Elizabeth Warren & Patty Judge Tour Ethanol Facility, Warren supports strong Renewable Fuel Standard

Jun 13, 2019 | News

ALBIA, IOWA – On June 10th, Senator Elizabeth Warren toured Big River Resources in Dyersville, Iowa. She was joined by Focus on Rural America Chair Lt. Gov. Patty Judge, who has served Iowa as Lieutenant Governor and as Iowa’s Secretary of Agriculture.
 
“Candidates need to engage meaningfully with rural Americans, and Senator Warren has shown that she is serious about winning back voters lost to Trump. Seeing firsthand how value-added agriculture is providing good jobs and boosting rural economies is key to understanding the priorities for rural communities. I’m grateful that Senator Warren is committed to supporting economic development through biofuels,” said Judge.
 
“Current White House policies are really hurting rural Americans. As farm income falls, President Trump is adding to the pain with his reckless trade negotiations and waivers for oil and gas refineries. Rural Americans need presidential candidates who will stand up for us and partner with us. To win and really contribute in 2020, candidates need to work hard to close the margins in rural counties. That means showing up, listening and partnering on a plan to revitalize these hometowns.” 
 
“I’ve been a longtime supporter of the RFS and renewables like corn ethanol, soy biodiesel and advanced biofuels because they play an important role in our march toward independence from fossil fuels,” Elizabeth Warren said. “Unfortunately, the current administration has broken its promises and undermined a strong RFS through secret waivers for companies like Exxon and Chevron. Farmers are hurting, and they need a partner in the White House who has a clear, predictable policy on renewables and trade. I’m in this fight with them all the way.”

As candidates approach the 2020 caucuses, engaging with rural voters and having a plan that supports rural communities will be critical. Judge is committed to working with all the candidates to ensure rural Iowans are heard and that candidates have a plan to partner with them.

Oil and Gas Handouts Hurt Rural Communities and Cost Americans at the Pump

Jun 11, 2019 | Report

Small refinery waivers are the newest trend in Trump’s oil and gas give-a-ways. This comes on top of giving oil companies free reign to drill on our federal lands, jettisoning the Paris Climate Accord, promising the Keystone XL Pipeline, and opening up fragile arctic ecosystems to drilling. Now Trump is giving oil and gas companies a blanket pass on federal rules to blend low-carbon renewable biofuels into the auto fuel supply.

The waivers are meant to provide relief to small refineries who are experiencing “undue hardship” in meeting Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) blending rules, which were passed by Congress and signed by President Bush in 2005 and expanded in 2007. EPA data shows that during Obama’s last three years the administration approved 23 waiver applications and denied 18 – exempting 690 million gallons of gas from biofuel blending. Updated information shows Trump continues to approve 2017 applications, totaling 34 approvals as of March 19, 2019. While some applications are pending or withdrawn, Trump has not made a formal denial.

 

IN THE ERA OF TRUMP, EVEN EXXON GETS A WAIVER

Trump’s Administration has not denied a single waiver request from 2016 and 2017. Unabashedly quadrupling the annual average, this allowed 2.6 billion gallons to get a free-pass from renewable biofuel blending in two short years. The 57 companies exempted include major, global companies like Exxon and Chevron.

It’s hard to imagine economic hardship for companies like Exxon and Chevron. In their fourth quarter, Exxon earned $6 billion, totaling $20.8 billion in 2018. 

In the past, eligible companies had to prove need and produce less than 75,000 barrels a day. Exxon and Chevron produce more than three million barrels each day, Prioritizing oil and gas waivers above a cleaner, renewable energy mix is irresponsible, and a political favor Americans cannot afford.

RENEWABLE BIOFUELS SUPPORT RURAL COMMUNITIES

The RFS supports stable jobs and continued investments for a green economy. The renewable biofuels industry provides 340,000 good paying U.S. jobs and reduces greenhouse gases by 43 percent compared to gasoline. Clear standards and expectations have allowed the industry to invest billions and create hundreds of thousands of jobs, while having a positive impact on our environment.

WAIVERS JEOPARDIZE BIOFUEL PRODUCTION AND RURAL ECONOMIES

In 2018, the University of Missouri Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) estimated the ethanol industry would lose 4.6 billion gallons of domestic demand and $20 billion in revenue. Farmers face enough uncertainty thanks to Trump’s trade wars. Losses caused by these waivers threaten the economic lifeline and the investments that renewable biofuels give rural towns and our renewable future.

Allowing the one-percenters of the oil and gas industry to skirt the rules and prioritize traditionally extracted fossil fuels is a disservice to America and our environmental goals. Americans needs leaders who will implement the RFS as written and intended, allow E15 year-round, and limit these waivers to the truly small refineries they were meant for. 

SOURCES: https://www.epa.gov/fuels-registration-reporting-and-compliance-help/rfs-small-refinery-exemptions
https://news.exxonmobil.com/press-release/exxonmobil-earns-208-billion-2018-6-billion-fourth-quarter
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/01/chevron-q4-2018-earnings.html
https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2017/01/12/usda-releases-new-report-lifecycle-greenhouse-gas-balance-ethanol
https://www.feedstuffs.com/news/fapri-finds-epa-s-rfs-exemptions-cost-20b-lost-ethanol-sales

 

Talking the Talk

Talking the Talk

Apr 22, 2019 | Report

In back to back to back quarterly polls, likely caucus goers in Iowa have said that victory in 2020 is going to be tied to bringing rural voters back into the fold. And they’ve said so resoundingly — by a 2-1 margin.

But what needs to happen to really bring those folks back? More than any policy or platform, doing so will be tied to an optimistic, well informed vision and a well executed pitch. Robert Leonard had an excellent column in the New York Times about what that successful pitch to Rural America might sound like. Here’s the gist: say things that stick, and tune out the white noise.

In a country as large as ours, people speak differently in different places. They deal with similar problems but are effected in differing ways. It’s a testament to our diversity, and to the breadth of issues any president is forced to grapple with. To win back rural voters you have to speak to them in a way that doesn’t go in one ear and out the other. You’ve got to make a connection.

Here are a few ways to do that:

“Breaking Up Big Ag” 
There’s a lot of talk about “breaking up Big Ag” in this primary, and consolidation is certainly a problem. But most of our farms are still family owned operations, and when they hear attacks on big ag, they often take them as an attack on themselves.

What you can and should speak about is finding ways to inject competition into the system. Give more power to the individual farmer. Put more money in their pockets by making innovations that boost productivity and efficiency more accessible. Invest in biofuels that allow for reliable returns on crop yields.

Immigration — Emigration
This is two-fold. When it comes to immigration, it’s not going to do you any favors to assume rural areas are inherently exclusionary. The reality is that all segments of the farm economy rely on immigrants to one degree or another, and they’re well aware of it. Farmers need an immigration system that ensures a reliable and consistent source of labor.

On emigration, rural communities have watched a generation of kids grow up and leave — never to return. A rural pitch needs to be cognizant of that. Don’t let your core message miss the fact that you’re promoting investment in health care, education, and infrastructure so small communities can thrive and so their kids and grandkids get jobs that keep them around.

Climate Change — Green New Deal
You might be forgiven for assuming that a state like Iowa has no connection to the debate on climate change. You’d also be very wrong. As rampant flooding over the past several years has made clear, worsening weather hits the midwest just as hard as the coasts. In the effort to stem these worst effects, rural areas have an important role to play.

Iowa is the top ethanol producer in the country, and a leader in renewable biofuel development. The industry employs thousands and contributes billions in economic activity. On top of that, 35% of the energy in Iowa comes from wind. The state was one of the earliest investors in wind turbines and it’s had a significant impact (one you can see driving through). These renewable fuels need to be considered as opportunities to develop a healthy climate and lessen our carbon footprint.

The Green New Deal can and should be just as important in Iowa as it is anywhere else. To make sure that happens, midwestern states need to be included as partners. Renewable energy and biofuels need to be accounted for on the same level, and carbon sequestration practices on farmland should be promoted and incentivized.

To win back states like Iowa, Michigan, or Wisconsin—states Democrats have won before and can win again—it’s vital that they’re factored into the big picture. It’s going to take some effort, but more than anything it’s going to mean speaking to rural voters again, because this is the reality: they are not outsiders or antagonists. They are an integral part to a winning coalition.
Democratic Twitter ≠ The Democratic Party

Democratic Twitter ≠ The Democratic Party

Apr 11, 2019 | News

New research suggests something most folks may have already suspected — Democratic Twitter isn’t all that representative of the actual Democratic Party. What does that mean in the most progressive presidential primary in our nation’s history?

The Hidden Tribes Center, a project of More In Common, has new data showing that the digital left—that of high volume, high impact, progressive politics—represents less than a third of the actual Democratic Party. While that segment often dominates the political discussion, the bulk of the party is composed of moderate members; more willing to compromise, less willing to follow the ideological lead of their more liberal counterparts.

This poses important questions ahead of 2020—a cycle dominated by candidates and policies that are arguably more progressive than at any time in modern history.
-Where do you focus outreach?
-What kind of candidates are folks looking for?
-What issues are most important to the actual electorate?

Here at Focus on Rural America, we’ve been attempting to find answers to those questions. We conduct a quarterly poll of likely Iowa caucus-goers to take the pulse of the electorate, and we’ll continue doing so right up until the Caucus in February 2020. Here’s what we’ve found so far:

The most important thing, in each poll we’ve conducted, isn’t the pursuit of hyper-liberal policies. It’s not Medicare for All or the Green New Deal. Likely caucus-goers are looking for someone who practices good judgment. They’re looking for someone who can play well with others. And they want someone who can unite people and work to heal the divisions that are tearing the country apart. While it’s impossible to objectively measure what any person’s internal compass on “moderate” or “liberal”, “left” or “center” is, folks are looking for the party to move more to the center than to the left—by a margin of 58% to 31%.

This has interesting implications in a state like Iowa. Among likely caucus-goers, there is broad support for key progressive priorities—fighting climate change, addressing the cost of living, expanding health care. But there is also an overriding interest in bringing rural areas back into the fold. That means providing economic outreach to communities that have been left behind, supporting homegrown agriculture and the renewable energy industry, and giving small towns the chance for their kids to stay and have meaningful, fulfilling lives.

It’s early still, much too early to pick favorites in the Caucus. But it’s the perfect time for campaigns to pitch their vision and tell these more moderate voters how they plan to lead, how they aim to unite, and how they will refocus on voters that contributed to Democratic victories in the past. That’s going to call for turning heads in areas Democrats have trouble with—the rural south, the rust belt, and the midwest. If recent congressional victories by Democrats across Iowa are any indication, they should be pleasantly surprised by the pay off.

Further reading on the Hidden Tribes Center:
The Democratic Electorate on Twitter Is Not the Actual Democratic Electorate, New York Times
The Hidden Tribes of America

Our Quarterly Polls:
September 2018
December 2018
March 2019

March 2019 Poll Results

Mar 28, 2019 | Report

Former Vice President Joe Biden continues to lead among Democratic Iowans who intend to participate in the 2020 Democratic caucus, but his lead over Bernie Sanders has diminished.  Six candidates make up a second tier: Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar and Beto O’Rourke. 

Joe Biden, Beto O’Rourke and Amy Klobuchar have each fallen between  4% and 5% since December. As a new entrant, Pete Buttigieg, is now tied for 6th place at 6%.

Democratic caucus goers are paying much more attention to the contest now, compared to last December, and have strongly positive views of many of the contenders.  

Name recognition of many candidates has increased substantially in the last three months. Several candidates have also show significant increases in the proportion of voters who hold positive opinions about them, with at least a 10% increase in positive opinion seen by Cory Booker, Julian Castro, John Delaney, Tulsi Gabbard, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, John Hickenlooper, and Amy Klobuchar. Pete Buttigieg, not asked about in the December survey, also shows significant positive opinion at 44%.

Iowa Democratic caucus goers express a desire to hear more from the candidates, especially those lesser known or who recently announced. 

When asked if they have already heard enough from the candidates or would like to hear more, a majority or more of Iowa Democratic caucus voters say they would like to hear more from: O’Rourke (58%), Harris (58%), Booker (56%), Buttigieg (54%), Klobuchar (53%), Gillibrand (51%), Castro (51%), and Inslee (51%).

More Iowa Democratic caucus goers are seeking a candidate who will pay attention to the needs of rural voters.  

66% of likely Democratic caucus voters say it is absolutely critical or very important to elect a Presidential candidate who wants to help economic development in rural America, up from 60% last September.   This finding is in keeping with other research that shows Democratic voters seek candidates who will appeal to the entire Democratic electorate, regardless of gender, ethnicity, age, or geographical location.

When asked to choose between two candidates who are similar on the issues they care about, 50% of likely Democratic caucus voters choose a candidate who makes it a priority to engage with rural voters, while only 37% prefer one who makes it a priority to increase turnout in Iowa’s larger cities and towns.  Another 13% has no preference. Among rural Democratic voters in Iowa, this preference 62% to 24% for the candidate who engages with rural voters.

There is very strong support for candidates who support ethanol.   

84% of likely Iowa Democratic caucus voters say they are more likely to support a candidate for President who supports expanding production of renewable biofuels like ethanol, and growing related jobs in rural communities.   Only 10% would oppose such a candidate.

Specifically on the issue of the EPA giving secret small refinery waivers to major oil companies and allowing them to use less renewable fuels, 80% of Iowa Democrats say that they would be more likely to support a candidate who vows to end this practice, while only 15% say that they would be more likely to oppose this candidate.

Methodology

David Binder Research conducted 500 interviews by cell phone and landline on March 21st to 24th, 2019 with registered voters in Iowa who stated they were likely to participate in the Democratic Presidential caucuses of 2020. All participants were recruited from official Iowa voter lists.  

Results are subject to a margin of error of no greater than ±4.4%.