Agriculture (USDA)BioRefineries/Renewable Fuel ProductionEnergy (DOE)Environmental Protection AgencyFederal Agency/Executive BranchFederal LegislationFederal RegulationFeedstocksField/Orchard/Plantation Crops/ResiduesIowaMarketing/Market Forces and SalesOpinionsPolicyWhite House
Print This Article Share it With Friends
byJon Doggett and Bob Dinneen (Des Moines Register/National Corn Growers Association/Renewable Fuels Association)To put it bluntly, farmers and renewable fuel industry workers who take the time to read the Project 2025 recommendations on agriculture and energy are likely to be terrified — just as we were. --The Heritage Foundation’sProject 2025— billed by the conservative think tank as a “policy agenda” and “playbook” for the next president of the United States — has become controversial as more and more details about it are revealed....
For the sake of our nation’s corn growers and ethanol producers, who we once proudly represented in Washington, D.C., Trumpshoulddisavow it — and do so specifically, clearly, and publicly.Project 2025’s farm and energy policies were written by once and potentially future leaders in his administration who would shape policy if he wins in November.So, whether Project 2025 itself survives as a “playbook” for a future Trump administration or not, its specific policy recommendations need to be unambiguously repudiated by Trump now or they will quite likely resurface if he were to take the oath again.
For starters, Project 2025 encourages the full repeal of the Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) programs, which serve as crucially important safety nets to protect farmers against sudden and unforeseen commodity price crashes and revenue losses. While most farmers would probably agree that ARC and PLC are imperfect programs that could use some tweaks, they have generally been effective. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not a solution.
It gets worse. If the Heritage Foundation had its way, the next President would demand that Congress significantly cut federally supported crop insurance, eliminate the Conservation Reserve Program, phase out certain H-2 work visas, and repeal agricultural export promotion programs like USDA’s Market Access Program. Most farmers know that Market Access Program funding has been instrumental in opening valuable new markets worldwide for corn, soybeans, meat, ethanol and even biorefinery co-products such as distiller grains animal feed.
But it doesn’t stop there. Project 2025 recommends prohibiting USDA from using its discretionary authority to manage Commodity Credit Corp. funding. Perhaps ironically, restricting the use of that agency in this way would have blocked the last Trump administration from distributing billions of dollars in aid to farmers suffering the effects of the trade war with China.
It also would have prevented USDA from providing emergency aid to the ethanol industry when COVID shutdowns caused fuel demand to collapse by half in the spring of 2020.
Project 2025 would also wipe out any technical or financial assistance from the Department of Energy for carbon capture and sequestration projects, one of the most promising opportunities for expanding future value and demand for both corn and ethanol. They’d also take the hatchet to the division of the Energy Department that has conducted extensive research and development on the use of ethanol in high-octane, mid-level blends such as E20 or E30 — a promising low-carbon alternative to electric vehicles.
And, finally, Project 2025 calls for stripping a division of the Environmental Protection Agency of its authority to implement the Renewable Fuel Standard, which has been the single most important driver of renewable fuel production and use in the ethanol industry’s history. Instead, they would cede administration of the RFS to a hand-picked political appointee (which the Heritage Foundation typically refers to as “unelected bureaucrats”) who would likely be all too eager to gut the program from the inside out and do the oil industry’s bidding.
To put it bluntly, farmers and renewable fuel industry workers who take the time to read the Project 2025 recommendations on agriculture and energy are likely to be terrified — just as we were. To set the Corn Belt’s collective mind at ease, Trump should not only publicly disavow the Project 2025 “playbook,” he should throw it in the trash and commit to policies that will revitalize rural America, maximize the production and use of renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel, and build upon the ingenuity and investments of America’s farmers and biofuel producers.READ MORE
Related articles
FAQs
The lifecycle of biofuels, from crop production to refining, negatively affects water and air quality for Midwestern communities. For example, increased fertilizer use from expansion of corn and soy cultivation can lead to high concentrations of nitrates in the tap water of heavy agriculture areas.
Why did we stop using biofuels? ›
Biofuels cost more to produce than fossil fuel. They tend to consume more resources and energy to produce. Many divert water and land from food production and some consume more energy than they yield.
How do biofuels help farmers? ›
Environment. Biodiesel is also good for the environment, something that's critical for farmers, who need clean soil, water and air for their crops. B100 reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 75 percent and particulate matter by 47 percent compared with petroleum diesel.
What are the US biofuel mandates? ›
Advanced biofuel must be produced from qualifying renewable biomass (except corn starch) and must meet a 50% lifecycle GHG reduction. Renewable fuel (or conventional biofuel) typically refers to ethanol derived from corn starch and must meet a 20% lifecycle GHG reduction.
What is the biggest downside to biofuels? ›
Biofuel production and use has drawbacks as well, including land and water resource requirements, air and ground water pollution.
Why are biofuels bad for the economy? ›
Biofuel feedstocks include many crops that would otherwise be used for human consumption directly, or indirectly as animal feed. Diverting these crops to biofuels may lead to more land area devoted to agriculture, increased use of polluting inputs, and higher food prices.
Is ethanol cleaner than gasoline? ›
Today's corn-based ethanol reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by roughly 40 – 50 percent compared to regular gasoline, according to recent studies by Harvard, USDA and the Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory.
What are the criticism of biofuels? ›
Producing biofuels can do major environmental harm, including deforestation and biodiversity loss due to needed cropland expansion, with biofuel crops sometimes displacing important food crops, say critics. In some instances, land use change for biofuels can add to carbon emissions rather than curbing them.
Is biofuel greenwashing? ›
In their eyes, fossil-fuel producers are using the transition to biofuels as "greenwashing," an attempt to rehabilitate the industry's public image using the language of environmentalism. There may not be many legal avenues for local communities to push back against the transition plans.
Are biofuels better than fossil fuels? ›
MYTH: In terms of emissions, biofuels emit the same amount as gasoline or more. FACT: Biofuels burn cleaner than gasoline, resulting in fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and are fully biodegradable, unlike some fuel additives.
Some biofuel sources are derived from crops that are often used as food and are high in sugar or fat. For the Northwest, oilseed crops such as canola and sunflowers are used for biofuels.
Is biofuel expensive? ›
In recent years, biofuels have consistently been more expensive compared to fossil fuels in Europe. With the current price hikes in many of the feedstocks used for biofuels like vegetable oils, cereals, used cooking oil and animal fats, the price difference to fossil fuels is becoming ever larger.
Why are we not using biofuels? ›
Biofuels Encourage More Polluting, Expensive Practices
We cannot make enough biofuels to replace all fossil fuels. Instead, biodiesel must be mixed with diesel and so-called “renewable” natural gas with fossil gas.
What states use the most biofuel? ›
Leading biodiesel consuming states in the United States in 2022 (in million barrels)
| Characteristic | Consumption in million barrels |
|---|
| California | 6.7 |
| Texas | 4.3 |
| Illinois | 3.9 |
| Minnesota | 3 |
6 more rowsJul 22, 2024
Environmental concerns include deforestation, biodiversity loss and soil erosion as a result of land clearing for biofuels agriculture.
How does climate change affect agriculture in the Midwest? ›
Likely negative climate impacts. Climate change could impact Midwest agriculture in several ways, including intense heat waves, more frequent droughts, more damaging storms, wider flooding, deadlier disease outbreaks, and the spread of invasive species.
What are the environmental issues in the Midwest? ›
At-risk communities in the Midwest are becoming more vulnerable to climate change impacts including flooding, drought, and increases in urban heat islands. Tribal nations are especially vulnerable because of their reliance on threatened natural resources for their cultural, subsistence, and economic needs.
What is the biggest problem with biofuel Why is it a problem? ›
Environmental concerns include deforestation, biodiversity loss and soil erosion as a result of land clearing for biofuels agriculture. While biofuels can contribute to reduction in global carbon emissions, indirect land use change for biofuel production can have the inverse effect.
Why the production of biofuels is increasing? ›
Combating climate change forces the world to seek alternative, low-carbon sources of energy and fuel. Since traffic is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas, i.e. carbon emissions, substituting fossil fuels with renewable alternatives such as biofuels is an efficient way to reduce these emissions.
