I know that Dr Ben Carson is a highly educated and good man, and I suspect that he is likewise a very compassionate and considerate man.

However, he has now provided sufficient information for me to conclude that I’ll never vote for him.

First, from HotAir.com:

Ben Carson: Let’s slash Big Oil to pay for ethanol

by Jazz Shaw

Newly announced presidential contender Ben Carson was out talking to the Cornhuskers and the inevitable subjects of ethanol, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and subsidies for King Corn came up. 

Uh-oh, do I hear some potential pandering in the wings, pray tell?

Whilst there in Iowa, Dr Carson said, however:

“I don’t particularly like the idea of government subsidies for anything because it interferes with the natural free market.”

Nicely played sir.  Agreed.  Go on.

“Therefore, I would probably be in favor of taking that $4 billion a year we spend on oil subsidies and using that in new fueling stations” for 30% ethanol blends, Dr Carson said.

Oh boy.

This is where Dr Carson and I part ways, and part ways Big Time.

Dr Carson wants E30 in our vehicles.  Are you kidding me?  E30?  That will be one of the largest destroyers of current ICE engines imaginable, other than kicking one out the back of a C-130 at 38,000 feet.

He’s suggesting cutting subsidies for domestic energy companies in the oil and gas industry. Not for everyone, mind you. Just them. And then reallocating that money away from fossil fuels and into ethanol processing. Just five seconds before that Carson had been claiming that he didn’t want anyone interfering with the free market, but now he’s saying to cherry pick one specific set of companies in the energy sector, remove a subsidy from them, and then redirect it to benefit the ethanol industry? It’s difficult to imagine a more egregious example of the government picking winners and losers, with the winners just happening to be in the first caucus state.

Hot Air disapproves in a political fashion:

If you want to have a discussion about removing all subsidies across the board, then fine. We’re all ears. Carly Fiorina has proposed the same thing and it’s a worthy topic of debate. But when you start talking about just picking the pockets of oil and gas developers and using it to pay for ethanol, you may as well be running for the Democrat nomination. Poor showing, Dr. Carson.

But has anyone considered the physical-energy aspects of the plan?

Hold that thought.

I’d never much wanted to write this, but Dr Ben Carson lacks a major component that most political figures must possess: presence.  It is a tool that Dr Ben Carson completely lacks.  That said:

Second, calling out the “subsidies for Big Oil” is the language of the Left, and as usual it’s complete horse hockey. As anyone who follows this topic knows, the subsidies received by oil and gas companies are not specific to them. They are precisely the same as subsidies given to almost anyone who sells anything, including Apple and Microsoft among so many others. In fact, you couldn’t just cancel the subsidies to the fossil fuel segment of the energy industry without rewriting the rules entirely just to exclude them. That’s a left wing, anti-energy talking point and Carson should be embarrassed to be saying it in front of an ostensibly conservative crowd.

True.  But moreover, what do we know about ethanol?

First, that the greater the gradient (E-15 to E-30), the greater amount of water is contained.  Internal combustion engines don’t like water, they aren’t built to have any water in the fuel system.  High compression motorcycle engines eschew ethanol completely.

Corn crops marked for ethanol might even be illegal.

Further, globally, America earmarking corn for fuel reduces the amount of corn available for the rest of the world in terms of edible food.

As in: corn for food vs corn for fuel.  As in: who starves and who profits from corn?

It is clear that Dr Carson wishes American corn to be utilized as a domestic fuel source, as opposed to a global food source.

But realize: even way back in 2005, ten years ago, Ethanol was recognized as inefficient.

Even Forbes.com, a site most certainly supportive of business, suggests that ethanol is moribund at best.

It’s Final — Corn Ethanol Is Of No Use

OK, can we please stop pretending biofuel made from corn is helping the planet and the environment? The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released two of its Working Group reports at the end of last month (WGI and WGIII), and their short discussion of biofuels has ignited a fierce debate as to whether they’re of any environmental benefit at all.

The IPCC was quite diplomatic in its discussion, saying “Biofuels have direct, fuel‐cycle GHG emissions that are typically 30–90% lower than those for gasoline or diesel fuels. However, since for some biofuels indirect emissions—including from land use change—can lead to greater total emissions than when using petroleum products, policy support needs to be considered on a case by case basis” (IPCC 2014 Chapter 8).

And here we go with the poor:

With more than 60 nations having biofuel mandates, the competition between ethanol and food has become a moral issue. Groups like Oxfam and the Environmental Working Group oppose biofuels because they push up food prices and disproportionately affect the poor.

Yet:

So why have we pushed corn ethanol so heavily here in the U.S.? Primarily because it was the only crop that had the existing infrastructure to easily modify for this purpose, especially when initially incentivized with tax credits, subsidies and import tariffs. Production, transportation and fermentation could be adapted quickly by the corn industry, unlike any other crop.

Let’s summarize: ethanol is inefficient.  You get more “bang from your buck” from petroleum products.

MPG plummets with ethanol.

Horsepower plummets with ethanol.

And ethanol destroys engines.

Concurrent with: ethanol is energy-inefficient and — simultaneously — drives food prices higher.

Way to go, Dr Carson.

I suggest: you might want to think this over for a week or two.

BZ