Thread: Bush Ethanol Scam Eats America's Food Supply

Ethanol fuel is not so green

ETHANOL is not the answer for Australia's future fuel needs.

It is not green, it is not economically viable, and any move to mandate its inclusion in fuel would have enormous repercussions for other sectors of Australian industry.
It is something of a relief, therefore, to read a just-released parliamentary research paper on the economic effects of an ethanol mandate.

The paper concludes that "no prima facie economic case for a mandate has been established".

In short, the findings of the report are as follows:

• Reduced oil imports are only one effect of an ethanol mandate on the trade account. Any diversion of feedstock (sugarcane, grains and the like) from exports, or increased imports of feedstock needed to meet the mandate would increase the trade deficit.

• A mandate is only one way of reducing reliance on imported oil. Importing ethanol, for example, would be less economically costly than a mandate, and would diversify geographic supply sources and the composition of fuel.

• The evidence suggests that the costs of creating jobs under an E10 mandate would be high. A mandate could also adversely affect other rural industries.

• The Biofuels Taskforce that the Howard government established concluded that greenhouse gas benefits alone would not warrant further assisting biofuels given the availability of much cheaper carbon reduction options.

• The additional demand for feedstock under a mandate might lead to competition for land from other uses (food, exports).

• A mandate could benefit the economy if domestic ethanol could compete with imports without government assistance.

Common sense at last.

In Mexico thousands of hectares of agave (used to produce tequila) are being torched as farmers rush to plant corn for use in (government) subsidised ethanol production to meet US demand for biofuels.

Corn has doubled in price in the past two years, while stockpiles have shrunk alarmingly.

As ABN Amro Morgans chief economist Michael Knox put it so well recently:

"Part of this increased (grain) consumption comes from turning corn into fodder for automobiles. This is the dumbest idea that politicians have produced this century."

And making ethanol is a hungry process. It requires some 200kg of corn to produce between 90 and 100 litres of ethanol, enough to fill the fuel tank of a typical four-wheel-drive vehicle. That same amount of corn could supply enough calories to feed a person for a year.

Then there is the energy equation.

With most existing biofuel processing technology, the production of one litre of ethanol consumes more energy than the ethanol itself will provide.

So in effect ethanol production is increasing our consumption of fossil fuels (such as the coal used in power stations) so we can burn what otherwise would have been used as food. You're just burning one fuel to create another.

And it is not just food for humans. A large part of Australia's grain production goes to feed livestock.

Diverting that livestock feed to burn in cars will push up the price of meat. Or increasing the amount of grain we produce to meet demand from the biofuels industry means land currently used for growing other crops will be turned over to produce feedstock for energy production.

The bottom line is simple economics.

If ethanol is as great as its proponents argue, then why can't the industry survive without government assistance (such as tariff relief), and an artificially distorted market in the form of a mandate that all fuel must contain a certain percentage of the stuff?

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/stor ... %2C00.html

You never take out of the mouths of the most poor and call it an alternative. I have to say Bush isn't why.....Gore and the global warming crowd is.

Greta Van Sustran did an indepth interview with Bush about a year ago...in Argentina. Bush was extolling the virtues of Brazil's sugar cane based ethynol, and hyping the corn based US ethynol. I put the blame squarely on Bush because, God forbid, we should start drilling in Alaska! Clinton and the Bushes would have to stop all their nefarious dealings with the Saudis...and their fortunes might dry up just like all the Texas oil wells!

And to add insult to injury, China is going to be drilling for oil off the coast of Florida! How's that for chutzpah!

BTW, one ear of white corn is $1.25 at Ralph's!!!

Anyone take a look at the articles at this site:

http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/

the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) was formed to develop and promote solutions that would attract the public support and political momentum to achieve real progress

This one is specifically addressing the National Commission on Energy Policy


http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/ht/d/sp/i/596/pid/596