Loving Ethanol For The Sake Of Iowa
This column was written by The Editors of the National Review Online.
It's a depressing ritual. Every four years, as Iowans prepare to cast the first votes in the presidential-primary season, candidates descend on the corn-covered state and discover the miraculous properties of ethanol. The latest convert is Fred Thompson, who voted against ethanol subsidies when he was a U.S. senator but now says that ethanol is "a matter . . . of national security." What he means is that he supports increasing federal assistance for ethanol production, on the grounds that this will reduce American dependence on oil from the Middle East. But, like most arguments for ethanol subsidies, this one is spurious.
First, even the biggest of proposed ethanol supports - an increase in mandated ethanol consumption from 7.5 billion gallons a year to 15 billion gallons a year, as called for in the energy bill Congress is currently debating - would barely dent America's oil consumption, which is approximately 150 billion gallons annually. We could plant corn from New York to California and still not produce an equivalent amount of ethanol.
Second, only around 5 million automobiles in America are "flexible-fuel vehicles" - cars that are equipped to run on a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline (known as E85). That's out of 135 million registered passenger cars in the United States. Moreover, as the Dallas Morning News reported last year, the owners of almost all of these flex-fuel vehicles tend to fill them up with regular gas, owing to a scarcity of gas stations that sell E85. Simply mandating greater ethanol consumption won't change that. A more drastic intervention - for example, requiring gas stations to sell E85 - would also be necessary. Some liberal groups have called for just that. Does Thompson agree with them? Conservative voters should hope not.
Thompson has cited high oil prices to defend his about-face on ethanol: "When I was in the Senate, I think oil was at $23 a barrel," he told the Associated Press. But this is another red herring. Petroleum is a major input in the manufacture of ethanol - it is required not just to make ethanol, but to transport it to points of sale. In fact, there's good evidence that making ethanol requires more petroleum than making gasoline does. So if high oil prices should make us want to use less oil, that's an argument for diminishing our ethanol consumption right now, not boosting it.
None of this is to deny that there's a legitimate market for ethanol. All gasoline is required to contain additives known as "oxygenates," and ethanol is one of them. Gasoline blenders have turned increasingly to it since MBTE - another additive - was found to contaminate groundwater.
But the momentum behind federal support for ethanol militates toward production of far more than the market can absorb. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, which enacted the initial ethanol mandate of 7.5 billion gallons a year, encouraged the ethanol industry to increase production dramatically. Now, reports of an ethanol glut suggest that the industry has overproduced - something that tends to happen when companies make production decisions based on government mandates rather than market signals.
The ethanol glut is inefficient, but it's bad in other ways too. The diversion of corn from use as food to ethanol production has led to higher food prices - a side-effect that has finally gotten Congress's attention. As farmers grow more corn in hopes of selling it to ethanol makers, they also threaten to disrupt the water supply in some regions. That's because farmers are both planting new corn on formerly uncultivated soil, and converting acres already under cultivation toward corn and away from other, less water-intensive food crops. To put the current expansion of corn production into perspective, consider that we have more corn growing on American soil right now than at any time since World War II, when the farms of Europe had been devastated by war and America was feeding two continents.
There is no excuse for Congress to bail out the ethanol industry again by doubling a mandate that should not exist in the first place. If any major 2008 presidential candidate aside from John McCain opposes this heavy-handed dirigisme, he or she has yet to say so. McCain, for his part, deserves credit for taking a clear-eyed view of ethanol subsidies - even as he jokes that he drinks "a glass of ethanol every morning." That position on ethanol is quite possibly the most sober in Washington.
By The Editors of National Review Online
Reprinted with permission from National Review Online
National Review Online It's a depressing ritual. Every four years, as Iowans prepare to cast the first votes in the presidential-primary season, candidates descend on the corn-covered state and discover the miraculous properties of ethanol. The latest convert is Fred Thompson, who voted against ethanol subsidies when he was a U.S. senator but now says that ethanol is "a matter . . . of national security." What he means is that he supports increasing federal assistance for ethanol production, on the grounds that this will reduce American dependence on oil from the Middle East. But, like most arguments for ethanol subsidies, this one is spurious.
First, even the biggest of proposed ethanol supports - an increase in mandated ethanol consumption from 7.5 billion gallons a year to 15 billion gallons a year, as called for in the energy bill Congress is currently debating - would barely dent America's oil consumption, which is approximately 150 billion gallons annually. We could plant corn from New York to California and still not produce an equivalent amount of ethanol.
Second, only around 5 million automobiles in America are "flexible-fuel vehicles" - cars that are equipped to run on a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline (known as E85). That's out of 135 million registered passenger cars in the United States. Moreover, as the Dallas Morning News reported last year, the owners of almost all of these flex-fuel vehicles tend to fill them up with regular gas, owing to a scarcity of gas stations that sell E85. Simply mandating greater ethanol consumption won't change that. A more drastic intervention - for example, requiring gas stations to sell E85 - would also be necessary. Some liberal groups have called for just that. Does Thompson agree with them? Conservative voters should hope not.
Thompson has cited high oil prices to defend his about-face on ethanol: "When I was in the Senate, I think oil was at $23 a barrel," he told the Associated Press. But this is another red herring. Petroleum is a major input in the manufacture of ethanol - it is required not just to make ethanol, but to transport it to points of sale. In fact, there's good evidence that making ethanol requires more petroleum than making gasoline does. So if high oil prices should make us want to use less oil, that's an argument for diminishing our ethanol consumption right now, not boosting it.
None of this is to deny that there's a legitimate market for ethanol. All gasoline is required to contain additives known as "oxygenates," and ethanol is one of them. Gasoline blenders have turned increasingly to it since MBTE - another additive - was found to contaminate groundwater.
But the momentum behind federal support for ethanol militates toward production of far more than the market can absorb. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, which enacted the initial ethanol mandate of 7.5 billion gallons a year, encouraged the ethanol industry to increase production dramatically. Now, reports of an ethanol glut suggest that the industry has overproduced - something that tends to happen when companies make production decisions based on government mandates rather than market signals.
The ethanol glut is inefficient, but it's bad in other ways too. The diversion of corn from use as food to ethanol production has led to higher food prices - a side-effect that has finally gotten Congress's attention. As farmers grow more corn in hopes of selling it to ethanol makers, they also threaten to disrupt the water supply in some regions. That's because farmers are both planting new corn on formerly uncultivated soil, and converting acres already under cultivation toward corn and away from other, less water-intensive food crops. To put the current expansion of corn production into perspective, consider that we have more corn growing on American soil right now than at any time since World War II, when the farms of Europe had been devastated by war and America was feeding two continents.
There is no excuse for Congress to bail out the ethanol industry again by doubling a mandate that should not exist in the first place. If any major 2008 presidential candidate aside from John McCain opposes this heavy-handed dirigisme, he or she has yet to say so. McCain, for his part, deserves credit for taking a clear-eyed view of ethanol subsidies - even as he jokes that he drinks "a glass of ethanol every morning." That position on ethanol is quite possibly the most sober in Washington.
By The Editors of National Review Online
Reprinted with permission from National Review Online
Recommended
- Top Twelve Most Patriotic Songs Ever
- American dystopia more reality than fiction
- The hunk factor and the 2012 elections
- Obama only goes after leaks that don't benefit him
- Is 60 The New 40 Or Is 40 The New 60?
- The Decline and Fall of the American Empire
- High School Reunion Tips
- Many British Muslims Put Islam First
When food growers, producers, wholesalers, retailers, and consumers all have to pay higher costs due to the high cost of energy used to plant, grow, harvest, etc, etc? Under the current plan, milk now cost $4.00 a gallon, and bread is $2.00 a loaf. If the cost of corn rises, but the cost of EVERYTHING ELSE goes down, won''t we be better off?
"Petroleum is a major input in the manufacture of ethanol - it is required not just to make ethanol, but to transport it to points of sale. In fact, there%u2019s good evidence that making ethanol requires more petroleum than making gasoline does. So if high oil prices should make us want to use less oil, that%u2019s an argument for diminishing our ethanol consumption right now, not boosting it."
So how do they get the regular, oil produced gas to the service stations without using diesel fuel burning trucks to get it there? Or are we supposed to be stupid and think that only ethanol needs to be trucked to the service stations, whereas gasoline just magically appears in the service stations tanks direct from the refineries?
Where does the "good evidence that making ethanol requires more petroleum than making gasoline does" come from? Shell? Exxon-Mobil? Sunoco? Can he provide this "good evidence", or is this just more GOP pro big oil rhetoric?
Here''s a (half-serious) thought: If they want to subsidize something, how about a basic bicycle for every American (and one of those neat battery-operated mini-carts for us seniors)? More bike paths and lanes? Cut our fuel consumption and excess pounds at the same time.
Corn belongs in tortillas (and succotash? Does anyone eat succotash anymore?)
To find myself on the same side of an issue as the NRO is a bit of a shock. I''m almost ready for them to acknowledge the total incompetence of the Bush administration vis-a-vis Iraq (and Iran)!
The other possibility is that, as I learn more, my thinking on ethanol may change and I''ll be back in that comfortable mode of disagreeing with the NRO!