Why doesn't he mandate everyone has to be a MILLIONAIRE while he's at it.

In the Argus Leader this AM, Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate Dennis Wiese is out on the trail telling gas station operators that Ethanol will be mandated EVERYWHERE in South Dakota. Except there's a few of those pesky details to work out. From the Argus:
If elected governor, Democratic candidate Dennis Wiese says he'll mandate the availability of ethanol gasoline in every South Dakota community.

He would create corridors along interstates 29 and 90 where fueling stations selling E-85 would be no more than 50 miles apart.


Asked whether ethanol isn't already available in all of South Dakota's communities, Wiese, the former president of the South Dakota Farmers Union, said he estimates that a mandate of ethanol in every town would still result in additional sales of 10 million to 15 million gallons annually.

As for how he would ensure the availability of E-85 fuel along the interstate corridors, Wiese admitted that he is still working out those details.

"I'd like to have E-85 at least every 50 miles," he said. "Perhaps we have to direct funds at it, low-interest loans, revolving loans. Perhaps we can redirect funds that way. And there would be gasoline stations to put it in."
Oooooook. Read all of it here. So let me see if I under stand this. Ethanol is already sold everywhere because it makes good business sense. But HE'S GOING TO MANDATE IT and because of his mandate, it will increase sales. Riiiiiight.

Thanks. Thanks a lot. That's a lot like saying you're going to mandate breathing, and because of the mandate, it's going to cause several billion more cubic feet or air to be breathed daily.

And on top of that silliness, on top of what they sell because it makes good business sense, he wants to dictate to gas station owners what they have to sell. Nevermind something might not be able to turn a profit.

Dang that American system of Capitalism, anyway.


Anonymous said…
Thank you, PP, for clearly stating the anti-ethanol Republican Party Plaform Plank. We all knew it was there, but I don't think I had yet seen someone, uh, bold enough to put it down for posterity.
PP said…
We're not anti-ethanol. We're anti-mandate.

Thank YOU for showing how much the Democrats want to impose mandates on business.
Anonymous said…
PP – I agree that the word mandate is hard to swallow, but I think you may have taken his use of the word a little out of proportion, and if not, it’s not like other places (Minnesota) haven’t already “Mandated” ethanol and had no problems (Florida even mandates fuel pump generators).

For example, Wiese didn’t place any timeframe on this change. I am fairly sure he isn’t expecting our use of ethanol to increase significantly overnight, but he wants our state to be energy independent in the long-run, which is what SD needs…a long-term plan. Besides, it does make good business sense to have Ethanol at all of our pumps, especially in the middle of the heartland where ethanol is cheap to transport, and corn is all around…why not help ourselves? I think Wiese is trying hard to be part of the solution, and he figures if we are going to be paying $3.00/gallon for gas, why not have more of that money recycled in our own communities.

In fact, Rounds has much of the same ambition. He purchased 200+ flex-fuel vehicles within the last year in an attempt to increase ethanol use, but what will he do next? More people are buying flex-fuel vehicles and it’s only a matter of time before the market realizes the need for more ethanol. Wiese’s “Mandate” will provide the incentives to install the proper blending pumps, and afford time to form relationships with the ethanol producers so they can continue to meet the increased demand for Alternative fuels such as ethanol.

From reading that article in the Argus, and the other article from the Aberdeen paper, it seems Rounds is also providing leadership and expanding our use of alternative fuels. And I’m sure we’ll revisit this subject later in the contest, and I’m guessing Wiese will have the specifics figured out, and will more than likely have changed his language.

Oh yeah, doesn’t your analogy fall short because there is nothing else we could breathe besides oxygen…if there were alternatives, like there are with fuel, you may have had a point.
Anonymous said…
You're forgetting the best part of our political system, PP. Everyone has a mandate...but everyones mandate is LIMITED.
Anonymous said…
So a mandate will increase the sale of ethanol by 10 to 15 million gallons? Doesn't seem like much considering the 300+? gallons it has increased in the last 3 years.
Anonymous said…
wait, wait, wait...I forgot to mention in my last post:

Anonymous said…
I think your confusing production with sales? I think what the mandate is trying to do is increase the amount used in SD; moreover, I think the idea of the mandate is more of a gesture showing by Wiese showing his plan toward energy independence.
Ethanol ain't the answer to anyone's energy problem, and a government mandate doesn't make it the solution. It would be nice to have a renewable fuel where one actually gains energy in its production. Is there a net gain from ethanol? I think not.

Wiese is probably a nice guy, but he'd make a crappy governor.
Anonymous said…
Wiese has a good idea. Note the incredible monopoly by the big gas boys in Rapid City. There is no desire in West River to sell E-85 and that's because the owners have a monopoly and won't allow it.
Anonymous said…
Hold on Fonz, I think you need to back up and research your renewable energies.

Your assumption is based on the Pimentel/Patzek study...which has since been found questionable because it based its assumptions AND conclusions on data from the 1980's and early 90's. Studies using old data tend to overestimate energy use by not taking into account efficiency gains in agriculture, fertilizer production, ethanol production and in the transportation sector. Moreover, the study you are referring to not only makes these mistakes, but it also leaves out any assigned value to the energy saved by using the coproducts. AND, the energy used to Transport ethanol can nearly be disregarded when finding the net energy balance in SD, because there would be hardly any energy used to transport it within the state.

It has since been found, by the US Department of Energy, that the production of ethanol is energy efficient as it yields almost 25 percent MORE energy (probably more in SD with little transport costs) than is used in growing the corn, harvesting it, and distilling it into ethanol. (US Department of Energy April 2006)

I'm not necessarily a Wiese fan, but I am a fan of using midwest corn over middle east oil. SD already has the ethanol plants built and running! And if Wiese is the only one with enough foresight to see the viability of corn and other biomass as a source of renewable fuels...he'll get my vote.

Additional Resources:

US Department of Energy

January 2006, Science Magazine
Shapouri - Energy Balance 2004 -PDF
Wang 2005 - PDF
Kim & Dale 2002 - PDF
Pimentel/Patzek 2005

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: Frederick not in SDGOP Chair Race

A strategic move by Sutton. Good for him, bad for Dems.