Sep 27, 2006
Ethanol - Americas Big Fat Loser
Thomas Friedmans 9/20/06 column in the New York Times on taxing ethanol imports highlights the political and structural obstacles to common sense.
Friedman writes:
Thanks to pressure from Midwest farmers and agribusinesses, who want to protect the U.S. corn ethanol industry from competition from Brazilian sugar ethanol, we have imposed a stiff tariff to keep it out. We do this even though Brazilian sugar ethanol provides eight times the energy of the fossil fuel used to make it, while American corn ethanol provides only 1.3 times the energy of the fossil fuel used to make it. We do this even though sugar ethanol reduces greenhouses gases more than corn ethanol. And we do this even though sugar cane ethanol can easily be grown in poor tropical countries in Africa or the Caribbean, and could actually help alleviate their poverty. Yes, you read all this right. We tax imported sugar ethanol, which could finance our poor friends, but we dont tax imported crude oil, which definitely finances our rich enemies. Wed rather power anti-Americans with our energy purchases than promote antipoverty.
Editor comments: Who gets Fat? Who Gets Fuel?
We can all win Bio-Diesel gives everyone involved a real chance.
- 20-30% more energy than any "alternative"
- 10-20% reduction in emissions
- Can survive without subsides
End the politics, scare tactics, government subsides... Bio-Diesel.
Labels: EthanolHoax
¶ 9/27/2006 06:12:00 AM
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Government mandated solutions to any problem always creates this kind of bind. Read "The Road to Serfdom" by Hayek to find out why.
The best thing to do for any of these problems (since the demand for solutions is out there) is to let the market sort it out.
Why? Because it is cheaper to buy a congress critter than it is to buy a market.
BTW did you know that the SUV was a result of our fuel efficiency laws? Station wagons (passenger vehicles) were made uneconomic. "Trucks" did not have the same restrictions. Voila - the SUV. With station wagons no longer available folks started buying "trucks".
Now station wagons were designed to be as light as possible to make fuel economy similar to passenger vehicles. "Trucks" have to be a certain minimum weight and height off the ground to meet the truck classification.
Perhaps government "help" is way too expensive these days.
Post a Comment
The best thing to do for any of these problems (since the demand for solutions is out there) is to let the market sort it out.
Why? Because it is cheaper to buy a congress critter than it is to buy a market.
BTW did you know that the SUV was a result of our fuel efficiency laws? Station wagons (passenger vehicles) were made uneconomic. "Trucks" did not have the same restrictions. Voila - the SUV. With station wagons no longer available folks started buying "trucks".
Now station wagons were designed to be as light as possible to make fuel economy similar to passenger vehicles. "Trucks" have to be a certain minimum weight and height off the ground to meet the truck classification.
Perhaps government "help" is way too expensive these days.
Links to this post:
<< Home
