E85 UnBoondoggle of the Day: MI Kills Ethanol Tax Credit

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

It's a rare day that TTAC gets to report a roll-back on government (i.e. taxpayer) funding for ethanol, but that's the way it's going down in… Michigan. Yes, the Daily News reports that the home state of the American [owned] automotive industry, where a trio of carmakers are LOVING the federal fuel economy credits given their dirt-cheap-to-mod greenwashed E85-mobiles, has rolled back a seven cent a gallon corn juice tax credit. State Rep Dan Nitz is not amused. "This tax break was good for consumers, GM and Ford, and the environment. With nearly $777,000 saved, it's obvious that people are taking advantage of this incentive, and I can't figure out why keeping it is not a priority." No? What about the legislature's desire to pocket every damn penny in revenue they can find to support their political power? Nah. Meanwhile, gas station owner Jim Little does the math. "With a capital investment of almost $70,000 to install E85 pumps, I want to make sure I have some kind of incentive to sell E85 to customers. This incentive was a cushion to help me keep E85 at a lower cost for consumers and still be able to afford to sell it." Otherwise… why bother?

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Join the conversation
4 of 22 comments
  • Virtual Insanity Virtual Insanity on Jan 25, 2008

    Holzman: "As for China, it has higher fuel mileage standards than we do, which, while not enough, is at least evidence they are not taking a free pass" Well, thank God for the little victories. Sure, they have pollution that puts ours to shame, dismal living conditions, apalling human rights, but hey, they get better gas miliage.

  • David C. Holzman David C. Holzman on Jan 25, 2008

    Yes, thank god, huh, Virtual Insanity? Seriously, h ow about cutting down the sarcasm a bit. Yes, of course china has appalling human rights and dismal living conditions, but that wasn't the issue. I was responding to Alex Rodriguez' important question of whether it makes any sense for us to mitigate global warming unilaterally. China's level of human rights, pollution, and etc. doesn't affect my answer.

  • 97escort 97escort on Jan 25, 2008

    I have a modest proposal: Let's treat oil and ethanol alike. 1. Let's have a strategic ethanol reserve just like the strategic petroleum reserve. 2. Let's give corn farmers a soil depletion allowance just like the oil depletion allowance. 3. Let's allow ethanol companies to merge into a few big corporations like Exxon-Mobile, Chevron, and Conoco. Let's give them a de facto monopoly over liquid fuel distribution. 4. Let's allow corn farmers to lease federal land in competitive bidding like off shore oil leases on the continental shelf. 5. Let's allow payment in kind for farmer's leases like the payment in kind that the oil companies enjoy when they put oil in the SPR. 6. Let's not audit the payments but just take their word for it that they were made. And let's not get upset when we later find that $60 Billion has gone missing. 7. Let's invade Brazil to capture ethanol production facilities and land just like we did for the oil companies in Iraq. 8. Let's call all subsidies for oil a boondoggle.

  • Stuntnun Stuntnun on Jan 27, 2008

    it was warm enough at that time in greenland to raise crops for the live stock and yes it has been studied by scientist - the earth has warmed and cooled many times - it did over the life time of those vikings in greenland, they just didn't have the internet and news outlets to tell the rest of the world their climate was changing, many scientist believe it also but its not fashionable to question a hypothesis (man made global warming is not a fact)anymore i guess.