Foreign Affairs takes a whack at everyone’s favorite alternative fuel: ethanol. Loved by Republicans and Democrats alike because it curries favor in farm states and shows ‘bona fides’ on global warming, both parties have pushed to expand its use. Increased ethanol use however, presents significant problems–not least that it tends to force food prices higher:
Production of ethanol is costly to taxpayers and to consumers. It is not particularly ‘green,’ and it’s no solution to the problem of dependence on foreign oil. Apart from everything else, it’s extremely difficult to ship by pipeline, making it difficult to distribute nationally. Many economists argue that a better and more direct way to encourage the development of alternatives to gasoline, to reduce dependence on foreign oil, and to limit emission of greenhouse gases would be a pigouvian carbon tax. Of course that presents a huge downside for the eco-warriors–Americans would be able to see clearly the costs of reducing greenhouse emissions, rather than just paying the hidden costs of ethanol production. Energy legislation will be a priority for Congress in the weeks ahead, but the fact that the label is so broad (‘energy legislation’) tells you that the effort lacks focus. What should be done about energy? Consumers want lower prices–as do the Democrats, apparently. Yet there’s no doubt that lower prices for gasoline and other carbon fuels increases the emission of greenhouse gases. Further, some Democrats want to promote clean alternatives, others wish to protect parochial interests such as coal, while there are even a few who want to encourage greater supply. And don’t even get started on the rift between those who want to promote renewable energy and those who oppose windmills for aesthetic reasons. How do Senate Democrats intend to resolve these conflicting goals? Giving something to everybody seems to be the solution. Their bill includes provisions to: * Promote biofuels and renewable fuels (including a ‘fuel tank cap labeling requirement’); * Promote advanced lighting technologies; * Expedite energy efficiency standards; * Advance battery technology; * Subsidize ‘weatherization;’ * Capture carbon; * Raise fuel economy standards; * Stop ‘price gouging;’ and, * Improve our ‘energy diplomacy.’ II don’t think our energy problems can be solved with a silver bullet; but I’m not sure if a laundry list will be effective, either.
