Posted on 12/04/2007 5:46:54 PM PST by neverdem
Congress is finalizing an energy bill that should come to a vote before the end of 2007. Although all the details of the newly negotiated bill are not yet public, an earlier draft mandated that refiners annually blend 20.5 billion gallons of ethanol into transport fuels by 2015, with 5.5 billion gallons of that coming from non-food sources like cellulosic ethanol. The mandate would rise to 36 billion gallons by 2022. This more than quadruples the 2005 directive of 7.5 billion gallons by 2012.
Promoters of the ethanol mandate assert that it would help the United States achieve energy independence and slow the accumulation of greenhouse gases that are driving climate change. Evaluating the scientific and economic claims being made for bioethanol can be vexing, but a few urgent questions come to mind: if bioethanol is such a good energy deal, why must refiners and consumers be forced to use it? Again, if it's such a great idea economically, why does the federal government offer a tax credit of 51 cents per gallon for blending ethanol into gasoline?
In fact, the subsidies are probably higher than that. For example, a 2006 report by the International Institute for Sustainable Development estimated that if one took into account state renewable fuel tax breaks and direct agricultural subsidies that reduce other costs, the total amount of the ethanol subsidy rises from $1.05 to $1.38 per gallon of ethanol
Another big concern is that fuel is now competing with food. A new study from AEI/Brookings Joint Center points out that in 2005, the ethanol program consumed about 15% of U.S. corn production but displaced less than 2% of gasoline use. The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) just issued a report projecting that if countries simply pursue their current biofuel expansion plans the global price of corn will increase by 26 percent and the price for oilseeds will rise by 18 percent. If biofuel production doubles over current projections, the price of corn rises by 72 percent and oilseeds by 44 percent. The IFPRI report notes that "The increase in crop prices resulting from expanded biofuel production is also accompanied by a net decrease in the availability of and access to food." Even in North America, access to food calories drops by between 2 to almost 5 percent depending on which biofuel production scenario plays out. In food stressed sub-Saharan Africa, available food calories drop by between 4 and 8 percent.
Even cellulosic ethanol produced using waste products like wood chips and corn stalks, or fuel crops like switchgrass or hybrid poplars do not solve the food/fuel conundrum. "The trade-offs between food and fuel will actually be accelerated when biofuels become more competitive relative to food and when, consequently, more land, water, and capital are diverted to biofuel production," concludes the IFPRI report. And there is no avoiding the trade-off between conservation and ethanol production. Already, U.S. farmers have taken 4.6 million acres out of the 36 million acres of farmland put aside in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to raise fuel crops. Switching land from the CRP to ethanol production will obviously effect wildlife, water usage, and soil erosion.
The most vexing question: Does corn bioethanol actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions? A study last year by Cornell University biologist David Pimentel and University of California at Berkeley engineer Ted Patzek says no. According to the study, "Ethanol production using corn grain required 29 percent more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel produced." And the news was even worse for cellulosic ethanol using switchgrass, which requires 50 percent more fossil energy than it displaces; woodchips needed 57 percent more; and biodiesel burnd 27 percent more fossil fuel than it displaces. On the other hand, the researchers at University of Minnesota offer a much sunnier analysis of the net energy benefits of bioethanol. They find, "Ethanol yields 25 percent more energy than the energy invested in its production, whereas biodiesel yields 93 percent more."
This technical dispute over the net energy balance of biofuels will be resolved some day. In the meantime, a new study from the Oregon State University asks if biofuels are commercially viable? The study finds that they are commercially viable in Oregon if one takes current government incentives into account. Translation: biofuels are not really commercially viable without subsidies. In addition, the Oregon study analyzes the effectiveness of biofuels in promoting energy independence. The researchers find "for all three biofuels evaluated, energy independence is achieved at costs that are 6 to 28 times higher than for other policy options such as raising the gas tax or increasing corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards." The AEI/Brookings study estimates that in meeting the current ethanol mandate the costs will exceed the benefits by about $1 billion a year.
Biofuels are commercially questionable, do not materially advance energy independence, and may not even help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Naturally, Congress wants to mandate them. Why? Well, Iowa caucus voters win; Archer Daniels Midland wins; and special interest contributors to political campaigns win. Bioethanol is just a subsidy boondoggle masquerading as a solution to America's energy problems. But it does help get some politicians elected.
Ronald Bailey is Reason's science correspondent.
“US importation would have led to drug shortages in Canada. Canadian officials threatened to stop importation.”
You can’t possibly be that gullible.
US Pharmies put a stop to it through lobbying politicians on both sides. The Phamies want their price fixing one way or another. They won’t stand for US seniors getting their much needed drugs at a 30% - 70% “discount” through free trade.
“Canada would have stopped the practice because US importation would have led to drug shortages in Canada.”
There are “x” amount of drugs produces for a market....say North America. If US seniors purchase their drugs from Canada....then for every pill bought down over the border there is one less pill sold in the US and remains sitting on the shelf here. You assertion is simply ridiculous and not based on “free market” at all.
Your reply seems to imply there is a free lunch: just impose price controls without any consequences. Canada imposes price controls as do many other countries. The drug companies would not have produced enough drugs at the price imposed levels for both the Canadian market and the US market. In the long term, price controls (imposed ceiling prices) always lead to shortages. To deny this assertion, you must believe that the law of supply and demand does not hold.
If you believe in price controls, why not just impose the price controls here? Importing drugs from Canada is just an indirect method to impose price controls. There were many statements by Canadian officials indicating that they would try to stop exporting drugs to the US if importation was permitted. If the Canadians had stopped or limited exportation, the rats and rinos would have demanded price controls. The rats demanded price controls in the prescription drug bill. One of their biggest complaints was that Medicare could not negotiate drug prices. Conservatives rejected this demand because it would have led to price controls.
BP is the first major to get behind butanol. They have deep enough pockets to make it happen.
The beauty of butanol is it’s easier to pipeline and blend with gas, so if it’s higher to produce the reduction and transportation costs will offset some of that.
ping
We really need to start the primary process in another state, or hold the primary vote nationwide on one day.
Archer Daniels Midland wins;
Die, corporate scum!
and special interest contributors to political campaigns win.
Tell the rent-seeking lobbyists to go pound sand!
It is interesting that the profit margin for the drug industry is about 20%. Most other major businesses have profits of from 2 to 7%. It must feel really good to get so rich off of sick people, good Christians, I’m sure.
Repeat after me.... Archer, Daniels, Midland
They own congressmen in several states. They’re the ones getting rich off this boondoggle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.