It’s not everyday that a left-of-center economist like Paul Krugman agrees with the libertarians. But it’s not every day that politicians make as colossal mistake as they have with subsidizing and mandating biofuel and ethanol. But the case against the mandates and subsidies for ethanol, the case is clear. They are a scam. Earlier I wrote what I think is a path forward on ethanol policy.
Here’s Krugman’s take on biofuel:
Where the effects of bad policy are clearest, however, is in the rise of demon ethanol and other biofuels.
The subsidized conversion of crops into fuel was supposed to promote energy independence and help limit global warming. But this promise was, as Time magazine bluntly put it, a “scam.”
This is especially true of corn ethanol: even on optimistic estimates, producing a gallon of ethanol from corn uses most of the energy the gallon contains. But it turns out that even seemingly “good” biofuel policies, like Brazil’s use of ethanol from sugar cane, accelerate the pace of climate change by promoting deforestation.
And meanwhile, land used to grow biofuel feedstock is land not available to grow food, so subsidies to biofuels are a major factor in the food crisis. You might put it this way: people are starving in Africa so that American politicians can court votes in farm states. [emphasis added].
This is what is sick about American biofuel policy–we are increasing the hardship for the poorest people in the world so politicians can court votes in farm states. That’s offensive.
Ron Bailey, who writes for the libertarian Reason magazine agrees with Krguman about ethanol’s problematic nature. Bailey writes:
Politicians in both the United States and the European Union are mandating that vast quantities of food be turned into fuel as they chase the chimera of “energy independence.” For example, Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed misbegotten legislation requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022-which equals about 27 percent of the gasoline Americans currently use each year and is about five times the amount being produced now. And the European Union set a goal that 10 percent of transport fuels come from biofuels by 2020.
The result of these mandates is that about 100 million tons of grain will be transformed this year into fuel, drawing down global grain stocks to their lowest levels in decades. Keep in mind that 100 million tons of grain is enough to feed nearly 450 million people for a year.
. . .
Expanding acreage to grow biofuels is bad for biodiversity and may even boost the carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to man-made global warming. Avery notes that food production needs to double because there will be more people who will want to eat better by 2050, at which point world population begins to slide back downwards. Turning food into fuel makes that goal much harder to achieve. Avery is right when he argues, “Biofuels are purely and simply the biggest Green mistake we’ve ever made and we’re still making it.”
“Biofuels are purely and simply the biggest Green mistake we’ve ever made and we’re still making it.”
Wrong. Ethanol from food crops is the big mistake. Biofuels from algae would be the best thing going.
See:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/04/01/algae.oil/index.html
Why isn’t our government persuing this? Because you CAN’T PLOW ALGAE!!
Our farmers want the subsidies for corn ethanol. The last thing they would like to see is falling corn prices. Compound this with the fact that the typical corporation farmer has invested millions in tractors, combines, silos, etc. It takes a lot of capital to obtain a new source of energy, but our government continues with pork barrel politics while the rest of us go to energy hell in a handbasket.
I think you’ll find that left-of-center economists and libertarians agree more often than you think. On most economic issues discussed in the public discorse, both would agree that it’s bullshit.
I agree ethanol is a sham, but the BS being used to argue against it is just as bad, and not doing us any good either.
First, the current grain shortages and price run-ups have been caused mostly by drought and other factors affecting the grain supply. The increased demand due to ethanol added fuel to the fire, so to speak, but we’d be having the same problems without it.
Second, the Cornell-Berkeley study often cited is by some of the biggest whores in academia, bought and paid for by big oil. Just follow the money. Also please look for bona fide peer review, or articles based on it — not clueless, popular press overview.
Your missing the point. Of course biofuels are going to starve the 3rd world.
But the coming resource war for EVERYTHING is the point.
And when it comes to war for food. That will be the end. This is just the beginning.
Infogleaner, Fresh Water, Food (sugar), Spare Room and depending on the type used, sunlight will be needed to grow algae.
Krugman is wrong on energy balance. The DOE in the US and studies in other countries has shown time and again that ethanol is a net gain. It’s the oil and soda company funded studies that claim it’s a loss. If it really took oil then how do they think moonshiners made booze?
Krugman is wrong on fertilizer too. It is NOT made of oil. It’s made from nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium processed with the hydrogen from domestic natural gas. Most commercial US fertilizer doesn’t have ANY carbon in it.
Krugman is wrong on starvation too. Ethanol is only made out of the part of the corn that is used to make corn syrup. The protein, vitamins and minerals all remain, fit for human and animal consumption.
Krugman is a typical media talking head that is popular mostly because he hates Bush.
World starvation comes from having too many kids, building cities on prime farm land and polluting prime fishing waters. That’s the case world wide.
6: “producing a gallon of ethanol from corn uses most of the energy the gallon contains” does not mean that making moonshine requires oil. I won’t even bother with the rest of your post, as your flawed logic caused my brain to self-destruct. Have a nice day.
You can’t lump all biofuels together. Switchgrass has some amazing potential.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-04/nsf-mdg040708.php
Absolutely right. It’s good to see some ideological consensus on this topic.
I don’t know if you’re all aware of The Oil Drum, but they’ve been on this for a couple of years…(and I am a big fan of theirs)….
http://www.theoildrum.com/tag/ethanol
Regardless of whether oil is used in the fertilizer of corn crops, the nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorous have horrible effects on estuaries and ocean areas- look at the giant dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Leaving prime farm land for farming, with current farming techniques (particularly in developing countries) can do just as much harm.
Plus, when considering how much energy is used to make a bushel of corn, you have to think about the tractors on the farm, transportation, processing, equipment (plastic is made from…oil!) and countless other variables. It becomes clear that corn ethanol is not a sustainable energy alternative, and I’m glad people are agreeing that it is a big mistake.