RBColeman

Off farm: 85 cents/percent of every consumer food dollar.

@ts_fisher @fuelinggood Ha. Please. CATO is not expending political capital to level the playing field. Stop joking.

@rb_coleman @fuelinggood We’re stuck on the path we’re on because too many people share your defeatism Is this a representative government or not?

Congress is debating E15 gasoline but ignoring the real problem: the Renewable Fuel Standard The RFS forces Americans to subsidize ethanol and keeps the industry hooked on federal support Time for an intervention! End the mandate and let markets work cato.org/blog/american-…

@ts_fisher @fuelinggood That's not really a question right now in Congress (or even close) and it is pure fiction that if we don't restart IRA policies then we're on a free market path. We're just maintaining the subsidize incumbents path. Which is largely the path we're on. And that's the point.

@rb_coleman @fuelinggood I love thought experiments, but the relevant question now is whether to restart the IRA’s energy subsidies or take a free-market path. I choose the latter because it gets better results, doesn’t abuse taxpayers, and avoids the budget crisis the IRA creates cato.org/policy-analysi…

@ts_fisher @fuelinggood Great deal for oil and gas. The market and infrastructural control advantages are pretty locked in. Might be a fun simulation with some competition inducements in key places. Of course, are we pretending that OPEC won't make a mockery of our "level playing field" experiment?

@rb_coleman @fuelinggood We’ve been supporting lots of energy technologies for a long time. Let’s cut all government support and see what happens Did you know the first wind+battery setup was installed in the same decade the Pearl Street station began operation? The 1880s windmillstech.com/the-worlds-fir…

@ts_fisher @fuelinggood Sure. Let's stop fossil subsidies (100 years is enough), shift them to renewables for the next 100 years, then compare the two fairly based on total energy produced with equal govt support across time/$.

@rb_coleman @fuelinggood If we're going back more than 100 years, shouldn't we put total subsidies in the context of total energy produced? Using that metric (subsidy as a share of revenue or kWh), your assertion may not hold It doesn't hold over the past 10 years in any case eia.gov/analysis/reque…

@ts_fisher @fuelinggood bc the issue is govt support + the resulting inequitable de-risking of investment favoring fossil. The piece leads with narrative that renewables get more subsidy but govt oil support still large + in place for 100+ years. Cumulatively, O&G is #1 govt supported industry.

@rb_coleman @fuelinggood Why do you call that spin?

@ts_fisher @fuelinggood Very cleverly worded piece. Some refreshing truths in there (no justification for tax inequity favoring oil anymore) but also spin (renewables get more than oil). This is closer to the truth ...

@fuelinggood @rb_coleman My colleague already covered this space really well cato.org/blog/fossil-fu…

@ts_fisher @fuelinggood You're a hard no on biofuel subsidies or a hard no on fuel subsidies? Cato is coming out against oil subsidies?

@fuelinggood I appreciate your reframing of a massive subsidy scheme (the RFS) as pro-competition, but I'm not buying it Can we shake on a deal to improve market access AND repeal the RFS? Please send any papers you have about reducing real barriers to market access Hard no on subsidies

@Savageboston @joonlee They should miss his replenishing of the farm system too as most of these guys (good young players with high upside) are from that era.

People in the Red Sox organization miss Chaim Bloom for his people skills, compared to how Craig Breslow engages with others. Per: @joonlee

@TedNordhaus Not sure you're in position to professor me on ad hominum attacks or being industry supported, but I will admit I wasn't seeking substance until you called me a liar. My goal was to point out your conflict of interest. Happy to also substantiate my claims about your positions.

@rb_coleman If you want to have a respectful discussion on the substance, stop making ad hominum attacks while not only talking your book but the book of an industry you are paid to represent.

Great question...

@TedNordhaus Do call me more names while you laughably differentiate between Stand Together and the Koch network and have no response on the substance. I have appreciated your candor on other issues. On this, we're both talking our books but only one of us is FOS.

@rb_coleman Let’s just be clear who the shill is here. Your claims about the science should be treated accordingly.

@TedNordhaus You're not truth telling when you cite an '08 paper modeling scenarios that didn't happen, say biofuels inflate grocery $ when food inflation went down as biofuels grew+worsen food shortages when grain stocks are high. That's just the BS that you trash people for, all over X.

@rb_coleman You are just making shit up. You take biofuel money to promote biofuels and trash people who tell the truth. We get a small grant from Stand Together, not the Kochs, to support our nuclear and permitting reform work. They don't fund our biofuel work.

@TedNordhaus Yep and we put it on our website - likewise, no issue with you taking nuke money, disclosing it, and advocating for nuclear. The issue is taking oil money to go after biofuels, not disclosing it, and amplifying Koch'd up biofuel myths all week. It's beneath what was Breakthrough.

@rb_coleman You literally work for the biofuels industry.

@MikeGrunwald Huh? You said E15 increases consumer costs. When pressed, you conceded E15 saves at the pump but said it hurts in the grocery aisle. But that's smoke and mirrors because there's vastly more energy/oil price than corn price in a food dollar. That's the point. 👇

@rb_coleman Sometimes crops are cheap and sometimes crops are expensive. Sometimes gas is cheap and sometimes gas is expensive. But biofuels mandates always make crops more expensive. That’s the point!

Haha she’s right, year-round E15 would give ag producers and consumers certainty. Producers would certainly make more money and consumers would certainly pay higher prices!

@MikeGrunwald Lol ... this is the recent price of corn. And then of course grain price is a below 10% of grocery prices b/c downstream (transport) and marketing is most of cost. The question is why are you running interference for the true culprit in the grocery aisle?

@rb_coleman Consumers do their extra paying at the grocery store!

A hedge fund dropped $100 million for land in rural Arizona. They’re using it to grow alfalfa for overseas cattle feed — a water-intensive crop that guzzles thousands of gallons per acre, while residents are left watching their wells run dry. floodlightnews.org/saudi-owned-co…

@danrejto @TheBTI @lrntex If you're going to bang Newsom for supporting ethanol as a prerequisite for running for President (implying it's not on the merits) then I'm going to bang @TheBTI for taking Koch money to bang biofuels (implying it's not on the merits). Down off your pedestal please.

Read the full @TheBTI article and analysis by me and @lrntex : breakthroughjournal.org/p/paying-extra…

California’s nearly $6 gas and $8 diesel prices are in many ways self-inflicted. Yes, the Iran conflict & Strait of Hormuz are out of California's hands. But state policies like the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) are making a bad price spike worse. The problem is not just that the LCFS adds about 17 cents per gallon. It is that much of that money is going to biofuels that would have been produced anyway because of the federal Renewable Fuel Standard. As of 2024, 75% of LCFS credits went to bio-based diesel, ethanol, or biomethane, all covered by the federal mandate. So California drivers are often paying extra for ethanol and renewable diesel (made from sources like soy oil, tallow and used cooking oil) that were already going to be produced. This redundancy is likely to only grow. EPA's new Renewable Fuel Standard mandates for 2026 and 2027 are their highest ever, requiring nearly 5.5 billion gallons of bio-based diesel. Ironically, this problem has a silver lining. Many crop-based biofuels drive farmland expansion and can raise emissions. So when the LCFS fails to drive new production, drivers are "only" paying extra for biofuels that have already done their damage. But when it succeeds, it can push more production and so more emissions. Either way, California should stop making drivers pay for performative decarbonization. A simple fix would be to stop supporting biofuels that would already be required. That would shift support toward things more likely to advance truly affordable and low-carbon transportation, like fast charging EV infrastructure.

@sizov_andre Amen. It amazes me how little people know about food prices.

"High costs paid by farmers mean higher food prices." No. It means farmers are paying much more for fuel and fertilizer - and hoping crop prices will rise. IF crop prices rise materially, this could support food CPI. But the impact is limited: farmers’ share in retail food prices is only ~10–12%. So far, the increase in crop values has been limited compared to the rise in input costs. #oatt

@bhobservatory Drove into Boston on the Pike, made a killing lunch shift bartending at seemingly the only bar open in the Back Bay, drove home flush with cash. Roads weren't impassable. They were gloriously devoid of terrible drivers. I will never forget that day.

“We had to shovel the front door just to avoid being trapped inside.” On March 31, 1997, observers at BHO took measurements in full blizzard conditions by flashlight, with over 2' of snow total. Power was out. Roads were impassable. Do you remember the April Fool's Blizzard?