RSSPoll Finds Farm Belt Voters Oppose Ethanol Policy
Natl Center For Public Policy Research | July 1, 2008
For Release: June 10, 2008
Contact: Judy Kent at (703) 759-7476 or fjMNKent@aol.com
Farm-Belt Voters Favor Eliminating or Reducing Corn Ethanol Mandate, New Poll Finds
76% of Americans Want Ethanol Law Changed; 41% Want Mandate Repealed Entirely
Washington, D.C. – Most Americans, including those living in the Farm Belt, want Congress to reduce or eliminate the corn ethanol mandate, according to a new poll released today by the National Center for Public Policy Research.
The poll, published by the Public Opinion and Policy Center of the National Center for Public Policy Research, found that 41% of Americans want Congress to repeal the corn ethanol mandate entirely, while 35% want Congress to repeal the law it passed just last December, which will double it. Just 6% want the mandate to increase as planned while 5% want it to be even expanded further.
“With grocery prices up 1.5% in April alone, or 18% on an annualized basis, Americans don’t appear to be in the mood for anything that would push food prices up even further,” said David A. Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “While there is more than one reason that food prices are rising, diverting one-third of the U.S. corn crop to produce fuel rather than food is a significant factor and the American people know it.”
The survey also found a majority in the Farm Belt want Congress to change the ethanol policy. Twenty-five percent want it repealed entirely while 30% want it scaled back.
“Senator Charles Grassley recently called on Iowans to protest what he called a ’smear campaign’ against ethanol,” said Ridenour. “Don’t look for that massive protest any time soon. Ethanol is drawing criticism from the Senator’s own backyard.”
Farm belt support for reducing or eliminating the corn ethanol mandate was higher once respondents were informed that two studies, one from Princeton University and another from the University of Minnesota, found that ethanol contributes more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere than does conventional gasoline. It does so, in part, because it encourages the clearing of so-called carbon sinks, such as rainforests, which absorb carbon dioxide, to produce crops for ethanol production.
“We shouldn’t sacrifice food for fuel, nor should we sacrifice carbon sinks for fuel,” said Ridenour. “Ethanol is costing us as taxpayers, it is costing us as consumers, and it is costing us important environmental resources while providing little-to-no benefit for most of us in return. Ethanol is the fuel to nowhere. Like the infamous ‘bridge to nowhere’ earmark, ethanol mandates mean we all pay enormous costs so a few can benefit.”
Respondents to The National Center’s survey were informed that Congress approved a law in December that doubles the amount of corn ethanol required in our gasoline. They were then informed that ethanol production is expected to use one-third of the U.S. corn crop this year and more through 2015 unless the ethanol mandate is scaled back.
They were then provided with the arguments of both proponents and opponents of the ethanol mandate.
The full survey questions may be found at http://www.nationalcenter.org/
The poll was conducted by Wilson Research Strategies, which surveyed 802 people who are likely to vote in the 2008 general elections. It included 37% registered Democrats, 30% independents and 29% Republicans. It has a margin of error of +-3.46% at 95% confidence interval.
The National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-profit, non-partisan educational foundation based in Washington, DC and established in 1982. The National Center has not received funding from any source specifically to support its research into corn ethanol. The National Center received less than 1% of its 2007 budget from corporations, has received no corporate funding in 2008, and receives approximately 99% of its funding from some 72,000 active individual donors.
Contributor's website: http://nationalcenter.org
Content posted by users from other sites is posted for commentary and news purposes under fair use and each author is responsible for their own postings and a particular posting should not be construed as being endorsed by this site or its owner.
6 Responses to “Poll Finds Farm Belt Voters Oppose Ethanol Policy”
Leave a Reply
Loading ...Recommended Reading:
Grassley is probably the worst whore in the congress since that maggot Paul Simon (IL) he is so OWNED by the agri lobbies and is an embarrasment to all Iowans.
No argument about the inefficiencies of ethanol as a biofuel. “BUT” the corn ethanol has accomplished something that was sorely needed. It has driven the price of corn and other grains up. The U.S. is the largest exporter in the world of grains. We desperately need that cash coming into the U.S. from outside to help reduce our out of control trade-deficit. More reasons why we need to keep the Corn Ethanol Program here:
http://streetlevel.blogtownhall.com/2008/08/16/why_this_conservative_supports_the_corn_ethanol_program.thtml
Darvin Dowdy
So you are against the free markets and think that government interference beyond the Constitution is a good thing if it accomplishes something you like?
No thanks. We don’t need more unprincipled “conservatives” who will ignore the Constitution when it suits them.
This is the free markets working, RonniesRayGun. These are market forces at work. The world community demanded that the U.S. do something about our alleged greenhouse gas emissions. So we complied. Our compliance drove up the price of corn X3. The U.S. is the largest exporter of corn in the world, by far. As a result,the massive influx of foreign currency will not only offset the inefficiencies of the ethanol program, it will also create a lot of high paying agri-business jobs. I’ll wager you didn’t bother to read the link I provided, huh? DD
Darvin Dowdy on September 16th, 2008 6:11 pm:
“This is the free markets working, RonniesRayGun.”
You don’t really believe that crap do you? You really dont believe that when governments mandate something that the “free markets” are at work do you?
You are spouting nothing but gobbledygook trying to say that somehow government interference is free markets.
It’s insanity!
“Free markets” is when you and I agree to exchange goods and services. It is not when I go to a bureaucrat and make him beat you over the head to give me something you do not want to give me. That is exactly what we have with the “ethanol policy”. You can spin it however you like however you will continue to be wrong.
Why do I get the feeling that there is someone in this thread who doesn’t know what he is talking about? And as a hint it isn’t me or LP.