Biofuel quotas risk lives

Published April 15, 2008 4:00am ET



News that people are rioting and dying around the world over food shortages should give local politicians pushing higher biofuel use pause.

State Sen. Robert Garagiola, a Democrat from Montgomery, is one of the alternative fuels? supporters in the state.

He sponsored bills in the latest session to increase the percentage of biodiesel fuel used in the fuel mix for state vehicles; to require 25 percent of the state?s flexible fuel vehicles by 2010 to exclusively use E85, a blend of corn-based ethanol and gasoline; and to give tax credits to consumers who use heating oil comprising at least 5 percent biodiesel. Only the last bill passed the General Assembly.

All are bad ideas.

Proponents argue the fuels are betterfor the environment, will help farmers and will create green jobs. Numerous studies debunk the environmental friendliness of biofuels. And biofuels help to push food prices higher by shifting farming from food production to fuel production. Global food prices are up 83 percent in the past three years from increased consumer demand for food across the globe and biofuel production, according to the World Bank.

World Bank President Robert Zoellick has said that 33 countries around the world face a serious risk for social unrest due to rising food and fuel prices.

Numerous government reports show biofuel is a lousy replacement for oil. A 2007 Government Accountability Office report says biofuel could, in conjunction with other alternative technologies, offset only about 4 percent of U.S. annual oil consumption by 2015.

This does not mean we should not be looking for alternative fuel technologies. But mandating biofuel use when evidence so clearly points to its inefficiency and negative environmental impact ? not to mention how increased production drives up food prices, hurting the world?s poor ? should give supporters numerous reasons to halt plans to sponsor laws requiring their use.

New biofuel technologies could diminish these problems. In the interim, it is not worth killing people to promote a product whose only benefit is boosting farm income.