<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Evaluating U.S. and EU policies]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/a-slew-of-new-reports-on-biofuel-subsidies/ Wed, 10 Oct 2007 08:59:57 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/a-slew-of-new-reports-on-biofuel-subsidies/1 Really informative article, Ron

Global warming is being used as an excuse for subsidies by politicians? What are they going to do if someone pulls the biofuel rug out from under them?

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

]]> Really informative article, Ron

Global warming is being used as an excuse for subsidies by politicians? What are they going to do if someone pulls the biofuel rug out from under them?

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

]]> Comment #2 by Ron Steenblik http://www.grist.org/article/a-slew-of-new-reports-on-biofuel-subsidies/ Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:05:13 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/a-slew-of-new-reports-on-biofuel-subsidies/2 In answer to BioD

Er, get on their bikes?

]]> In answer to BioD

Er, get on their bikes?

]]> Comment #3 by Jason D Scorse http://www.grist.org/article/a-slew-of-new-reports-on-biofuel-subsidies/ Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:48:03 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/a-slew-of-new-reports-on-biofuel-subsidies/3 Ron....

didn't know about the global subsidies initiative- great stuff- has there been any update on the Perverse Subsidies article/book from a few years back? i.e. is there any up-to-date report that documents perverse subsidies around the world? thanks

I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.

]]> Ron....

didn't know about the global subsidies initiative- great stuff- has there been any update on the Perverse Subsidies article/book from a few years back? i.e. is there any up-to-date report that documents perverse subsidies around the world? thanks

I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.

]]> Comment #4 by Ron Steenblik http://www.grist.org/article/a-slew-of-new-reports-on-biofuel-subsidies/ Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:36:22 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/a-slew-of-new-reports-on-biofuel-subsidies/4 Jason

Norman Myers, the author of Perverse Subsidies (click for a summary), is actually one of the more active members of our Board. I don't think he has any plans to update the book he wrote with Jennifer Kent. However, there are loads of other books around. We have posted what we call a Subsidy Primer on our web site, for one. Although it aims to be more of an educational tool than a critique of subsidies, providing a generic discussion of subsidies -- what they are, how they are measured, efforts to control them -- it does contain some examples.

We have also provided a database of various studies on subsidies. That can be found by going to this web page and then, under the sector you choose (agriculture, energy, fisheries, services, transport, investment incentives), click on the photo where it says "Click here for the ... literature database".

You might also want to procure copies of the OECD studies. Go to their on-line bookshop and type in "Environmentally Harmful Subsidies" in the search box.

Finally, there are several other books I can recommend. I've described them on my Amazon.com list of books on subsidies.

]]> Jason

Norman Myers, the author of Perverse Subsidies (click for a summary), is actually one of the more active members of our Board. I don't think he has any plans to update the book he wrote with Jennifer Kent. However, there are loads of other books around. We have posted what we call a Subsidy Primer on our web site, for one. Although it aims to be more of an educational tool than a critique of subsidies, providing a generic discussion of subsidies -- what they are, how they are measured, efforts to control them -- it does contain some examples.

We have also provided a database of various studies on subsidies. That can be found by going to this web page and then, under the sector you choose (agriculture, energy, fisheries, services, transport, investment incentives), click on the photo where it says "Click here for the ... literature database".

You might also want to procure copies of the OECD studies. Go to their on-line bookshop and type in "Environmentally Harmful Subsidies" in the search box.

Finally, there are several other books I can recommend. I've described them on my Amazon.com list of books on subsidies.

]]> Comment #5 by justlou http://www.grist.org/article/a-slew-of-new-reports-on-biofuel-subsidies/ Wed, 10 Oct 2007 21:42:25 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/a-slew-of-new-reports-on-biofuel-subsidies/5 Big Empty

Economic revitalization probably won't come to many rural communities from ethanol growth.  My county is projected to lose a third of its population by 2020.  Adding a hundred jobs in ethanol plant here and there will not have much impact.  

Much of the wealth garnered by farmers from higher crop prices will leave the farm and flow into industries providing production inputs.  Input costs are rising rapidly with higher crop prices.  Farm equipment manufacturers will prosper and  dealers of tractors and combines will be able to maintain their already consolidated positions.  The absentee owners of farmland, many who do not live in the same rural communities, will gain from higher farm rents.  

So, I do not see the potential for much of the added prosperity to actually stay on the land and do the local communities that much good.  But the base of industrial crop production will be bolstered at least temporarily.  

It really is time to end the myth of the family farm. This only furthers bad farm policy.  

]]> Big Empty

Economic revitalization probably won't come to many rural communities from ethanol growth.  My county is projected to lose a third of its population by 2020.  Adding a hundred jobs in ethanol plant here and there will not have much impact.  

Much of the wealth garnered by farmers from higher crop prices will leave the farm and flow into industries providing production inputs.  Input costs are rising rapidly with higher crop prices.  Farm equipment manufacturers will prosper and  dealers of tractors and combines will be able to maintain their already consolidated positions.  The absentee owners of farmland, many who do not live in the same rural communities, will gain from higher farm rents.  

So, I do not see the potential for much of the added prosperity to actually stay on the land and do the local communities that much good.  But the base of industrial crop production will be bolstered at least temporarily.  

It really is time to end the myth of the family farm. This only furthers bad farm policy.  

]]> Comment #6 by Ron Steenblik http://www.grist.org/article/a-slew-of-new-reports-on-biofuel-subsidies/ Wed, 10 Oct 2007 23:22:46 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/a-slew-of-new-reports-on-biofuel-subsidies/6 Well said, Justlou

]]> Well said, Justlou

]]> Comment #7 by CIMark http://www.grist.org/article/a-slew-of-new-reports-on-biofuel-subsidies/ Thu, 11 Oct 2007 05:35:17 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/a-slew-of-new-reports-on-biofuel-subsidies/7 The EU Can Learn From Our Mistakes

Great post and documentation on biofuel policy. I especially enjoyed your reccomendations to the EU and member states. Not only do I agree with all of these statements, but I also came across another good reason why countries (i.e. US) should "eliminate all tariffs on imported fuel ethanol."

]]> The EU Can Learn From Our Mistakes

Great post and documentation on biofuel policy. I especially enjoyed your reccomendations to the EU and member states. Not only do I agree with all of these statements, but I also came across another good reason why countries (i.e. US) should "eliminate all tariffs on imported fuel ethanol."

]]> Comment #8 by justlou http://www.grist.org/article/a-slew-of-new-reports-on-biofuel-subsidies/ Thu, 11 Oct 2007 08:14:29 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/a-slew-of-new-reports-on-biofuel-subsidies/8 Imported Ethanol

Ok, we have discussed this other side of imported ethanol before but just want to toss it out again lest we lose sight of it here.  OK, we import more from Brazil.  How does this impact supplies and prices for less prosperous Brazilians?  
And what impact does this have on the conversion of natural ecosystems into monoculture fuel plantations in Brazil?  

If you believe that wild landscapes and biodiversity are more important than filling the fuel tanks of our grossly inefficient vehicles then keep the freaking ethanol in Brazil and find zero liquid fuel solutions here.  When you are up shit creek without a paddle changing the name of the stream doesn't create a paddle.  

]]> Imported Ethanol

Ok, we have discussed this other side of imported ethanol before but just want to toss it out again lest we lose sight of it here.  OK, we import more from Brazil.  How does this impact supplies and prices for less prosperous Brazilians?  
And what impact does this have on the conversion of natural ecosystems into monoculture fuel plantations in Brazil?  

If you believe that wild landscapes and biodiversity are more important than filling the fuel tanks of our grossly inefficient vehicles then keep the freaking ethanol in Brazil and find zero liquid fuel solutions here.  When you are up shit creek without a paddle changing the name of the stream doesn't create a paddle.  

]]> Comment #9 by Ron Steenblik http://www.grist.org/article/a-slew-of-new-reports-on-biofuel-subsidies/ Thu, 11 Oct 2007 08:48:28 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/a-slew-of-new-reports-on-biofuel-subsidies/9 Justlou

To quote from this week's Bridges Weekly:

The environmental merits of biofuels are currently the subject of heated debate. Although Northern governments currently receive strong political support for subsidising biofuel production, the ethanol produced in those countries, generally produced from corn, wheat, and rye, is less efficient at curbing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions than sugarcane-based ethanol produced in tropical countries such as Brazil. Giving the two different tariff treatment would be problematic, due to strictures against differentiating between products on the basis of 'process and production methods.'

Ronald Steenblik, head of research for the Global Subsidies Initiative, which has heavily criticised subsidies for biofuel production, allowed that the Brazil's blanket qualification of biofuels as environmental goods was "not very nuanced." Nevertheless, he said that "cane-based ethanol from existing cane plantations has good energy balance and greenhouse-gas mitigation properties." Given that "many countries have mandated the use of biofuels for environmental reasons, it is right and proper for Brazil to take them at their word, and ask them to level the playing field" between domestic and imported ethanol, he said. Steenblik did caution that the emissions-saving benefits of replacing fossil fuels with biofuels could potentially be compromised if large areas of savanna or forest land were to be brought under cultivation, either to directly produce biofuel feedstocks or to make up for displaced food, fibre or feed production.

I agree that there are questions to be asked regarding the environmental merits even of Brazilian ethanol, especially if production were to expand significantly. Just yesterday, the International Herald Tribune reported that "Brazilian agricultural officials and biofuel industry representatives [are now defending] using already devastated parts of the Amazon rainforest to grow sugarcane for ethanol, denying such cultivation would harm the region." Are we looking at a slippery slope here? Perhaps.

But who created the demand for exports of ethanol from Brazil in the first place? It is hypocritical of industrialized countries to skew their internal markets towards agro-fuels in the name of environmental improvement, but then to accuse countries like Brazil, who preceded them in this game, of being less environmental than they are.

The problem is, also, that the existing tariffs help prop up the existing subsidies. Indeed, the Renewable Fuels Association in the United States refuses even to call the $0.54/gallon secondary duty a "tariff", and regards it as simply a claw-back of -- an entry fee for access to -- the $0.51 volumetric ethanol excise tax. Eliminate the tariff, and domestic political support for subsidizing biofuels is likely to wither like a corn stalk on a hot August day.

]]> Justlou

To quote from this week's Bridges Weekly:

The environmental merits of biofuels are currently the subject of heated debate. Although Northern governments currently receive strong political support for subsidising biofuel production, the ethanol produced in those countries, generally produced from corn, wheat, and rye, is less efficient at curbing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions than sugarcane-based ethanol produced in tropical countries such as Brazil. Giving the two different tariff treatment would be problematic, due to strictures against differentiating between products on the basis of 'process and production methods.'

Ronald Steenblik, head of research for the Global Subsidies Initiative, which has heavily criticised subsidies for biofuel production, allowed that the Brazil's blanket qualification of biofuels as environmental goods was "not very nuanced." Nevertheless, he said that "cane-based ethanol from existing cane plantations has good energy balance and greenhouse-gas mitigation properties." Given that "many countries have mandated the use of biofuels for environmental reasons, it is right and proper for Brazil to take them at their word, and ask them to level the playing field" between domestic and imported ethanol, he said. Steenblik did caution that the emissions-saving benefits of replacing fossil fuels with biofuels could potentially be compromised if large areas of savanna or forest land were to be brought under cultivation, either to directly produce biofuel feedstocks or to make up for displaced food, fibre or feed production.

I agree that there are questions to be asked regarding the environmental merits even of Brazilian ethanol, especially if production were to expand significantly. Just yesterday, the International Herald Tribune reported that "Brazilian agricultural officials and biofuel industry representatives [are now defending] using already devastated parts of the Amazon rainforest to grow sugarcane for ethanol, denying such cultivation would harm the region." Are we looking at a slippery slope here? Perhaps.

But who created the demand for exports of ethanol from Brazil in the first place? It is hypocritical of industrialized countries to skew their internal markets towards agro-fuels in the name of environmental improvement, but then to accuse countries like Brazil, who preceded them in this game, of being less environmental than they are.

The problem is, also, that the existing tariffs help prop up the existing subsidies. Indeed, the Renewable Fuels Association in the United States refuses even to call the $0.54/gallon secondary duty a "tariff", and regards it as simply a claw-back of -- an entry fee for access to -- the $0.51 volumetric ethanol excise tax. Eliminate the tariff, and domestic political support for subsidizing biofuels is likely to wither like a corn stalk on a hot August day.

]]> Comment #10 by justlou http://www.grist.org/article/a-slew-of-new-reports-on-biofuel-subsidies/ Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:09:21 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/a-slew-of-new-reports-on-biofuel-subsidies/10 Environmental Improvement?

"It is hypocritical of industrialized countries to skew their internal markets towards agro-fuels in the name of environmental improvement" Ron

Ron, I would not say environmental improvement is the main driver of ethanol in the US.  Energy security/independence is the primary stated goal.  But the main driver is, of course, improving the bottom line for corn farmers, ethanol producers, and the ag production input industry.  

Kill the demand instead of growing the supply.  There is no way to justify any conversion of wildlands in Brazil from a net energy or carbon point of view.  

]]> Environmental Improvement?

"It is hypocritical of industrialized countries to skew their internal markets towards agro-fuels in the name of environmental improvement" Ron

Ron, I would not say environmental improvement is the main driver of ethanol in the US.  Energy security/independence is the primary stated goal.  But the main driver is, of course, improving the bottom line for corn farmers, ethanol producers, and the ag production input industry.  

Kill the demand instead of growing the supply.  There is no way to justify any conversion of wildlands in Brazil from a net energy or carbon point of view.  

]]> Comment #11 by Ron Steenblik http://www.grist.org/article/a-slew-of-new-reports-on-biofuel-subsidies/ Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:32:54 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/a-slew-of-new-reports-on-biofuel-subsidies/11 Justlou

I think we agree, fundamentally. And while I acknowledge that energy security (and "rural revival") are more important drivers in the USA than in the EU, the environment is still often given as a justification for supporting biofuels -- especially by influential, Washington, D.C.-based groups like the Worldwatch Institute and the Environmental and Energy Study Institute.

Indeed, even during the 1980s and 1990s, successive administrations kept trying (and sometimes succeeding) to change fuel-quality regulations to favor ethanol ... all in the name of (but we know motivated more by appealing to farm-state voters) air-quality improvement.

A few days ago, C. Boyden Gray, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Communities, in a letter to the International Herald Tribune (8 October 2007, p. 9), defended the current administration's policies on climate change, saying that it was indeed very active in combating global warming. What was the main concrete policy to which he could point? The President's plans to reduce gasoline consumption 20% by 2017, most of which we know is based on big increases in mandated "alternative fuel" use.

Advocating the lowering of trade barriers for biofuels (which means, mainly, ethanol) is not the same as arguing for increasing supply. It is a challenge to the big users of biofuels to do something that is consistent with their public rationale for mandating (and subsidizing) biofuels. Since levelling the playing field for developing countries would knock the struts out from under policies designed to encourage domestic production in OECD countries, the latter group's resistance to such a change (NB: Canada, which already has low tariffs, is an exception) exposes their policies for what they truly are: agri-business subsidies in disguise.

]]> Justlou

I think we agree, fundamentally. And while I acknowledge that energy security (and "rural revival") are more important drivers in the USA than in the EU, the environment is still often given as a justification for supporting biofuels -- especially by influential, Washington, D.C.-based groups like the Worldwatch Institute and the Environmental and Energy Study Institute.

Indeed, even during the 1980s and 1990s, successive administrations kept trying (and sometimes succeeding) to change fuel-quality regulations to favor ethanol ... all in the name of (but we know motivated more by appealing to farm-state voters) air-quality improvement.

A few days ago, C. Boyden Gray, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Communities, in a letter to the International Herald Tribune (8 October 2007, p. 9), defended the current administration's policies on climate change, saying that it was indeed very active in combating global warming. What was the main concrete policy to which he could point? The President's plans to reduce gasoline consumption 20% by 2017, most of which we know is based on big increases in mandated "alternative fuel" use.

Advocating the lowering of trade barriers for biofuels (which means, mainly, ethanol) is not the same as arguing for increasing supply. It is a challenge to the big users of biofuels to do something that is consistent with their public rationale for mandating (and subsidizing) biofuels. Since levelling the playing field for developing countries would knock the struts out from under policies designed to encourage domestic production in OECD countries, the latter group's resistance to such a change (NB: Canada, which already has low tariffs, is an exception) exposes their policies for what they truly are: agri-business subsidies in disguise.

]]>