Missouri Farm Bureau
|
Kevin Craig - "Liberty Under God"
|
| |
The Missouri Farm
Bureau (MoFB) advocates a surprising amount of socialism and
communism. Capitalism, not socialism,
has created abundant energy and raised our material well-being to
levels undreamed of centuries ago. It is energy --
"horsepower" -- that determines our standard of living.
The more abundant energy is, the higher our standard of living.
Energy is therefore a critical issue. |
| Alternative
Energy Sources |
Why is
"Alternative Energy Sources" an issue? Two reasons: (1)
MoFB thinks oil prices are too high; (2) MoFB thinks we're about to
run out of oil. Both of these assumptions are false.
The annual average inflation adjusted price of a gallon of gas in
1980 was $2.94
(in 2006 dollars). Everybody likes to complain about high prices
rather than be grateful to God that we don't live in a nation where
everyone pulls a rickshaw to work. In addition, because of computers
and other advances in technology, we're more productive today than
50 years ago.
In the 1950s, per-capita real income was less than half what it
is today. That means that for the typical American in the 1950s,
gasoline cost twice as much, in terms of buying power, as today's
gasoline. Adjusted for inflation and for buying power, the
purported "record"-priced gasoline at your pumps now is substantially
cheaper than the gasoline your parents bought. (Easterbrook,
New Republic)
The Department of Energy was created in 1977, and gas prices
began to spike to an inflation-adjusted
historic high in 1981.
The worst thing America can do for energy is to ask the
government to "fix" it. The Missouri Farm Bureau
apparently does not understand this most vital fact.
|
| We
favor expanded efforts to obtain alternative energy sources. |
The word
"efforts" needs to be clarified. Private efforts,
OK; taxpayer financed, not OK. Government has no
Constitutional role in developing energy.
In fact, the best thing the government can do to increase supplies
of energy -- of all forms -- is to deregulate. Completely. Get all
elements of socialism out of the energy business and let competition
in the Free Market provide the cleanest, cheapest sources of energy
to consumers. It was the Free Market, not the government, that has
made energy easier to buy than it was in the 1950's. |
| We
encourage electric companies and cooperatives to increase their
generation of electricity from renewable sources such as animal
waste, crop by-products, forest biomass and other agricultural
residues. |
Americans want the
cheapest and cleanest form of energy. Let the Free Market provide
this energy. Don't dictate what form or forms that energy will take.
Let entrepreneurs compete against each other to create and develop
the cleanest, cheapest forms of energy. Nobody living in 1776 could
have predicted what kind of energy we would be using in 2010.
Certainly government officials in 2010 cannot even imagine what kind
of energy sources we will be using in 2056. Government should not
impose its own limited ideas onto the Market. |
| We
oppose restrictions on hydroelectric dams which limit their ability
to operate at maximum efficiency. |
|
| We
favor additional tax incentives by the state such as low interest
loans, fuel tax considerations or production incentives to encourage
the use of renewable energy sources such as wood chips, wood
pellets, organic solid waste, bio-diesel and ethanol. |
All taxes
on energy production should be abolished. Not just on ethanol, or
some other politically-favored energy source. ALL energy production
and exploration should be un-taxed. "But where would we get the
revenue to pay for the federal Department of Energy?" Abolish
it. That's what the Republicans said they were going to do in 1996,
and haven't yet. |
| We
support the continued expansion of nuclear energy plants, including
breeder reactors, as a source of needed energy with adequate
safeguards to ensure their safe and environmentally sound use, with
increased emphasis regarding the reprocessing of nuclear waste. |
Nuclear power is the
safest and cleanest form of energy today, but it is presently
completely controlled by the federal government. Nuclear power means
federal power. Government control of nuclear power increases the
risk of nuclear war. (Remember "price wars" between gas
stations in the 1960's? This is how businesses compete. Governments
nuke entire populations.) Nuclear energy should be completely
deregulated, and taxpayers should not be compelled to insure nuclear
power plant safety; nuclear power corporations should be required to
assume full liability. |
| We
support additional research into disposal and reprocessing of
nuclear waste. |
This research should be
funded and conducted by the energy companies themselves. (Not that
it's needed. Safe disposal of waste is already fairly
well-established. The dangers are exaggerated.) |
| We support 25x'25, an energy initiative that establishes
the goal of deriving 25 percent of our nation's energy from
renewable sources by 2025. |
|
| With
the Missouri Public Service Commission overseeing the costs charged
to rate payers, we support amending the Construction Work In
Progress Law to allow cost recovery during construction of new power
generation facilities in Missouri. |
|
| Energy
and Agriculture |
|
| We
favor a strong national energy policy. We support the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 and the incentives it provides for the production of
traditional and renewable energy sources. However, further action is
needed to address the vulnerabilities of the U.S. energy sector and
the resulting impacts on our nation's farmers and ranchers. We urge
Congress and the Administration to enact policies that will: |
A "strong national
energy policy" means a "strong government
energy policy," and this means socialism, not capitalism, a
sure way to limit supply, create shortages, raise prices, and lower
our standard of living. |
| 1.
Expedite the development of energy resources anywhere in the U.S.,
including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Outer Continental
Shelf, without unduly impacting the environment; |
This does not require a
"strong energy policy." This requires abolishing
government prohibitions on arctic exploration and drilling. |
| 2.
Increase domestic oil refining capacity by streamlining permitting
requirements and other regulations; |
This does not require a
"strong energy policy." This requires abolishing
government restrictions that unduly hamper energy production. |
| 3.
Diversify geographic locations of oil refineries and U.S. energy
supplies; |
Are politicians
qualified to decide these matters? Under free competition, oil
companies will determine these questions in a way that provides the
cheapest energy to consumers. Capitalism works; socialism fails. |
| 4.
Expedite the construction of liquefied natural gas terminals; |
This should be done by
politicians? |
| 5.
Reduce the number of specialty blends/boutique fuels; |
What if consumers want
them? |
| 6.
Decrease the demand for natural gas by increasing incentives for the
use of clean coal technology in electric power generation; and |
Even assuming the
superiority of clean coal over natural gas, there may be a third
energy source within immediate grasp that needs only a small amount
of funding to develop. By politicizing energy through government
"incentives," we miss the opportunity the Free Market will
provide of developing an energy source that will dramatically
increase our standard of living. Capitalism, not Socialism, will
discover and develop this energy. Politicians will not. |
| 7.
Expand the utilization of renewable fuels. |
The Constitution gives
the federal government no authority whatsoever to force American
farmers and other businesses to use a particular form of energy. The
Missouri Farm Bureau needs to read more about capitalism
and less from the Soviet Energy Czar's playbook. |
| 8.
Expand and construct nuclear power plants. |
|
| Emphasis
should be placed on alternative energy-saving technologies, such as
minimum tillage (where practical), the use of animal wastes on
cropland and pastures, solar drying of grain, high moisture storage
of grain, and the development of vegetable oils, ethanol and
methane. |
Who should place this
"emphasis?" Should they be motivated to place this
emphasis by the threat of fines or jail
terms? Or should they be led by "an invisible hand" to
develop the cleanest, cheapest, and most abundant form of energy? |
| We
believe, in the event of an energy crisis, agriculture should be
granted priority ahead of the other commercial users of fuel and
petroleum products. |
There will be no
"energy crises" if government intervention in energy is
abolished. |
| We
believe the current requirement for energy use information tags on
home appliances is a useful way to assist consumers in making
informed choices when purchasing appliances. However, we oppose
efforts by the government to attempt to restrict consumer choice
based on energy consumption. |
|
| We
oppose additional restrictions on the use of coal in the production
of electricity through government rules, regulations and laws. |
|
| Ethanol,
Methane and Bio-Diesel |
|
| The
summer of 2008 saw historically high corn and soybean prices, which
caused great hardships for livestock and poultry producers. This
price spike was caused not only by increased demand for grain and
ethanol, but by historically high levels of speculation, a record
increase in the price of oil, and was fueled by an unprecedented
collapse in the value of the dollar. It is unlikely this combination
of factors will be repeated, but in the future every effort should
be made to strike a balance with a goal of profitability in both the
crop and livestock sectors. |
|
| We
believe the United States
must explore all practical options for decreasing our costly
dependence on unstable foreign nations for a major portion of our
energy needs, namely oil. We support the development and use of
renewable energy from feedstocks produced on farms, ranches, and
forestlands. Such options include the production of ethanol from
grain and cellulosic materials (e.g. crop residues, forest biomass,
etc.), bio-diesel from oilseeds and animal by-products, synthetic
gas from biomass sources, and fuel pellets from renewable biomass
inputs. We urge the removal
of any government obstacles which may be preventing farmers from
producing these sources of energy. |
The Constitution of the
United States gives the federal government no authority whatsoever
to tax Americans to "explore" energy needs. If the
government had been in charge of energy in 1800, we would all be
using whale oil today. Complete energy de-regulation is needed to
unleash the powers of the Free Market. |
| We
support cooperative efforts between Missouri Farm Bureau and
renewable energy industry stakeholders to achieve greater energy
independence. |
|
| We
support the use of reformulated gasoline made with ethanol and diesel fuel with bio-diesel as a component of
Missouri's plan to bring St. Louis into compliance with air quality
standards mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency. |
During the early years
of the Industrial Revolution, an infant energy technology went
through a stage of coal-burning sulfurous pollution which was
quickly replaced by cleaner forms of energy--not by government, but
by the Free Market. Consumers want clean air and clean energy, and
the Free Market will provide this because supply responds to demand.
Government restrictions and regulations are put in place for
political reasons, not economic ones, usually on behalf of special
interests with powerful lobbies. Government favoritism toward
ethanol rewards ethanol industries and may delay investment in the
form of energy that is cheapest and cleanest and favored by
consumers. |
| We
further believe government grants for alcohol research should go to
our Land Grant Colleges and not to oil companies. Information
developed from such research should be made available to farmers. |
No such grants should
be given to anyone. |
| We
believe that the production and sale of ethanol and bio-diesel in
this state can provide numerous economic benefits to the producer
and the state's economy. |
The question is, does
the market believe this? Do consumers believe
this? Who should be allowed to decide what consumers will consume? |
| We
oppose any efforts to repeal or reduce the 2 cent/gallon ethanol
exemption from the state fuel tax. |
All gasoline taxes
should be abolished |
| We
support full funding for the state ethanol and bio-diesel incentive,
and we support prioritizing the allocation of state-funded
incentives to increase support for the production of renewable fuels
from cellulosic materials and livestock by-products.. |
|
| We
support finding a permanent solution in funding renewable fuels
incentives for producer-owned production facilities. |
|
| Plants receiving funding under the biofuels incentive
funds should be encouraged to use a majority of Missouri produced
commodities. |
|
| The
State should promote the use of ethanol by-products for Missouri
livestock and poultry producers and support further research on
making feed rations with distiller’s grains more palatable. We
urge ethanol plants operating in Missouri to recognize the
importance of livestock producers by making distiller’s grains
available at the local level. Ethanol plants receiving state
incentive funding should be required to make distiller’s grains
available for purchase by Missouri farmers and ranchers. |
|
| We
support voluntary pump labeling of ethanol. |
|
| We
favor the use of 10% and E-85 ethanol blend and other cleaner
burning fuels with an oxygen content level no lower than 3.5% or
ensuring that there is a long term market for ethanol. |
|
| We favor the use of 20% bio-diesel blends utilizing B100
meeting ASTM D6751 requirements. We also favor the use of B99
meeting ASTM D6751 for marine use. |
|
| We support at least a 10% bio-diesel blended fuel
standard statewide. |
|
| We
support at least a 10% ethanol-blended fuel standard statewide. |
|
| We support a 15 billion gallon corn-based renewable fuel
standard by 2015. |
|
| We
support prohibiting the use of methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether (MTBE) as
a fuel additive. |
|
| We
support a federal tax incentive for domestically produced ethanol
and bio-diesel. |
|
| We
support a state and/or federal tax incentive or credit for the
purchase of fueling equipment, machinery and vehicles that run E-85
fuel and/or bio-diesel. |
|
| We believe tax credits or incentives should be offered to
retailers to increase the installation of E-85 and bio-diesel pumps
in Missouri. We
encourage commodity groups and committees to increase their
education efforts on benefits of bio-fuel usage. |
|
| We
oppose the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed inclusion of
projected indirect land use impacts in figuring greenhouse gas
emissions from biofuel production and use. |
|
| Propane |
|
| We
oppose U.S. Department of Transportation regulations that impose
unnecessary and costly new equipment and labor requirements on the
delivery of propane. |
|
| We
are opposed to regulations promulgated under the Environmental
Protection Agency's Risk Management Program that requires the
development of comprehensive prevention and emergency response
programs for propane storage. We believe the regulations provide no
additional safeguards and that existing federal, state and local
regulations adequately meet public safety goals. |
|