The Poverty-Fighting Power of Ethanol

Citizen JournalistBy lycobob, New West Unfiltered 5-23-07

Ethanol holds great promise as an automotive fuel. According to the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA), automakers produced nearly 750,000 vehicles in 2005 that run on 85% ethanol fuel (E85). Much of the interest in ethanol has come from its properties as a clean burning, renewable alternative to imported petroleum. With minor changes in U.S. trade policy, ethanol could become a powerful tool for fighting worldwide poverty.
According to the Washington Post, the United States produced about 5 billion gallons of ethanol in 2006, and imported another 1.7 billion gallons. Imported ethanol is subject to a 54 cent per gallon tariff. This distorts the market in ways that are unfortunate for the poor and bad for the environment.
According to the EIA, about 90% of domestic ethanol production comes from corn. Surging demand for ethanol has led to a run up in corn prices. This hurts everyone who consumes corn. While this impacts everyone from cattle ranchers to, ironically, ethanol producers, those most hurt by these price increases are the world’s poor. Mexico has recently experienced political instability because of high corn prices.
Brazil is the world’s second largest producer of ethanol. Since the 1970s, Brazil has made ethanol production a priority. The majority of cars in Brazil run on either pure ethanol or ethanol/gasoline mixtures. Overall, ethanol has displaced about 40% of Brazil’s gasoline consumption. As a result, Brazil exports refined gasoline even though it is a small net importer of crude oil. Brazil has two distinct advantages over the United States in ethanol production.
Brazil’s first advantage is geographic. Brazil lies almost entirely in the tropics. As a result, it receives far more solar radiation per acre than the United States. Ethanol is produced from chemical energy stored in plants. This chemical energy is produced using sunlight as a primary energy source. Ethanol production in Brazil is more efficient than ethanol production in the United States because Brazil gets more sun.
The majority of Brazil’s ethanol comes from sugar cane. Sugar cane is significantly more efficient than corn as a source for ethanol. Brazil’s sugar cane industry also produces electricity from the crop by-products of ethanol production. Efficient ethanol production reduces environmental impact on many levels. These include, but are not limited to, less inputs of natural resources per gallon of ethanol, and less land under cultivation per gallon of fuel.
Expanding worldwide demand for ethanol has caused Brazil to rapidly increase ethanol production. Land previously used for coffee and other crops has been transferred to sugar cane to meet ethanol demand. As any socially conscious coffee drinker knows, coffee growers are often confined to poverty because of low coffee prices. The Economist has frequently pointed out that coffee prices are low because of a worldwide glut of coffee beans. Reduction in coffee bean supply in Brazil, which is the world’s largest coffee producer, would improve worldwide coffee prices, and with it, the lot of coffee growers.
Expanding ethanol supplies would impact worldwide petroleum prices. The Brazilian Government estimates that it could produce ethanol equivalent to about 10% of worldwide petroleum consumption. To put this in perspective, about 5% of the world’s petroleum comes from Iran. Oil and gasoline prices are profoundly sensitive to changes in supply and demand. This is why cartels from Standard Oil to OPEC and the Texas Railroad Commission have worked hard to limit worldwide oil production. A surge in worldwide fuel supply would likely reduce gas prices in the United States. High energy prices disproportionally hurt the poor, and lower in gasoline prices would be most helpful to the poor. This is true in the United States and other countries. The vast majority of the world’s poor countries are net oil importers. Money spent on oil is unavailable for food and other necessities.
Brazil is not the only Latin American country with the potential to produce ethanol. The vast majority of Latin America is in the tropics, and countries from Peru to Mexico could eventually be major ethanol producers. The most painless and least controversial way to reduce illegal immigration is the creation of jobs in Latin America. In Brazil alone, it is estimated that 1 million people work in the ethanol industry.
The best explanation for the persistence of the ethanol tariff is that Iowa is a very important state in Presidential politics. Iowa receives more farm subsidies per capita than any other state. Conveniently, the Iowa State Caucus is the first binding contest in the race for the Presidential nomination. Iowa is also one of the tightest swing states in the general presidential election. In 2000, Al Gore carried Iowa. With the help of generous expansions in farm subsidies, George Bush carried Iowa in 2004. In each of these contests, the margin of victory was well under 1%. Anyone aspiring to become or be re-elected as President would be unwise to upset Iowans.
Lifting tariffs on Latin American ethanol would offer a broad range of benefits. The poor in the U.S. and Latin America would benefit from lower corn prices, jobs, cheaper fuel and higher cash crop prices. Energy security would improve if fuel came from friendly countries like Colombia and Brazil instead of the Middle East, Russia and Venezuela. Lower oil prices would weaken defiant anti-American leaders in Iran, Venezuela and elsewhere.
This is not to say that ethanol production in Brazil is without problems. Sugar cane cutters are only required for a few months out of the year. Increased ethanol production may speed deforestation. However, the best defense against deforestation is prosperity. According to a Finnish study described in the Economist and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, forest density is increasing in every country with a gross domestic product per capita of over 4,600 dollars per year.
Tariff-free access to the U.S. market could be a carrot for reform throughout Latin America. Basic poverty-fighting measures like women’s rights, property rights for the poor and transparent, democratic government could all be prerequisites to dropping the current ethanol tariff. In Europe, the hope of access to the common market of the European Union helped democratic, transparent governments spread throughout former Communist states. Ethanol markets could have a similar impact on Latin America.
Brazil is a good neighbor. Brazil’s center-left President, Lula da Silva has committed to paying Brazil’s international debt, helping the poor and being a responsible member of the international community. Brazil has contributed thousands of soldiers to the U.N. stabilization mission in Haiti. Other Latin American countries, including Colombia, Honduras, and El Salvador have been staunch U.S. allies in recent years. Granting these countries tariff-free access to the U.S. ethanol market would reduce illegal immigration, benefit the environment, help the poor and reduce our dependence on imported oil. President Bush will never face another Presidential election or Iowa Caucus. For all of these reasons, it is time to begin phasing out ethanol tariffs. [End of article]
Comment By Craig Moore, 5-23-07

If the Stanford study is correct perhaps a deeper look at ethanol is in order. http://blog.wired.com/cars/2007/04/ethanols_ozone_.html

>>>>>>>
Ethanol's Ozone Threatens People With Asthma
By John Gartner April 18, 2007 | 8:46:55 AMCategories: Alt Fuel, Emissions

Substituting ethanol for petroleum may benefit corn farmers, but the effects on the atmosphere and humanity are mixed, according to a new study from Stanford University.

While burning E85 instead of gasoline reduces atmospheric levels of two carcinogens, benzene and butadiene, it increases the production of ozone that could lead to more injuries and fatalities for people with asthma or other breathing problems. The study modeled what the atmosphere would look like in 2020 if 85 percent ethanol were mixed with petroleum, and cities such as Los Angeles that already have problems with smog and air quality would get worse.

The study indicates a need for further evaluation of ozone emissions as it "can decrease lung capacity, inflame lung tissue, worsen asthma and impair the body's immune system," according to Stanford, citing the EPA. If ethanol can be burned more efficiently to reduce ozone emissions, then the biofuel might still have environmental advantages.

The study "The Effects of Ethanol (E85) Versus Gasoline Vehicles on Cancer and Mortality in the United States,'' by Mark Z. Jacobson was published in the Journal Environmental Science & Technology.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Comment By gametheoryman, 5-23-07

Good article.

Nevertheless, an important reason for the ethanol tariff and the domestic subsidies is to jump start an ethanol infrastructure, including producers, transportation, and retailers. Quick profits lead to this infrastructure developing more quickly than the market would do on it own.

Also, in the long run these subsidies are really a bet on cellulosic ethanol. Many people expect this source of ethanol to be cheaper than producing ethanol from corn before too long, say within a decade. Corn would actually get cheaper than its pre-ethanol days. Farmers could then sell their corn, as before, plus the stover, which would lead to more corn production and lower corn prices.

The pressure to eliminate the ethanol tariff will eventually kill it. As would you, I'd rather see it die sooner than later.

Comment By frankly, 6-07-07

Everyone is so worried about the "high" price of corn. Last year it was $2 per bushel--same as it was in the 1950s. Right now it is around $3.50. You can imagine how much input costs have increased since the 50s--fuel, equipment, fertilizer, technology. So tell me, what do people think a fair price for a bushel of corn is. None of these food guys felt guilty about buying $1.80 or $2 corn last year.

As for the tariff. We have a 51 cent per gallon blenders tax credit for ethanol. The tariff basically offsets that so that American taxpayers aren't subsidizing the growth of foreign ethanol production. People also want to get rid of the subsidy. Will we get rid of all the various subsidies the oil industry enjoys as well?

Comment By lycobob, 6-07-07

In response to Frankly's comments dated 6/7/07, I agree that all subsidies to the oil and gas industry should be eliminated. This includes requiring all gasoline and diesel consumed in the United States to be subject to state and federal taxation.
I would not presume to have the right to propose a fair price for a bushel of corn. Within reason, that is the role of the market. However, if a policy of the U.S. government obviously hurts the world's poor, it is my obligation and right to voice my opinion.

This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/main/article/the_poverty_fighting_power_of_ethanol/