Must Read: Paul Krugman on ethanol: "The Sum of All Ears"

[flpoljunkie]

http://donkeyod.wordpress.com/2007/01/29/the-sum-of-all-ears/#more-826

The Sum of All Ears
by Paul Krugman
January 29, 2007

But even after the Bushies are gone, bad energy policy ideas will have powerful constituencies, while good ideas won’t.

Subsidizing ethanol benefits two well-organized groups: corn growers and ethanol producers (especially the corporate giant Archer Daniels Midland). As a result, it’s bad policy with bipartisan support. For example, earlier this month legislation calling for a huge increase in ethanol use was introduced by five senators, of whom four, including presidential aspirants Barack Obama and Joseph Biden, were Democrats. In a recent town meeting in Iowa, Hillary Clinton managed to mention ethanol twice, according to The Politico.

Meanwhile, conservation doesn’t have anything like the same natural political mojo. Where’s the organized, powerful constituency for tougher fuel economy standards, a higher gasoline tax, or a cap-and-trade system on carbon dioxide emissions?

Can anything be done to promote good energy policy? Public education is a necessary first step, which is why Al Gore deserves all the praise he’s getting. It would also help to have a president who gets scientific advice from scientists, not oil company executives and novelists.

But there’s still a huge gap between what obviously should be done and what seems politically possible. And I don’t know how to close that gap.

[Mass]

1. Thanks for posting that - There is nothing to be earned by replacing

the oil lobby by an ethanol lobby made of the same big firms or a few others.

I wished Al would run. He certainly gets it, which is a lot more than you can say from the other candidates.

[sweetheart]

2. but michael chrichton said....

... that there is no global warming... he would know, he's rich therefore annointed by god.

But I, being poor, have only my dreams;
I have spread my dreams under your feet;
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.

[elocs]

3. Those who have actually studied ethanol know its shortcomings.

Cheer lead about ethanol all you want, but there is no way around the fact that ethanol has up to 30% less energy than gas which means it reduces your miles per gallon which means you have to buy more ethanol, ethanol blend to go the same distance as you would with gas. The biggest cheerleaders for ethanol are those like ADM and farmers who stand to make a buck from it. Politicians like it because it brings money to their district or state, not that it is the best idea for alternative energy. I urge everybody who gets orgasmic about ethanol to study not only about its benefits, but also its negatives.

[flpoljunkie]

4. This Jack Ohman/The Oregonian cartoon sums it up rather well.

[greenman3610]

5. subsidies to ADM are money wasted in this battle

for sure.

I think everyone agees that growing corn with gasoline and
petroleum based fertilizer input, processing it with a
coal powered fermentation plant, etc, is a bonehead
process.

There are some other players tho, who are following some
different formulas, and, if the market is allowed to work,
may be able to produce environmentally friendly
ethanol in significant amounts.

I say we need to de-subsidize fossil fuels, and then
see which players really are winners on a level field.

[Parisle]

6. Agree, Greenman

--- The energy required to produce ethanol, and the greenhouse gas emissions from burning it... are two substantial negatives. (Also, I've always heard that sugar beets are a far better source than corn) The whole ethanol push is being set up to make people feel that something is being done and, if it IS done, then it will be co-opted by big companies. The de-subsidizing you suggest is a good idea.

[sakabatou]

7. Corn this, corn that...

Why not switchgrass? From what I've heard, it's a lot better in many ways to corn.