CAT | Environment
The WSJ is reporting that ethanol subsidies may end by August. If so, that is fantastic news.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D, Calif.) said in a statement that she had reached an agreement with Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D, Minn.) and John Thune (R, S.D.) under which a 45-cent-a-gallon tax credit for blending ethanol into gasoline would expire on July 31. A 54-cent-a-gallon tax on imported ethanol would also expire at the end of the month.
Some $1.33 billion in savings would be used to reduce the $14.29 trillion U.S. debt. A third of the savings—an estimated $668 million—would be used to extend tax credits, such as those for alternative-fueling infrastructure like ethanol pipelines that some producers hope to build.
Shortly after my last post, the Senate re-voted on whether to eliminate ethanol subsidies, and this time, the measure passed, 73-27. Apparently many Democrats who voted against the earlier measure on alleged procedural grounds voted for it in this instance. Though perhaps they voted for it because it was attached to the Economic Development and Revitalization Act, which the Washington Post posits is unlikely to obtain final senate approval.
On June 14, 2011, the Senate voted on a bill to repeal $6 billion in annual ethanol tax subsidies. These ethanol subsidies are wasteful and unhelpful to Americans, as I have discussed in prior posts. For example, ethanol production requires a large amount of land area, some evidence suggests that ethanol costs more energy to create than it yields, using corn for fuel increases the price of food, ethanol adversely impacts fuel economy and damages older vehicles, and even damages newer vehicles when in high enough concentration (see the prior three links for more information).
Despite the fact that politicians almost uniformly agree that the nation has a debt problem, and thus needs to either decrease spending, increase taxes, or both, the measure failed, because there were not enough votes to overcome a filibuster.
There are two sources of blame for this. First are the Democrats, who overwhelmingly voted against the bill. Supposedly one of the major reasons was because Harry Reid whipped against the bill due to alleged procedural problems. Though I think the more likely answer is so that Democrats can attempt to grandstand about creating or preserving jobs, no matter how worthless the jobs are. (For example, President Obama recently remarked on the Today Show, that “there were ‘structural issues with the economy. . . . You see it when you go to a bank you use the ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller.'”) It’s true that subsidizing ethanol will preserve jobs in the ethanol industry. Though of course if those jobs are worthless, then the government might as well be paying people to dig holes and then fill them up again. It is inexcusable that Democrats would overwhelmingly continue to support ethanol subsidies when the evidence simply shows that they do more harm than good.
But the more surprising source of blame are a select group of Republicans, led by Grover Norquist (not a senator), the founder of the Americans for Tax Reform. The ATR members have signed a pledge that they refuse to raise taxes for any reason except for economic growth. Norquist ordered the members of the ATR to withhold support for the anti-ethanol bill because eliminating the ethanol subsidy, to Norquist, would be tantamount to raising taxes.
I disagree with the rationale for Norquist’s order on two grounds. First, tax subsidies are spending just as much as they are tax increases. If the government agrees to give me $10 at tax time (spending) or agrees to give me a $10 decrease in tax liability at tax time (subsidy), the net effect is the same: the government transfers $10 of wealth to me. Likewise, the tax subsidies that the ethanol industry receives are a transfer of wealth from the government to private businesses. Whether they are characterized as a tax increase or spending cut is immaterial. The key question we should be asking is whether the costs of this tax subsidy exceed the benefits.
That leads me to the next objection I have to Norquist’s order, specifically, that Norquist unequivocally refuses to consider the merits of legislation that “raises taxes,” simply because he believes that it “raises taxes.” Norquist refuses to consider the costs and benefits of what he thinks are a tax increase, even if they benefits would vastly exceed the costs. This of course will impede bargaining with any politician who believes that solving the federal debt problem requires a combination of spending reduction and tax increases. And this problem is exacerbated by the fact that Norquist’s definition of “raise taxes,” is much far too broad.
The following is a guest post by Jack. You can read his blog here. This post represents the views of the author and not necessarily the position of George of gimme-five.com. Thanks, Jack!
In another clear attempt to reduce our carbon footprint, Minister Jacinta Allan joined Caltex and GM Holden to publicize a distribution of fuel containing up to 85% ethanol across Caltex’s set of connections, including Victoria, by end of October, 2010. E-Flex, is Caltext’s ethanol based bio fuel that will hopefully cut carbon emissions down by 20% in 2020. The fuel, referred to as “home grown ” will ultimately improve Victoria’s fuel security. Ms Allan boldly states that it will also “stimulate investment in local supply.” The fuel itself has the ability to reduce carbon emissions up to 50%; this is in direct comparison to traditional fossil fuels.
The promotion of efforts like this, along with the implementation of green jobs, was all a part of Brumby Labor Government’s $175 million jobs for the Future Economy Action Plan.
Carbon Cutting projects like the example listed above provide greater sustainability. Accordingly, the introduction of ethanol based bio fuels are a step towards a more optimal supply of renewable energy. Ms Allan goes on to state that they’ll continue to work tirelessly to build a plant for high-tech ethanol production in Victoria.
Meanwhile, Doug Band and the Clinton Global Initiative continue to invest in similar sustainability projects, similar to the fleet emission reduction program in San Francisco Bay. The plan will effectively lower green house gas emissions from specific vehicle fleets of the county through fleet route optimization. In other words ESRI and the CGI are deemed responsible for developing software that will optimize fuel usage.
Both projects are a step in the right direction. With the development of things like PETE (photon enhanced thermionic emissions), and less expensive, more efficient alternative energy projects in place, the world will continue to become a more sustainable planet.
The Art of Manliness Blog just posted a fantastic list of ten reasons why manliness should not stand in the way of “going green.” This article hits home for me because I know a number of males who tend to shy away from eco-friendly activities because they do not believe the activities are “manly.” My favorite quote from the article:
Teddy Roosevelt fought with the Rough Riders and went on to lead the fight to conserve American lands. You can roll up your sleeves, talk tough and even clear some brush, but a real man does not react to important information by burying his head in the sand or excuse himself from rational inquiry and action with simplistic beliefs and cliche one-liners. Forget the faux cowboy schtick. Being a man isn’t about driving a truck and tearing into a bloody pork chop. If you really want to cowboy up, take the issues of your day seriously and do something about them.