Posted: July 19, 2011
Every reasonable adult knows that you always end up paying in the end. If you skimp in one area, you tend to make up the difference somewhere else in your life. So why does a small group of meat and poultry producers think that consumers are so reactionary they will thoughtlessly support short-sighted energy policies to save a few bucks?
Probably because they know that “curtailing” policies created to promote domestic, sustainable, renewable energy will fatten the wallets of their benefactors, not the animals they feed. If these poultry pushers and meat marketers have their way, the production of corn-based ethanol will cease altogether.
Not only would this flood the market with unsustainably cheap corn, it would impact what consumers pay at the pump. In modern America, almost every citizen relies on motorized transit, be it public or private. As studies have shown , without ethanol consumers will pay more for every gallon of fuel thus negating grocery aisle savings.
Higher fuel prices impact more than the cost of filling up the family car. Nearly all goods purchased in the United States are transported to the final point of sale from another destination. Higher fuel prices mean that each of these products will reflect the increase. By channeling all corn from ethanol production, they would have us trade a more reasonable fuel cost felt throughout the economy for momentary meat savings. But then again, poultry and meat are trucked to grocery stores too.