryce falsely characterized the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) as an expensive “tax” and repeated debunked myths from Big Oil, including that renewable fuel can damage car engines (this has been proven wrong) and is bad for the environment (ethanol’s lower greenhouse gas emissions are better for the climate). Worse, the New York Times failed to disclose Bryce’s ties to the oil industry, specifically the millions of dollars that the Manhattan Institute has received from the oil industry over the years.

Read the full story from Media Matters for America.

Fuels America News & Stories

Fuels
Read more: 

NY Times Fails To Disclose Oil Funding Behind Pro-Oil Op-Ed

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, ONA, oven, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on NY Times Fails To Disclose Oil Funding Behind Pro-Oil Op-Ed

Scott Walker Just Blatantly Pandered to Iowa’s Corn Farmers

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

As the Republican governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker has resisted the federal government’s support of the biofuel industry. But last weekend, within the borders of corn-rich Iowa—the state upon which Walker appears most intensely focused for his all-but-announced presidential bid—he sang a different tune. Joining other potential candidates at the Iowa Ag Summit, Walker said he was “willing to go forward on continuing the Renewable Fuel Standard,” a federal policy that requires fuel used in the US to contain at least 10 percent “renewable fuel,” usually ethanol and other biofuel.

As the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel noted, this represents a complete about-face for Walker, who made enemies in Wisconsin for his long resistance to robust ethanol subsidies. Corn is Wisconsin’s most important crop, and in 2012, the state was the nation’s second-biggest ethanol exporter. In January 2014, Walker stayed quiet on a federal proposal to cut ethanol use by three billion gallons. That silence angered biofuel producers in the state, according to the Journal-Sentinel, as well as the governors of nearly every other Midwestern state, including Iowa’s Terry Branstad.

Walker’s opposition to the federal ethanol mandate stretches back to 2006, when he was the Milwaukee county executive running for governor. The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) was a year old, and it was considered a viable way to reduce US use of foreign oil, improve the environment, and help out American farmers. However, Walker said, “it is clear to me that a big government mandate is not the way to support the farmers of this state.” Bruce Pfaff, Walker’s then-campaign manager, told Wisconsin’s Daily Reporter, “How can you justify the mandate when it is not proven whether or not it will help gas prices, the economy or the environment?”

Indeed, studies have found that ethanol is worse for the climate than fossil fuel. Though the mandate has been a boon to corn producers—40 percent of American corn is now used for biofuel—it also caused food prices to rise in the United States and abroad. Beyond that, given the recent increase in fossil fuel production in the US, environmental groups and taxpayer organizations are arguing that continued federal support of ethanol production—once considered an important alternative to foreign oil—is unnecessary.

But in Iowa, which produces nearly a third of US ethanol, the industry is far from unnecessary. The RFS will expire in 2022. This past weekend, Walker said that he’d continue the mandate, but he added that he hoped the United States will eventually not need it.

Walker’s evolution on the issue is already handing his critics and opponents ammunition. The conservative blog Hot Air called Walker’s stance a “big let down.” It praised the lone conservative who opposed RFS last weekend: Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. “I recognize that this is a gathering of a lot of folks where the answer you’d like me to give is ‘I’m for the RFS, darnit.’ That’d be the easy thing to do,” Cruz said. “I’ll tell you, people are pretty fed up, I think, with politicians who run around and tell one group one thing, tell another group another thing.”

Walker’s enemies in the Democratic Party let loose too. DNC spokesman Jason Pitt told the Wisconsin State Journal, “If Scott Walker thinks pandering on ethanol is going to convince people he’s anything but backwards on energy and the environment he can think again.”

Continue reading here – 

Scott Walker Just Blatantly Pandered to Iowa’s Corn Farmers

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, Jason, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Scott Walker Just Blatantly Pandered to Iowa’s Corn Farmers