NY Times finally understands the need for a 'Biopact'

At last, a mainstream publication has begun to understand the logic behind the Biopact. Writing for the New York Times, Jerry Garrett says what we have been saying all along: why should the US and the EU heavily subsidize and protect their own inefficient biofuels that are too costly to be competitive, that do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that rely on food crops, while down South there are huge countries in need for development with an abundance of resources making it possible to produce highly efficient biofuels that substantially recude emissions, that don't rely on food crops, that are competitive with oil (very much so at current prices) and that may bring jobs and rural development to the poorest?

At last. We replicate and augment the piece here in full, because it is quite significant to see a major opinion maker supporting our case:

Here’s an interesting bit of scientific research, writes Garrett, courtesy of a recent report from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, a Paris-based global economic think tank [note, the report was not by the OECD, but that's a detail], on the difference in greenhouse gas emissions from cars burning gasoline-only fuel and fuels made from various forms of ethanol:

• Corn ethanol: 0-3 percent greenhouse gas emission reduction.
• Sugar cane ethanol: 50-70 percent reduction.
• Cellulosic ethanol: 90-plus percent.

But wait, there’s more:

Which form of ethanol production is the United States government (and its taxpayers) subsidizing? Corn, of course.

Which form of ethanol production does the United States government levy a 53-cents-a-gallon import tariff on? Sugar cane, naturally.

And which form of ethanol production is under-funded, under-researched, and furthest from commercial production? The cleanest choice, obviously.

Do you see a pattern here?

Corn ethanol is also the culprit that raises costs of corn-based food crops, because food production is being diverted to ethanol production. Corn ethanol production also affects the price of other food crops such as wheat, barley and soybeans because it is economically more attractive for farmers to switch from those crops to subsidized corn-raising. Corn ethanol is also only marginally less costly (some critics think it may even cost more) to manufacture than a gallon of gasoline.

The cheapest, easiest to obtain and most readily available form of ethanol available is sugar cane ethanol from Brazil. In fact, Stratfor, a strategic planning newsletter, pointed out that Brazil “has developed a fuel that reduces greenhouse gas emissions and comes from a place that is politically stable and friendly to both the European Union and United States.” And Brazil has a surplus of it, ready to export (more here):
energy :: sustainability :: ethanol :: biodiesel :: biomass :: bioenergy :: biofuels :: subsidies :: tariffs :: trade :: Brazil :: US ::

Why not do something right now to alleviate our fossil fuel energy addiction? Or should we wait until, say, 2022 when domestic ethanol production is projected to be ramped up, as a Bush administration target suggests? Until 2022, should we continue to meet our nation’s energy needs via our many friends in the Middle East? (This is working so well for us, so far.)

Elsewhere in the OECD’s scathing indictment of the corn ethanol industry, it called for an end to government subsidies to those growing corn for ethanol. It suggested the European Union act immediately to end “set-asides,” wherein part of the available farm land is left fallow for a year or two, to let the soil rest, and to keep grain prices artificially high by keeping it in shorter supply. The set-asides make especially little sense this year, in view of a widespread drought, lower yield grain harvests, and a significant diversion of acreage planted for corn-as-food to ethanol production instead. The OECD said import tariffs on fuels, such as sugar cane ethanol, ought to be removed.

The report also suggested a ban on using food crops for ethanol production.

Ethanol isn’t fussy; it can be made any number of ways. And should meaningful cellulosic ethanol production ever get off the ground, it could easily be made from inedible crops like switchgrass or even garbage.

So why is America, in particular, insisting on making ethanol from the worst possible choice? It seems that our government’s only true interest in ethanol production lies in placating its agricultural lobby, which in turn is seeking to cash in on forced legislative mandates for domestic ethanol production.

References:
New York Times: Corn Ethanol: Biofuel or Biofraud? - September 24, 2007.