|
May 22, 2007
Bio Fuels - Starve The Poor So The Rich Can Feel Good
Bio Fuels may be good for corn growers, but they are bad for corn eaters. Policymakers and legislators often fail to consider the law of unintended consequences. The latest example is their attempt to reduce the United States' dependence on imported oil by shifting a big share of the nation's largest crop - corn - to the production of ethanol for fueling automobiles.Which is always a danger when you use command and control methods (government) to solve what is essentially a market problem. Balance is lost. Markets are organic. Command and control is like adding fertilizer to the soil. The right amount can help. Too much and the plant dies. On Capitol Hill, the Senate is debating legislation that would further expand corn ethanol production. A 2005 law already mandates production of 7.5 billion gallons by 2012, about 5 percent of the projected gasoline use at that time. These biofuel goals are propped up by a generous federal subsidy of 51 cents a gallon for blending ethanol into gasoline and a tariff of 54 cents a gallon on most imported ethanol to help keep out cheap imports from Brazil.How about that! It amounts to taking better than 35% of the world's corn supply out of the human food chain. Thus, it is no surprise that the price of corn has doubled in the past year - from $2 to $4 a bushel. We are already seeing upward pressure on food prices as the demand for ethanol boosts the demand for corn. Until the recent ethanol boom, more than 60 percent of the annual US corn harvest was fed domestically to cattle, hogs, and chickens or used in food or beverages. Thousands of food items contain corn or corn byproducts. In Mexico, where corn is a staple food, the price of tortillas has skyrocketed because US corn has been diverted to ethanol production.Mexicans are going hungry so American Greens can feel good about their oil consumption. I wonder what effect that will have on our illegal immigration problem? We all want to help the environment. The moral question is: should we make the poor of the world suffer so greenies can feel good? What we need is some alternative crop such as switch grass or even trees that will not take crops out of production. The problem with such non food crops is that at the present time there is no good way to convert cellulose to ethanol. There are micro-organisms that scientist are working on to make the process economically viable. We are not there yet. In the mean time what should be done? American legislators and policymakers seem oblivious to the scientific and economic realities of ethanol production. Brazil and other major sugar cane-producing nations enjoy significant advantages over the US in producing ethanol, including ample agricultural land, warm climates amenable to vast plantations, and on-site distilleries that can process cane immediately after harvest.However there is a domestic tariff of 54¢ a gallon on imported ethanol to prop up American corn prices and corn producers. What we are seeing is what happens when governments interfere with the organic adaptations that markets provide. If we are going to mandate ethanol fuels we should at least allow all suppliers into the market on an equal footing. Then the low cost producer wins the day, rather than the most politically connected producer. Oh, well. We see this so often. When two government agents get together you can figure the intelligence of their proposal by subtracting the IQ of the less smart from the IQ of the most smart. Once you get three or more of them together you are in negative territory. We have 535 Congress critters in America. It is not hard to figure out the intelligence behind any proposals or laws coming from that body. Just do the math. H/T Instapundit Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon on 05.22.07 at 04:39 AM
Comments
I totally agree, but fortunately, the pig farmers aren't wallowing in self-pity: With Corn Prices Rising, Pigs Switch To Fatty Snacks On the Menus: Trail Mix, Cheese Curls, Tater Tots; Farmer Jones's Ethanol Fix http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117971270570109153.html?mod=djemTMB Sissy Willis · May 22, 2007 09:32 AM Alan: Jon Thompson · May 22, 2007 01:44 PM Jon, It aint the corn lobby you'd need to work against, it's the sugar lobby. And if corn syrup starts selling for more than cane sugar you'd better believe people who use sugar are going to want a better deal from their suppliers. Right now the sugar lobby has an edge because there is a substitute available that isn't foreign sugar. Once that substitute has been briced out of the market the sugar lobby loses its edge. Alan Kellogg · May 23, 2007 09:41 AM Jon, Besides which, it's not the corn lobby that's driving this, it's the ethanol lobby. The corn lobby is benefitting from the ethanol drive, but they don't really need to push it. Furthermore, should the manufactured need for ethanol drive corn prices to the point alternatives become more affordable, you could well see a collapse in the corn market outside of ethanol production. Consider what would happen if the livestock industry converted from corn based feed to rye/barley/wheat based feed. What would change in how cattle and sheep are raised? What about raising pigs? Never discount any possible consequence following an action or decision. Alan Kellogg · May 23, 2007 09:49 AM |
|
July 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
July 2007
June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
But who are they?
No stomach for censorship! Think air travel couldn't suck more? Think again. Mildly Dangerous Victorian Boys Sail Near The Wind "Transitional Problems of Morale, Attitudes And The Quality of Life" Benignly Neglectful Victorian Parents Mars Inc Real Americans Love Fireworks Taking Liberties With The Indians Your President Is Lying To You
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Here's a consequence for you.
As the cost of corn increases so does the cost of corn syrup. It becomes more expensive than cane sugar, even with the tariff on the latter. Drink manufacturers such as Coke and Pepsi switch to cane sugar, then start lobbying Congress to eliminate or reduce the tariff. Faced with a more potent force than that of the sugar lobby, Congress acquiesess and the tariff is eliminated. Cheap foreign sugar floods the market with all the consequences that entails.