Biofuels won?t wean Maryland from foreign oil or make the state greener. But subsidizing their production will make living here more expensive ? and enrich the state?s 4,065 farmers at everyone else?s expense.
State Sen. Robert Garagiola, D-Montgomery, is pushing legislation, based on recommendations from a state report on renewable alternative fuels released last month, that includes giving tax credits to homeowners whose heating oil contains 5 percent biofuel and requiring half of state flexible-fuel vehicles to use fuel with a high ethanol content.
On the face of it, the reforms sound like a great way to reduce state ? and consequently ? national dependence on foreign oil. Proponents say using more biofuels and subsidizing the industry in Maryland will also reduce greenhouse gases, create jobs and boost farmers? income.
But evidence points otherwise on everything except the jolt to farm income. As a February 2007 Government Accountability Office report says, “Key alternative technologies currently supply the equivalent of only about 1 percent of U.S. consumption of petroleum products, and DOE (Department of Energy) projects that even under optimistic scenarios, by 2015 these technologies could displace only the equivalent of 4 percent of projected U.S. annual consumption.” The report analyzed all viable alternatives, not just alternative fuels. So expecting biofuels alone to solve our oil dependency and save the environment makes no sense.
Second, ethanol subsidies have driven up the cost of food across the country as farmers devote more acreage to growing corn for fuel rather than food. The displacement also means less land for other crops ? pushing prices up for other grains and meat, as feed prices have skyrocketed. The task force estimates Maryland farmers could stand to make $100 million more if the state promoted the biofuel industry in Maryland. That would help the tiny fraction of people who farm in the state but only serve to push food prices even higher at a time when Maryland residents can ill afford more taxes, following those already passed in the special session.
Task force members did the residents of Maryland a disservice by completely ignoring the effect on them in this debate and by ignoring well-respected government studies on the viability of biofuels as a substitute for oil.
We agree that the state must research ways to reduce its dependence on oil. Certainly research into biofuel technology and prototype production should continue. Growing world demand coupled with fewereasy-to-exploit fields and political turbulence translate to high oil prices. More importantly, our way of life could be seriously disrupted if political or other events cut off a steady supply of oil, as 40 percent of total U.S. energy and about 70 percent of fuel for transportation comes from petroleum.
But the better choice would be to scrap biofuel subsidies and redirect research funds from low-priority projects and all federal “pork” money to the state?s premier universities to investigate which technologies have the best chance of displacing oil. Baltimore City would be an excellent location for an alternative fuel research park and make Maryland a hub for alternative fuel businesses. Mayor Sheila Dixon, Gov. Martin O?Malley, what do you think?
