Patterico's Pontifications


Trump struggles with Biofuel Policy

Filed under: Politics — DRJ @ 5:07 pm

[Headline from DRJ]

Facing farmer anger, Trump scrambles Cabinet to brainstorm on biofuel policy: sources:

U.S. President Donald Trump, faced with mounting anger in the farm belt over policies that allow oil refineries to use less corn-based ethanol, summoned Cabinet members on Thursday to discuss ways to boost biofuel demand, four sources familiar with the matter said.

Throughout his 2016 campaign that brought him to power, Trump championed ethanol but also courted the oil industry. However, his latest decision to grant dozens of waivers to oil refineries infuriated farmers, a key constituency he is counting on for re-election in 2020.

Trump met with Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Andrew Wheeler at the White House, the sources said. They presented options to boost ethanol demand, which farmers say has slumped since the EPA exempted dozens of refineries from ethanol requirements.

It is hard to please Iowa and Texas if you have New York values.


9 Responses to “Trump struggles with Biofuel Policy”

  1. It’s not easy picking winners to buy votes with other peoples’ money!

    Dave (1bb933)

  2. Biofuel is stupid policy. It’s costly. It does nothing to affect global warming. It reduces the amount of food available. Forget about who the policy pleases, it is good policy to reduce or end biofuel subsidies. Trump should be encouraged to do this.

    David in Cal (0d5a1d)

  3. Ted Cruz actually won Iowa despite promising that he would end the subsidy.

    Dave (1bb933)

  4. Command economy at your service!

    Kishnevi (770d0f)

  5. In 2012, I said a Republican must be willing to lose Virginia to gain in other places (e.g. be willing to shrink the federal government). 306 minus 6 is still 300 something.

    urbanleftbehind (255d90)

  6. Ethanol was originally supposed to reduce oil imports, or help in the “ebergy crisis” not cut carbon consumption. It was also supposed to be less polluting locally.

    Sammy Finkelman (c95a5a)

  7. It was meant to offset the axis of powers controlling oil production. With Venezuela dead and the oil sands in the middle east reduced in power, not to mention our vast successes at fracking, this is a policy whose time has come and gone. End it.

    NJRob (93adfe)

  8. It reduces the amount of food available

    No, it reduces the (artificially created) marginal demand for corn. Remove the subsidy and less will be grown, however the potential to grow that food, assuming that what is grown for ethanol purposes is even viable for human or animal consumption, is still viable.

    Seems pedantic but still an important distinction from a political perspective.

    PTw (894877)

  9. Hope Trump supports Ethanol. There’s nothing more idiotic then the Fake Con obsession with subsidizing ethanol.

    rcocean (1a839e)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2692 secs.