Bookmark and Share

Climate Policy in 2009!

Opinion Poll

  • Do you ... "an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions" in 2009?
    strongly support
    somewhat support (I'd strongly support a carbon tax)
    somewhat support (I'm worried about the recession)
    somewhat support (some other reason)
    somewhat do not support (I'd support a carbon tax)
    somewhat do not support (wait until after the recession)
    somewhat do not support (some other reason)
    strongly do not support (I'd support a carbon tax)
    strongly do not support (wait until after the recession)
    strongly do not support (some other reason)
      
    Free polls from Pollhost.com

The Answer Desk

  • GOT A QUESTION?
    Got a question about environmental economics? Why do economists like benefit-cost analysis? Tradeable permits? Ask an environmental economist at the Answer Desk.

July 2009

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Blog powered by TypePad
Member since 05/2005

« Economics blog reader survey results | Main | How I spent my Earth Day »

April 22, 2008

The failure of U.S. ethanol policy

Sometimes ecological economists sound like real economists*.  That is, every once in a while they make sense.  From Lester Brown and Jonathan Lewis in today's Washington Post:

Taking these together -- the environmental damage, the human pain of food price inflation, the failure to reduce our dependence on oil -- it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that food-to-fuel mandates have failed. Congress took a big chance on biofuels that, unfortunately, has not worked out. Now, in the spirit of progress, let us learn the appropriate lessons from this setback, and let us act quickly to mitigate the damage and set upon a new course that holds greater promise for meeting the challenges ahead.

Happy Earth Day.

*Relax, I'm joking.

Comments

From the same article:

"It is now abundantly clear that food-to-fuel mandates are leading to increased environmental damage. First, producing ethanol requires huge amounts of energy -- most of which comes from coal."

I don't know of many farmers who have tractors or trucks that run on coal. Herbicides and pesticides are not made out of coal. And you cann't grow corn or anything else on a stripmine.

"Third, food-to-fuel mandates are helping drive up the price of agricultural staples, leading to significant changes in land use with major environmental harm. Here in the United States, farmers are pulling land out of the federal conservation program, threatening fragile habitats."

It's their land. In the meantime--the government is giving away mineral rights on public lands and suspending environmental, health and reasonable use laws and regulations that the rest of us have to abide by, to energy lobby interests. These lands belong to citizens of the US and we aren't even being asked about it. Why aren't you doing something about THAT Mr. Hoity-Toity Environmental Lawyer?

"Second, the production process creates a number of hazardous byproducts, and some production facilities are reportedly dumping these in local water sources. "

The end product of ethanol prodution is mash---high grade animal feed. It contains yeast, the same stuff bread is made out of. There are no toxic wastes from ethanol production.

Coal mining causes acid run offs that kill everything they come in contact with. Strip mining destroys the land forever(as far as human lifetimes are concerned, it removes topsoils that took longer to form than the history of the human race) And oil spills kill everything they come in contact with for hundreds of miles, remember Exxon Valdez?

"Increased agricultural production also means increased fertilizer use.'

Ever heard of compost or ashes? Those are fertilizer, and they aren't made out of oil. But they are the final product of ethanol production from cellulose. Nature has used compost or ash to fertilize the soil for billions of years. It is fertilizer made out of oil that is polluting waterways and oceans.

" Turning one-fourth of our corn into fuel is affecting global food prices. U.S. food prices are rising at twice the rate of inflation, hitting the pocketbooks of lower-income Americans and people living on fixed incomes."

Because the price of OIL is going up so drastically you idiots!!! OIL for gasoline, OIL for herbicides, OIL for pesticides........everything else is the same.
Farmers have to make a profit to stay in business---THAT is why biofuels came about in the first place. Remember Willie Nelson and farmaide? Without farmers, you will have no biofuels AND no food---for anybody.

Failure? What were its aims exactly? (See above comment and ask again.)

We are in Iraq because...
But thats just not true...
then its because....
But...
then...

In the meantime--the government is giving away mineral rights on public lands and suspending environmental, health and reasonable use laws and regulations that the rest of us have to abide by, to energy lobby interests. These lands belong to citizens of the US and we aren't even being asked about it.

If they asked me I would tell them they are terrible stewards and that they should sell it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blogads

Search


  • Google



Google Ads



Stats





  • View My Stats

WSJ.com: Environmental Capital - WSJ.com

Common Tragedies

Environmental and Urban Economics

Globalisation and the Environment

Knowledge Problem