The View From 1776
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Selfish and Self-Defeating Environmentalism
The synfuels program simply did not and will not work.
The following United Press International article is typical of the ideas associated with liberal-socialist environmental proposals:
ST. PAUL, Minn., April 13 (UPI)—Thirty governors, led by Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, are urging the Bush administration and Congress to mandate increased ethanol production for fuel.
Ethanol is an alternative fuel derived from corn that burns cleaner and with fewer exhaust emissions when mixed with gasoline.
“As the U.S. imports greater amounts of oil each year, we are draining more and more of the wealth from our states,” said Pawlenty, the Republican chairman of the 30-member Governor’s Ethanol Coalition.
The coalition’s report, “Ethanol from Biomass: America’s 21st Century Transportation Fuel,” recommends Congress enact a national renewable fuel security standard requiring use of a minimum 8 billion gallons of ethanol and biodiesel by 2012.
The report urges at least 5 percent of the nation’s fuel come from ethanol by 2010 and calls for $800 million for federal research and development of biomass ethanol production over 10 years.
This sounds like what every American should desire. What’s wrong with it?
Plenty. First, every gallon of ethanol produced from corn and other biomass materials increases the need for imported petroleum. That’s because it takes more than a gallon of gasoline (1.7 gallons according to the Wall Street Journal) to produce one gallon of ethanol. Stating it another way, every gallon of ethanol produced necessitates as much as a 70% increase in the use of gasoline that otherwise would be used directly in your automobile, truck, or tractor.
Why then would these governors advocate increased use of ethanol? Could it possibly be that Minnesota, Iowa, and other states behind the advocacy are huge producers of corn and other biomass? It’s, of course, unthinkable, but maybe could it be that these environmentalists have less than altruistic motives?
Second, even a brief glance at fairly recent history makes clear that Federal planning for industrial projects like synfuels is bound to be a failure if measured by the successful new products produced and by the return on invested capital. Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal carried the following op-ed article, which documents this contention.
By JERRY TAYLOR and PETER VAN DOREN
URL for this article:
Ever since the 9/11 attacks, a steady drumbeat has grown to reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil out of fear that imports from the Middle East leave America dangerously vulnerable to the dread oil weapon. That cause has received a shot in the arm with a recent letter to the president signed by four formerly prominent national security officials (James Woolsey, Robert McFarlane, Frank Gaffney and William Crowe), a number of retired senior military officers, Republican majordomo C. Boyden Gray, Democratic party strategist John Podesta, and a host of “outs” from both parties to, well, reprise Jimmy Carter’s energy strategy of the 1970s.
Two words come to mind: Spare us.
The Energy Future Coalition—the operation overseeing this campaign—is really an “Energy Past Coalition” that suffers from a severe case of amnesia. The stated policies that this crowd promotes—sharply increased subsidies for domestic alternative-fuels industries and aggressive government-mandated conservation—were textbook economic fiascos when adopted 30 years ago and will fare no better were we to enthusiastically re-embrace them again.
We might begin our trip down memory lane with a quick read of “The Technology Pork Barrel,” published by the Brookings Institution some years ago. In it, economists Roger Noll and Linda Cohen dissect the last great federal crusade to reduce foreign oil imports—the taxpayer sinkhole known as the Synthetic Fuels Corporation, which was charged with finding economically attractive ways of turning coal into petroleum and then into gasoline. Only one coal gasification plant was ever built (albeit with $1.5 billion of federally guaranteed loans). That facility, the Great Plains Project in North Dakota, went bankrupt and was sold by the federal government in 1988 for $85 million. That, in a nutshell, is all the taxpayer has to show for the Synthetic Fuels Corporation.
A parallel effort to displace conventional fuel use in the electricity sector—the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA)—saddled utilities with such ruinously expensive alternative energy contracts that businesses literally threatened to flee service territories unless politicians do something about electricity costs. (The consequence of the political response—electric utility restructuring—still haunts us to this day.) Still, neither PURPA nor the multibillion dollar federal subsidies established to further assist the development of renewable energy have made any real difference. Renewables advocate Amory Lovins represented the liberal consensus at the time when he predicted in 1976 that 30% of America’s total energy consumption would be delivered by “soft” energy (winds, solar, biomass, biogas, etc.) by 2000. The actual figure, depending upon how elastic you wish to define “soft energy,” is somewhere south of 3%.
President Carter’s conservation mania likewise fared poorly. Energy economist Ronald Sutherland calculates that appliance efficiency standards established under the National Energy Policy Conservation Act of 1978 (NEPCA) will cost consumers about $46 billion by 2050 even after we consider the energy savings they provide. Economists David Loughran and Jonathan Kulick likewise report that utility-sponsored conservation programs—also encouraged by NECPA—reduced electricity sales by only between 0.3%-0.4% in the service territories where they were employed at an astronomical cost of between 14-22 cents per kilowatt hour. In short, Carter conservation programs have cost more than the electricity they had hoped to conserve.
Unfortunately, when it comes to government intervention in energy markets, past is prologue. Ethanol and other forms of biomass energy—the modern iteration of the Synfuels program embraced by the Energy Future Coalition—are an open joke among economists and generally opposed by environmentalists. Already on the receiving end of about $1 billion of federal largesse per year, ethanol requires more energy to produce than it yields upon combustion and produces more worrisome air pollution than even conventional gasoline. In the electricity sector, biomass fuels generate more pollutants than natural gas-fired electricity (the fuel that biomass would likely displace), according to a recent survey of the literature by economists Thomas Sundqvist and Patrik Soderholm.
The coalition also advocates subsidies for hybrid gasoline-electric and other “flexible fueled” vehicles and tighter automobile fuel efficiency standards. Regarding the former, a $2,000 federal tax credit is already available to hybrid car buyers. How much more subsidy do these people want? Regarding the latter, the Congressional Budget Office reports that tightening fuel efficiency standards will increase the sticker price of new automobiles beyond what those automobiles will save consumers in reduced fuel consumption over the lifetime of the vehicle.
It’s also unclear whether tighter fuel efficiency standards would actually result in reduced gasoline consumption. That’s because the average fuel efficiency of new Japanese vehicles sold in the U.S. is well beyond today’s regulatory requirement. Japanese automobile companies could conceivably increase sales of SUVs, pickup trucks, and minivans without running afoul of new regulations. In short, tighter fuel efficiency standards might only result in Japanese manufacturers displacing U.S. manufacturers in the light truck market with no net change in the number of light trucks ultimately sold.
However one feels about foreign oil, the belief that government can intelligently pick winners in energy markets or promote conservation in an economically reasonable manner is belied by an avalanche of real-world evidence. The best way to weaken al Qaeda is by killing bin Laden and those who support him, not by subsidizing GM to make cars they wouldn’t otherwise make.
Mr. Taylor is director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute and Mr. Van Doren is editor of Cato’s Regulation magazine.
Copyright 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved