The CBO just released a report showing that the cost of a metric ton of carbon abatement via this program is $750!
By way of comparison, the WSJ points out that the price of carbon envisioned in cap and trade would be something around $25 - $30.
But that's not all. The NRDC points out that the CBO's estimates of abatement costs do not include "the emissions associated with land use change—i.e. the carbon dioxide that is released from forests or grasslands that are cleared and converted to farmland as a result of ethanol production—though the report notes that if those emissions were taken into account, the cost could increase substantially. Indeed analysis done by EPA shows that when you factor in the impacts of indirect land use chance, corn ethanol actually increases emissions relative to gasoline."
YIKES!
So our main biofuel program is fairly expensive and in all probability actually raises carbon emissions?
Is this a great country, or what?
6 comments:
Exactly where is the proof that any forests or grasslands are being converted to growing corn? Because of ethanol? Don't believe it. If the land was suitable for row crops it would have been converted long ago. The whole idea of carbon credits is BS. The real question is: would you rather grow some of your fuel here in the US, or have your son blown to smithereens in some armpit of a sandbox in the middle east.
Wow. Where does it say that soldiers have to die for us to buy oil? That is a bizarre notion.
I can say for sure though that I'd rather not be forced into a scheme where carbon abatement costs $750 a ton.
As a colleague once said, if you are going to use crops for fuel, grow crops for fuel. Don't grow food and then turn that into fuel.
He also said that biodiesel looks great until you take a good look at the numbers.
And that's biodiesel.
I'm not certain anyone who studies alternative fuels takes corn-based ethanol to be anything other than the boondoggle that it is. 11 billion gallons at 70% of the energy content is the proverbial drop in the bucket.
The fallacy rests upon the idea that carbon needs to be abated in any way...
At the Capitol South metro stop the corn lobby bought ALL the ad space in the station and every add is about how great corn ethanol is - is tragic yet brilliant.
Anonymous - Where is the proof that any forests or grasslands are being converted to growing corn for ethanol?
Here.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/environment/2008-03-27-farming-plowing-grasslands_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
And here.
http://www.huntinglife.com/blog/detail/ducks-unlimited-says-crp-loss-over-next-four-years-may-be-more-than-five-million-acres
And plenty of other places. There are enough legitimate studies out in the open that suggest that more than 2 million acres of CRP leases have been canceled specifically for the corn ethanol boondoggle.
Ethanol is an environmental net negative. Land use, water use, lifecycle CO2 emissions, "agflation" hurts human health in the developing world (nutrition issue: grain prices up because of corn ethanol, higher grain prices mean people in the developing world eat less, and in 2008 resulted in global food riots in third world countries over the price of grains, which went up in part due to corn ethanol).
Like most utopian environmental policies, sounds good to the uninformed/misinformed populace. In reality, it doesn't work. Think CO2 policy. Same deal.
Post a Comment