The Swamp
-
Posted April 29, 2008 1:34 PM
The Swamp

Durbin at food price hearing small.jpg
(Photo by Tim Sloan/AFP/Getty Images)


by Frank James

Sen. Richard Durbin knew he potentially could be stepping on a cow pie yesterday if he didn't carefully answer a reporter's question yesterday about the inflationary effect U.S. ethanol mandates might be having on food prices around the world.

The Senate's second-in-commade represents Illinois, after all, a state with large farm interests. And his party's presidential and congressional fortunes also depend on voters in states significant agricultural interests.

So Durbin was not only careful in what he said, but he was clear in asking reporters to report his answer accurately. He basically acknowledged that ethanol is part of the problem without saying much that would offend farmers. Budding politicians should study it as a great example of how to straddle an issue.

REPORTER: Senator Durbin, a lot of people, hunger experts, say that the demand for biofuels, ethanol and other biofuels, is contributing a lot to the increase in prices.

Do you think we should revisit things like the ethanol mandate here, to make sure that we're not making --

SEN. DURBIN: I think we ought to take an honest look at it.

I've supported ethanol from the beginning and I've supported biofuel production in our country. The object of having homegrown fuel, in America, is a good goal. And it's one that we're moving toward every so slowly but moving toward.

But we have to understand that it's had an impact on food prices, and let's be honest about it. Even in the corn belt, we'd better be honest about it.

SEN. DURBIN: I recently had the ambassador from Mexico in. In Mexico, they grow white corn to make tortillas, the staple of their diet. They used to import yellow corn to feed their livestock, so that they could have meat and poultry and other things as well.
Well, because of the price of yellow corn, coming in from the United States now at near six dollars a bushel, they've started feeding white corn to their livestock, which means the cost of tortillas has gone up.

This is all part of the reality of what we're facing here. And I think we have to be honest about it. There's one other element I would add, and I'll speak for myself here.
The secretary of State suggested to me that we should, at this time especially, be trying to find local sourcing for some of the commodities that are needed. I think that is an eminently sensible observation.

Because of the high prices in the United States, the notion of buying corn, wheat -- whatever it happens to be -- here, and then paying to ship it, would mean that the dollars we'd put into this effort would be diminished by high local commodity prices and the cost of transportation.

So I told her that I'm open to that suggestion. Let's find the most cost-efficient way to provide this food for the people who desperately need it.

In the long haul, you, I think, could put your finger on what we need to do. We need to step back at this point and take an assessment. How quickly can we move to cellulosic feedstock for ethanol and away from corn as the main feedstock? These are all critical questions made even more important by this global food crisis.

REPORTER: Senator, what kind of traction do you think that idea may get, you know, moving away from ethanol --

SEN. DURBIN: Let me tell you, I've tried to be very careful in the way I answer it, and I hope you'll report it accordingly, and that is that we need to take a look at this current situation, the biofuel situation, and the global food crisis and determine exactly what the impact is on any given place. I can't imagine that using corn for ethanol in Illinois is going to raise the price of rice, which has happened dramatically around the world. So, I mean, let's take a look at this thing and make sure that we play it out in an honest fashion.
Most of us have said from the beginning that we understand the feedstock for ethanol is likely to change once we develop cellulosic sources. And some of these sources will not be at the expense of the food supply. We may use a lot of things that are being cast away now as worthless that could turn out to be good feedstock for ethanol. So please don't draw the conclusion from your original question that I've called for changing the program until we take a close look at it.

So don't put words in my mouth, Durbin was telling reporters. Yes, the nation needs to rethink in a "close" and "honest" way its use of corn for ethanol.

But Durbin's hasn't gotten where he has by being politically inept. It's corn-based ethanol until something better comes along.

And, while he didn't say this, if that something else can be grown in the Corn Belt, switchgrass maybe, and be a moneymaker for Durbin's agricultural constituency, that wouldn't be a bad thing either.

Digg Delicious Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo

Comments

I don't care what side of the aisle this idea came from...but it was not very well thought out at all. There was plenty of info out there that said the amount of energy it took to produce a biofuel with corn was higher than gas. It didn't take a genus to figure what it would do to foodprices which also affect food for livestock.


Mr. James:

Price increases owing to scarcity and greater demand do not equal inflation. Higher prices are the result of inflation only they result from the increase in the money supply, or the decrease in GNP in relation to the money supply, and the resulting devaluation of the currency.


The problem is not biofuel. The high prices should/would attract more farmers to increase the amount of farmland and take advantage of the prices while they are high. Eventually as more got into the game prices would fall. The problem is that arable land is decreasing because of extreme drought, especially across the Western US, shrinking reservoirs necessary to irrigate, increasing global temperatures, and a depleted ozone that allows more harmful UV to penetrate Earth's atmosphere and results in less efficient photosythesis and lower crop yields. To blame biofuel and ignore all of these other factors is just wrong.


Too bad we can't fuel our economy on hot air - otherwise Durbin would be able to provide energy to the whole state of Illinois. Durbin is almost as big an embarassment as Obama - with people like them in the Senate - no wonder this country is going downhill! Vote the Bums out!!!!!!!!!


The problem is and always, will be, Oil Corporations. The whole ethanol factor arose out of the oil corporations desire to extend the use of fossil fuels by way of diluting the oil product, and joining forces with Agra-business Corps., to form a monolithic Corporation-based entity. It takes one gallon of gasoline to make one gallon of ethanol. Where is the saving!!!!? The ethanol mix has proven to damage the internal parts of the engine, in vehicles. There are no proven studies that it is any less dirty, a burn, than gasoline. Real alternatives to fossil fuels are no longer just a liberal cause, they are a necessity, that better be pursued, instead of ripping up our beautiful lands that have been protected, all these years!! Price controls are another area to consider, after a record, 123 BILLION DOLLARS, IN PROFITS FOR THE OIL CORPORATIONS!!! Don't we think there is something wrong with that profit margin? Price gouging? Greed? Tax breaks for the Oil Corporations!!! Are we that crippled, mentally, that we, the voters, can't elect persons who will right these wrongs? I sure hope not. I think the Democrats should be given a chance to correct this pathetic picture of Greed, after all, it was on the Republican's watch, that this Greed flourished. Vote Democrat, if you want change!!!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE. NOW.


To blame biofuel and ignore all of these other factors is just wrong.

Posted by: sterling adamson | April 29, 2008 2:19 PM

It's not blaming biofuel, however, if it takes more energy to produce a gallon of biofuel than a gallon of gas, where is the benefit?


"The Senate's second-in-commade represents Illinois, after all, a state with large farm interests."

By the way, we're not talking about the hard scrabble family farm here. "Farm interests" means ADM, ConAgra etc.

They also help bankroll the Candidate of Hope. Check out Oprahma's position on ethanol.


if it takes more energy to produce a gallon of biofuel than a gallon of gas, where is the benefit?

Posted by: bill r. | April 29, 2008 3:04 PM
Biofuels are renewable unlike Petroleum and money goes into the pockets of farmers in the Midwest. Not some fat, terrorist supporting Sultan in the Middle East. Just off the top of my head


Bill r., finally makes some sense. Sterling adamson does not.
Sterling, the problem is not drought or the fantasy of increasing global temperatures. Bill r is correct in that it takes more energy to produce a gallong of biofuel, so what is the gain? You are wasting more energy to make something than the energy you are getting. Also ethanol is a very bad polluter.
Then we have Don Fitzgerald and his insane rant on the evil oil corporations. The comments from Sterling and Don show the Loony Left is completely incapable of playing a role in solving the energy problems afflicting not just the U.S. but the world.
You don't want energy money going to the sultans, then help get drilling going in ANWR, the Gulf and other places.


Biofuels are renewable unlike Petroleum and money goes into the pockets of farmers in the Midwest. Not some fat, terrorist supporting Sultan in the Middle East. Just off the top of my head
Posted by: sterling adamson | April 29, 2008 3:25 PM

Biofuels aren't only grossly inefficient (as billr rightly points out) but they're filthy. The entire process from planting to distillation to delivery dumps tons of pollutants into the air, ground and water. And then they burn dirtier than gasoline.

Furthermore, we have seen that they jack up the price of food across the board. Oh, and the "farmers" in the Midwest you refer to are mainly giant international corporations.

So I have to repeat billr's question: where is the benefit?


I'm with John D and Bill R on this one. There have been no conclusive studies that prove that corn ethanol burns cleaner than traditional gasoline and as they've already pointed out there is simply no gain in energy efficiency from them because they take just as much oil to produce.

Sorry Iowa and Turbin, the word is out and people know that ethanol's a crock.


How does using corn for ethanol increase the price of rice?

Diverting corn for ethanol drives up the price of corn. Faced with higher prices, people seek alternatives, other grains, including rice. The higher demand for rice drives up its price, just as the higher demand for corn occasioned by its use for ethanol as well as food increased its price.

Simple economics, which Sen. Durbin apparently has not been exposed to.


Simple economics, " DaveB " for simpletons??!!!! Senator Durbin has more on the ball, a sleep, than the entire Republican Party has, when they are all awake!!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE. NOW.


Subsidized food burning (biofuel) makes no economic sense and is bad for the environment. But it is clearly very good for ADM and other ethanol producers and for the economy of Illinois.

I like Durbin, but he and many of his colleagues in both houses, both parties as well as past and present administrations, are wrong on biofuel.


Energy problem? Dick Durbin and the people who think like him are the problem.

Solution? Fewer Durbins in the senate.


The Illinois combine is all about big agriculture--even while Obama quaffs those arugula smoothies.
Most people would not want to EAT the products of the agri=business folks--and yet note how the Illinois combine shoves this stuff down our peasant throats.


Thank you, Don Fitzgerald, for your constructive response to my post.

Now, what do you think about the effect of increased corn demand on the price of rice?


Only in America, can we rant about the price of rice, while our men and women in uniform are dying and being maimed in the dumbest war, the dumbest President, ever hoodwinked us into!! Only in America. God bless, all of us!!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE. NOW.


Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | April 30, 2008 10:12 AM

So it doesn't bother you that the cost of rice has tripled for people around the world who are trying to survive on $2 per day?


Dickie Durbin wants to be quoted accurately. Well he is against drilling or building new refineries in America or ANWAR because he is controlled by environmental wackos like the Sierra Club. The whole Democrat Party talks about conservation and alternative fuels.
Yesterday, Chuckie Schemer was against drilling in

ANWAR because it would take 10 years to recover the oil. Well Bill Clinton as President vetoed drilling in ANWAR in 1994 so Dickie and Schemer if he had backed oil drilling we would have had the oil in 2004.
Instead this group of environmental socialists has kept America from succeeding.
Their energy policy is like Jimma Carters put on a sweater and turn down the thermostat this for the greatest nation on earth.
Right now as I type these words Communist China is drilling off the Florida Gulf and the oil is going to China.
The modern Democrat Party won't face the facts that until we develop a real solution there is plenty of oil in America and with all new technologies it could be safe for the environment to drill and refine. We haven't built a refinery in 30 years.
But, the liberal Democrat socialists don't want whats good for America they hate our capitalist system. Instead they hug the trees pretend to find global warming when temperatures haven't risen since 1998.
President Bush is right we need a comprehensive energy solution not half hearted attempts to join the Amish community by going back to the 19th Century.
Dickie is finally admitting that corn is food and he is a bit skittish coming from this farm state.
The Democrats and the environmental wackos are solely responsible for high gas prices.
They the government do not discover oil or drill for it or refine it or distribute it. Instead like parasites they confiscate taxes from all oil and gas production. Its stickem up. Were the government and were here to help you as President Reagan said.
Now they want windfall profits taxes on gas and oil that would only exacerbate the payment at the pump. The oil companies would pass these taxes onto the consumer.
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Dickie Durbin and Chuckie Schumer are part of the problem they will never be the solution. Wakeup America! Jerry White, Springfield, IL:


What bothers me, is the fact that Americans would rather play tiddle-dee-winks, while our men and women are fighting and dying in Iraq and no one wants to discuss that, in hopes that it will just not be brought up. Let's worry about our own problems, than we can worry about the world's problems.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE. NOW.


What bothers me, is people who continually try to hijack threads, on whatever subject, to post rants on their favorite single issues.


Post a comment

(Anonymous comments will not be posted. Comments aren't posted immediately. They're screened for relevance to the topic, obscenity, spam and over-the-top personal attacks. We can't always get them up as soon as we'd like so please be patient. Thanks for visiting The Swamp.)

Please enter the letter "x" in the field below:

Election 2008
Tag Cloud
[What is this?]