Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 9 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Editorial: Biodiesel law will be good for the state
Published Friday, May 8, 2009
Minnesota government leaders and Gov. Tim Pawlenty can take pride in moving Minnesota forward with a strategic energy policy that is leading the country.
On May 1, Minnesota became one of the first, if not the first, state to require its diesel fuel be blended with 5 percent biodiesel, up from the 2 percent level of the past few years. It’s part of a plan established by Pawlenty and approved overwhelmingly by both parties in the Legislature. The plan makes Minnesota the first state in the nation to require B20, or 20 percent biodiesel by the year 2015.
Vehicles have been running on the 2 percent biodiesel since 2005 with little or no trouble. The product is made mainly from homegrown soybeans, but recently, more and more farmers are looking at producing biodiesel from other feedstocks, such as animal fats, spent cooking oil and algae, according to the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.
This progress should not be underestimated, and these programs should be pushed even more as we grow increasingly aware of our dependence on foreign and limited domestic petroleum.
Minnesota has been a leader in clean fuels since 2005. An EPA report lauds Minnesota as a leader in alternative fuel production noting the state’s numerous ethanol plants and its establishment of some 100 fueling stations that sell E85, a cleaner burner gasoline with 85 percent ethanol.
Energy security and independence are goals all Minnesotans can embrace. Now the state and its leaders have given ordinary citizens tools to achieve and act on those goals. It’s up to us to make energy independence happen.
— The Free Press of Mankato, May 5
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Are you kidding me? When will we get rid of this junk? Man what a waste of money and time.
Posted by dewdroppedin (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let’s see, eat our food or burn our food?
Why is a Republican governor signing a bill that forces changes in the free market? This is exactly opposite of the “free market” the Republicans claim they like and want. If it is a good idea, ie it makes money, why does the government need to mandate it, shouldn’t it happen on its’ own.?
When it comes to unions we hear about free markets for labor, when it comes to high oil prices, that’s just free markets at work, but when it’s about helping a local special interest group with a subsidy or mandated usage, then it’s just fine to mess with the free market.
Maybe it is a little comforting that Republicans are like most other people, they will let go of their principles in order to help out their friends.
Posted by slapshot (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I understand your "free market" take on this. However, helping the local economy is only one part of the justification. Personally, I like the fact that it helps reduce our dependance on foreign oil. Is that a conservative or liberal goal? It should be both.
Admittedly, ethanol and biodiesel alone will never do the trick on foreign oil but it is a move in the right direction.
As for the eat or burn comment, it is a matter of prioritizing. That argument could also be applied to "subsidizing" roads and housing developments as well. What about all of the crop land that is taken out of production and paved over via the use of public money? That causes a tighter supply of commodities, so prices rise. Should we stop building roads so that food prices can remain a bit lower? It is a matter of priorities.
How about organic farms? I'm all in favor of them, but they only produce about 60-70% of the output of traditional farms. It is like taking land out of production . . . thereby increasing food prices. Again, it is a matter of priorities.
Hopefully the technology will advance soon so that corn ethanol plants can convert to cellulose -- switch grass, etc. If more ethanol can be produced off of less acres, that would benefit everyone. I believe that the technology is getting closer all of the time.
One last comment -- Commodoty prices are much lower again now, but food prices have not fallen in line. Why is that? The extra margin all of the grociers and food processors are making is like a subsidy paid by the shoppers.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 5:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dew,
Most of the time I do not agree with you but I agree with you on this. If it is such a great idea let it make it on it's own. Way to much government in our lives.
Posted by AzAce (anonymous) on May 9, 2009 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Do you have any idea the amount of water and energy it takes to produce this stuff? Because of this, the only way biodiesel or ethanol can survive is with taxpayer subsidies.
Sure, most of the farm community is happy, but this is a very short sided energy whose time has already expired. If you will read newspapers from other parts of the nation, it is apparent that the farm belt is the last region to figure out that this stuff is a bad idea on both economic and environmental levels.
Posted by GH2ORepub (anonymous) on May 9, 2009 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As near as I can tell there is still a lot of oil in the mid-east.
That means that they can really influence the price of any substitute.
I say no subsidies for any source of energy. Let the free market set the price. That will give us the biggest bang for the buck. Make all sources compete for the American dollar.
Posted by demo1960 (anonymous) on May 9, 2009 at 9:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
NoDFL - what is your problem with biodiesel. Have you done research to prove that our govenor doesn't know what he is doing concerning alternative fuel sources?
Dewdroppin - Biodiesel is not only made out of food sources, unless you eat algae on a regular basis.
AZACE - just how much water and energy is used to produce ethanol and biodiesel? I would like to know the answer to that since you seem to know.
GH20Repub - Free market - are you kidding me. If anyone thinks it is a "real" free market out there you are very naive. There is price fixing all the time and anyone that does any shopping knows that. Free market - hah. Government gives subsidies, tax breaks etc all the time to all kinds of industry. And sure the middle east has plenty of oil, but what happens when they want to charge more? They cut back on the oil.
Face it - government is always going to tax us and spend our money. For the most part, we need the service that govenment provides. Both parties spend our money. It is how they spend our money that is the difference. Of course if you don't like it you can try to run for office or at least have some alternative ideas. Final alternative could be move somewhere they don't tax you and you can fund your own schools and build your own roads and bridges.
Posted by trifid (anonymous) on May 11, 2009 at 12:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The ethanol industries are not even near profitability. The direct subsidies is one payment. The ag subsidies to farmers growing corn & soybeans is another huge payment. The other payments include the cost of cleaning up our rivers and lakes, the health costs involving toxic ag chemicals, and the degradation of our soil and enviroment.
Ethanol is a PR job that is transferring weath from one sector to another. And the crimminal bankers love it.
Posted by GH2ORepub (anonymous) on May 11, 2009 at 10:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
N0DFL All I said was “Let the free market set the price”.
Is the system perfect----probably not?
Is it better than any other system? It was for me and I didn’t break any laws in accumulating what I have.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
The Tribune encourages healthy, respectful dialogue in the spirit of community enlightenment. It's OK to disagree, but be courteous and civil. Name-calling, vulgarity and claims of criminality are subject to removal.
(Requires free registration.)