The Politics of Biofuels: Government policies often have unintended consequences

[profgoose]

I thought you all might like this one:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3621

Government policies often generate unintended consequences. This has turned out to be the case with the aggressive biofuel policies pursued over recent years by the European Union and the United States. While the EU was developing action plans and setting targets to promote biofuels, many states in the U.S. - especially those with high levels of corn (maize) production - were enforcing mandates to turn that corn into ethanol.

Superficially, this may sound like a great idea. The world obviously can't continue forever down the path of fossil fuels. Global Warming is a serious concern worldwide. Much of the remaining fossil fuel resources are located in areas hostile to the West. What better way to address these concerns than a movement toward renewable fuels? Furthermore, if the market won't encourage that move because of poor economics, wouldn't it make sense for governments to be proactive and force a move to biofuels? Of course this is the path we have taken, but we didn't sufficiently consider the potential consequences before doing so.

[papau]

1. Algae and prairie grass still work will - it is big Ag w/ corn/sugar that is screwing

things up.

City waste to oil plants are coming on line soon - the corporate Ag control of politics is the problem

[phantom power]

2. One thing's for sure.

We're all gonna be a lot thinner.