Biomess

Noem stays true to her incorrect understanding of government’s role in energy production:

U.S. Rep. Kristi Noem has introduced legislation to include slash piles and other forest materials under federal standards that provide incentives for ethanol production.

Noem, R-S.D., introduced legislation with U.S. Rep. Kurt Schrader, D-Ore., to expand the “renewable biomass” definitions of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) in federal law to include materials from private and national forest land. The materials would include forest waste and slash from forest-thinning and pine-beetle sanitation work.

We do not need more incentives (subsidies, tax breaks, etc) for poor-return biomass to ethanol conversions. We need to do away with the existing perverse incentives.

Representative Noem–and the citizens of South Dakota–would be better served by seeing how the federal government can waste less money on existing non-essential programs and initiatives instead of seeking to expand them.

2 thoughts on “Biomess

  1. At least we can agree on the first part. We may be able to justify government support for certain economic activities, but subsidizing the highly profitable oil industry is a waste of money. I find amusing the oil industry argument that if we take their subsidies, they’ll just pass the price on to us at the pump… as if they aren’t already taking the money out of our pockets.

    1. Government subsidies are wrong whether the recipient is wealthy or not. When the recipient does not need the subsidy to stay in business, the subsidy enflames the envy of other, “more worthy,” moochers. However, such envy obscures the injustice which occurs when government takes from one group and gives to another.

Comments are closed.