Skip to main content

OK, so the government should regulate and monitor energy, right?

That's the general consensus over at Delwareliberal, where it is fascinating to watch our more progressive friends pile up an ever bigger and longer list of items they want the State to monitor and regulate.

But let's do a reality check.

Did you know that roughly a dime's worth of the cost of a gallon of over-priced gasoline can be traced to the fact that-wait for it--our government actually imposes an import tariff on foreign ethanol?

That's right: $.54/gallon on foreign ethanol entering our country.

According to CNN:

The import tariff of 54-cents a gallon on ethanol - a required component in gasoline - keeps the price of imported ethanol high. Much imported ethanol is made from sugarcane which is cheaper-to-produce than domestic corn-based ethanol.

The fact that the government has a tariff on any energy product in these times of high prices is illogical to some.

"We don't have a tariff on oil or natural gas or anything like that," said Bill Koetzle, an analyst at the Institute for Energy Research, a free market-leaning think tank. "It's old-fashioned protectionism."

If the tariff were lifted imports would likely grow, and that could cut ethanol prices by maybe $1 a gallon, said John Kilduff, an energy analyst at MF Global in New York.

But ethanol doesn't make up a huge portion of the U.S. gasoline supply. Out of about 150 billion gallons of gas used annually in the U.S., ethanol is projected to make up about 9 billion gallons of that this year. So Kilduff said gasoline prices might be reduced by maybe 10 cents a gallon.

Ethanol use is mandated to grow to 36 billion gallons by 2022, so the price drop in gasoline if the tariff is suspended could increase over time.

Defenders of the tariff say lifting it may result in some domestic ethanol producers going out of business, leaving the country open to greater reliance on foreign countries like Brazil.

"If we want energy security, we need to make sure ethanol facilities are built in the U.S.," said Arnie Klann, president of BlueFire Ethanol, an Irving, Calif.-based company focused on making ethanol from non-food crops.


Don't expect this to change if Senator Barack Obama becomes president, because when it comes to ethanol he's a devout protectionist:

Expand Locally-Owned Biofuel Refineries: Less than 10 percent of new ethanol production today is from farmer-owned refineries. New ethanol refineries help jumpstart rural economies. Obama will create a number of incentives for local communities to invest in their biofuels refineries.


Where does the funding for those incentives come from? You guessed it, the ethanol tariffs.

So one of the benefits of having the State regulate and monitor energy is that it intentionally makes gasoline more expensive?

To quote North Carolina's Michael Munger (from whose Kids Prefer Cheese I got the lead on this story):

Good sweet fancy Moses.

Thus says the man who, if candidates were actually elected on their merits, would be the next governor of the Tarheel State.

Before I forget, a postscript from one of Mike's well-read commenters:

It gets worse.

The ethanol produced in the U.S. is almost completely corn based, hence produced exclusively in the Midwest. Unfortunately, you can't send ethonol through a pipeline (it's too corrosive).

The only option is to truck it or train it. Trains hate the stuff, too dangerous if derailment (alcohol fires are nearly invisible and difficult to put out). There aren't enough trucks in the U.S. to move it where it's needed in large quantities- east and west coasts. Even if there were enough trucks, it would take more energy to move it than would be saved by displaced oil consumption.

So not only has a protected market been created for an inferior product (corn derived ethanol v. sugar derived), but ethanol from Brazil could be efficiently transported to the east and west coast by barge.

So we have an inferior product, in a protected market, that can't be efficiently moved to where the demand (albeit artificially created) is present.

Thank "W" and Pelosi for coming up with this solution to oil dependence in the "Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007."


So explain it to me again--with Dubya and Pelosi combining to bring us this ingenious policy, exactly why do I want to entrust the management of energy solely to the Federal government?

(Followed by the sound of one hand clapping.)

Comments

Anonymous said…
Steve I want the states and citizens to be in charge of enegry decisions. My proposals to open solar and wind markets up to normal citizens or to drop energy prices have met with extreme prejudice from some quarters. Not to mention among some at the State Legislature.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...