• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • What Not to Do 101: Ethanol Policy

    Though intended to help consumers and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the ethanol mandate has done just the opposite, contributing to high food and gas prices with little environmental benefit. A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report released yesterday confirmed this:

    Increased use of ethanol accounted for about 10 percent to 15 percent of the rise in food prices between April 2007 and April 2008. In turn, increases in food prices will boost federal spending for mandatory nutrition programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as Food Stamps) and the school lunch program by an estimated $600 million to $900 million in fiscal year 2009.”

    And its supposed environmental benefit?

    Last year the use of ethanol reduced gasoline usage in the United States by about 4 percent and greenhouse-gas emissions from the transportation sector by less than 1 percent. The future impact of ethanol on greenhouse-gas emissions is unclear. Research suggests that in the short run, the production, distribution, and consumption of ethanol will create about 20 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions than the equivalent processes for gasoline. In the long run, if increases in the production of ethanol led to a large amount of forests or grasslands being converted into new cropland, those changes in land use could more than offset any reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions—because forests and grasslands naturally absorb more carbon from the atmosphere than cropland absorbs.”

    The full CBO report is here. The Heritage Foundation’s Ben Lieberman has detailed comments on ethanol here.

    Recognizing the unintended consequences of the ethanol mandate (detrimental effects on both the economy and the environment), some Members of Congress have taken a second look at America’s ethanol policy. Although it is very rare to repeal a law and repealing the 6 billion gallons by 2022 is highly unlikely, one step in the right direction would be to remove protectionist tariffs that unnecessarily crowd out cheaper sugar cane–based ethanol from Brazil.

    Perhaps the more important lesson to take away is we shouldn’t go down this road with other energy sources. Chairman Henry Waxman (D–CA) of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Chairman Edward Markey (D–MA) of the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee recently introduced draft legislation of a comprehensive energy bill. The draft includes a renewable electricity standard (RES) that requires 6 percent of electricity to come from renewable energy by 2012. This requirement will increase to 25 percent in 2025.

    The only reason mandates are put in place (on top of subsidies and tax breaks) is because renewables are too expensive to compete otherwise. Before going down the same road by mandating wind, solar and other renewable sources of energy, legislators should fully absorb the consequences and lessons learned from ethanol before implementing more bad policy.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    4 Responses to What Not to Do 101: Ethanol Policy

    1. Ozzy6900, CT says:

      Maybe if Congress would take a REAL look at things instead of jumping on band wagons, they wouldn't have to take 2nd looks! the Congress was told that Ethanol was not a fix-all and would become expensive. No one believed that cheap corn could become a commodity but like anything else, stick a mandate on it and the item becomes valuable in the market. By turning a deaf ear to "the rest of the story" the Congress chose to cut into the food supply instead of looking at other ways to stretch fuel. Typical "Michael Moore" hysterics drives these people in Congress rather than actual thought processes!

    2. cj, medford, Or says:

      I don't think "Michael Moore" hysterics drove the 2005 Energy Policy Act. This Act signed by President Bush had all the usual Washington interests involved from the corn growers to the oil industry. One would think that this Act was another Democratic left wing agenda item…wrong…no Michael Moore just a majority of Republicans voted for this bill. Only 75 House and 25 Senate Democrats supported this Act. Who would have guessed?

    3. js, sioux falls, sd says:

      The CBO report also says: "Over the same period, certain other factors—for example, higher energy costs—had a greater effect on food prices than did the use of ethanol as a motor fuel."

      So ethanol is a replacement for oil, which had a larger impact on food prices. Sounds like we need more ethanol and less oil.

    4. Barb -mn says:

      I don't understand how the government can suggest there is a hunger crisis and yet uses food to be converted to fuel? These people are not fit to lead. They have no sense of priority to the people. Nor do they have sense to spend within means and to benefit taxpayers equally AND LACK DISCIPLINE not to spend beyond. They have no sense of productivity. They have no sense on efficiency or rationality. Alternatives are not the answer at this time, PERIOD!

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×