Ethanol: Science Based Solution or Special Interest Welfare
Posted on November 29, 2007 Comments (6)
I believe the way to deal with the need for energy resources should be primarily science and economics based. I do not think it should be based on who can best reward politicians for giving them a bunch of federal dollars. Ethanol Craze Cools As Doubts Multiply by Lauren Etter, Wall Street Journal
A study coauthored by Nobel-prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen said corn ethanol might exacerbate climate change as the added fertilizer used to grow corn raised emissions of a very potent greenhouse gas called nitrous oxide. The ethanol industry replies to that one with an Energy Department study concluding that use of ethanol reduces greenhouse-gas emissions by 18% to 28% on a per-gallon basis, provided that coal isn’t used to run ethanol plants.
Mr. Dinneen, who has been lobbying on ethanol so long he’s known as the “reverend of renewable fuels,” says he’s “reasonably confident” Congress will raise the ethanol mandate. He says he’s talking with the military, labor groups, Southern black churches and others about how ethanol can help them. “We’ve got to build the biggest, baddest coalition we can.”
I am skeptical of claims that mainly focus on getting the government to subsidize your production and erect trade barriers to foreign supplies to the USA. I don’t mind a few $Billion even (quite a lot of money) to be invested in research on biofules but just creating a massive payment, taxation and regulation scheme to funnel money to special interests is not a good idea.
Related: Peak Soil – Ethanol Demand Threatens Food Prices – Farming Without Subsidies in New Zealand – MIT’s Energy “Manhattan Project” – posts on energy – Is alcohol the energy answer? – Biofuels: Green energy or grim reaper? – Farming Washington for Handouts – Washington Waste – Paying Money it Doesn’t Have to Special Interests – China and the Sugar Industry Tax Consumers – Study Slams Economics Of Ethanol And Biodiesel