Specifically, an elimination of this tariff would cause even more destruction of the Amazon rainforest, as Brazilian farmers are being pushed there by growers of sugarcane used for ethanol.  Of course people like Lugar and Feinstein don't care about the natural environment, despite the latter's pandering to the contrary, so this awful idea might just pass.

As for Brazilian farmers being pushed into the Amazon by growers of sugarcane used for ethanol, that contention is debatable. There is equally strong, or stronger evidence that the 16% decline in area planted to soybeans (and 19% reduction in the amount harvested) in the United States last year, thanks to a big expansion in area planted to corn for ethanol, led to a boom in soybean production in Latin America, including the Amazon.

In other words: federal mandates support ethanol use; tariffs reduce the portion of the ethanol that comes from more-efficient sources, like cane grown in Brazil; more corn is planted in the United States at the expense of soybeans; other countries, including Brazil, make up for some of that shortfall by increasing their own production.

First-best solution? Eliminate the mandates and tax credits for biofuels AND eliminate the secondary ($0.54/gallon) tariff on ethanol. Second-best solution? Eliminate the secondary ($0.54/gallon) tariff on ethanol. Nth-best solution? Maintain the mandates and tax credits for biofuels and ban any imports of ethanol.

These are only my personal opinions.

North Korea jokes aside, I tend to have a wild streak that says all these US tariffs and subsidies simply have to go - all of them. Get rid of the [corn] ethanol production subsidy entirely. If you want to subsidize something, subsidize fixing the infrastructure like rail and better electrical transmission lines to improve mobility and brink online more clean power like wind and solar. Investing in energy itself if throwing away money - one needs the infrastructure first so new things can be done.

And for you folks who only want to "act local" just consider that Japan, which imports almost everything, is one of the most energy efficient countries in the world. We're one of the WORST.

Onward through the fog

Good point about Japan, too.

These are only my personal opinions.

It's worth noting that smart infrastructure investment will have many of the benefits that tariffs fans and localizers are after -- that is to say, it will make local economies more efficient, productive, pleasant, and resilient.  

grist.org

http://timstvshowcase.com/gentleben.html

But as Ron has said, even growing them in the backyard has the effect of replacing soybean farms into corn farms and thereby increasing soybean imports.

The solution : Don't import food stuff ! And don't import ethanol.

US has no need to do any food imports. It has a lot of land available and its environment is less sensitive for biodiversity depletion than tropical rainforests.

If US is so desperate about using the hot humid tropical environments for growing better biofuels, it should lease the land over there, invest directly and claim total responsibility for what happens.

Slimy oil/palm-oil companies do a lot of dirty work behind filling up your gas tanks.

.. that Japan, which imports almost everything, is one of the most energy efficient countries in the world ..

Japan has a huge carbon footprint everywhere else in the world, and it has a huge water footprint. US has of course a ten times larger footprint, but Japan is no inspiration.

Americans, please stop abusing the rest of the world's resources. You live in a land of plenty.


Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.

It is really mind-blowing to see the current situation:

-corn ethanol is 8 to 10 times less efficient than sugarcane ethanol; so you need 8 to 10 times more land for the same amount of fuel

-sugarcane ethanol is also up to five times less expensive than corn ethanol

-cane stocks CO2 in soils, as it is a perennial plant.

-cane ethanol hasn't had an impact on world food prices, whereas corn ethanol has had a major one

Biofuels must be produced there where agroecological conditions are most conducive to efficient crop production. That is: the vast subtropical belt in Latin America and Africa.

You can trade them very efficiently (transport in tankers is extremely efficient).

So a slashed tariff would mean Americans get inexpensive, green, climate friendly fuels that do not impact food prices; and the Brazilians, a developing country, becomes wealthier because of it.

This would be a perfect win-win situation.

As to fuels, be it ethanol, natural gas, or crude oil products, I am not so convinced that "playing with quotas" such as Brazilian ethanol will make a fart's difference - and could aggravate further destruction of the Amazon, one of the world's largest reservoirs of freshwater and photosynthetic oxygen.  

If one had a policy to use sugarcane for industrial food sweeteners instead of that nasty corn fructose sugar, I guess I would be for it. One small pleasure I have is going to Mexico where Coca-Cola is still make with real, honest sugarcane dextrose - I mean it actually tastes good.  Heck with the tequila, I want a real Coke!

Back to the infrastructure concept, "build it and they will come."  -sammie

Onward through the fog

____

carlos wutke barwick:
Since most americans don't know nothing about geography, here's a clue. Brazil is not burning the amazon for sugarcane, sugarcane is 1100 mile south of the amazon,mostly in the state of Sao Paulo. They are clearing the amazon so the can grow cattles,chickens and soy, so people like you can eat and get fat.

They are however burning the Cerrado for sugarcane. And the Cerrado is even more endemically biodiverse than the Amazon.
http://greyfalcon.net/time
http://greyfalcon.net/cerrado

And "Unica" Brazil's official lobbyist organization for the SugarCane industry know it.
http://www.openpr.com/news/38986/UNICA-Ban-on-ethanol-pro ...

_

As for Sam's comment on Brazil's offshore oil supply. Yeah, they got a lot of that.
http://greyfalcon.net/brazil
http://eia.doe.gov/cabs/Brazil/Oil.html

-David Ahlport

Is that they are equivocating biodiversity of non-endemic species, with biodiversity of endemic species.

"Endemic" species are not naturally found elsewhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endemism

The Cerrado has a gigantic amount of Endemic Species.
http://greyfalcon.net/time

-David Ahlport

Biofuels behind food price hikes: leaked World Bank report
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080704/wl_sthasia_afp/clima ...

However, has massive worldwide investment in ethanol and the biofuel industry indirectly contributed to an escalation in food prices? Now this is a subject worth more discussion as lands used to grow "anything" bio related will surely displace something else (along with the water and energy needed to pump water from wells), unless it is done purely in an industrial process as some algae derived biofuels might.

Here's the Biofuel Report from July 4th UK Guardian.

Secret Report: Biofuel Caused Food Crisis

-JChan

Diversion of foods into bio-fuels only serves to amplify the wild upswing in food commodity prices, although by itself it is not a root cause (nice pun).  

By the way, I appreciated the links to the Brazilian sugar cane industry and I learned a lot.  

Onward through the fog