Not So Fast!
Is Ethanol a Good Choice for Consumers?
Not if the price system is any guide.
William L. Anderson
Posted January 26, 2011
The
Environmental Protection Agency has decided that gasoline can contain
at least 15 percent corn-based ethanol. Ethanol is what I call a
“political fuel.” The EPA (despite all the claims that it operates
according to the dictates of pure science) is a political tool of
President Obama.
The EPA’s decision is anticonsumer. Ponder this from U.S. Agriculture
Secretary Tom Vilsack, who declared that the decision “gives consumers
the option of purchasing domestically produced renewable transportation
fuels,” as though this is a great decision for fuel users. If ever a
quote needed a “not so fast” rejoinder, this is it.
To fully understand why Vilsack’s comment is outrageous, one first has to
understand what would occur with resources in a free market. By freely
choosing goods via a system of mutual exchange, consumers direct
resources from lower value to higher value uses.
Corn has many uses, from straight food (and, yes, I love to eat corn on
the cob) to being the most important ingredient for Jack Daniel’s
Tennessee Whiskey. (Being from Tennessee, I say the names “Jack Daniel’s”
and “George Dickel” with the proper reverence they deserve.) Corn also is
used to make many other things, from sweeteners to decorations to animal
feed.
So decisions must be made about where to direct corn. For example, behind
our property is a 100-acre farm where a farmer grows corn to feed his
beef cattle. For him that is the best use of the factors of production
(and the corn itself), and as long as consumers continue to purchase his
beef (at prices that support his operations), he will direct corn to that
end.
When the discussion turns toward corn as the key ingredient in an
alcohol-based fuel, the question is: Do consumers wish to purchase this
fuel when they have other alternatives? Indeed, they already have the
choice of gasoline, which is petroleum-based and performs better in most
internal combustion engines.
Consumer Choice
In fact, consumer choice expressly points toward
gasoline, and no wonder. First, oil companies can make a profit selling
gasoline at less than $3 a gallon. (True, many costs are socialized by
government policy.) Second, it is impossible for companies that produce
ethanol to make a profit selling a gallon for $3. (While ethanol hardly
qualifies as premium whiskey, nonetheless it is instructive to note that
a gallon of Jack Daniel’s would sell for about $80. Even an inferior
corn-based whiskey certainly would sell for more than $3 a gallon.
)
What does this mean? Consumers have shown they are willing to pay a lot
of money for a corn-based alcoholic drink but not willing to pay
enough for a gallon of alcohol fuel to make a profit for the
producer.
There are other problems with ethanol. Because the alcohol eats through
the seals, it cannot be moved by pipeline, so railroads and trucks bring
the fuel across the country, adding to the transport costs.
So we have an inferior fuel that is more expensive than gasoline,
yet 40 percent of the nation’s corn crop is dedicated to making it.
This is not by consumer choice; the decision to use ethanol, to force
motorists to put it in their vehicles, and to subsidize it comes from
government, which supersedes the wishes of consumers.
When Vilsack claims that the 15 percent blend is good for consumers, he
is wrong. Consumers already have rejected ethanol, but that does not
matter to the government. Indeed, ethanol is a good deal for ethanol
producers but it destroys the wealth of others.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/not-so-fast/is-ethanol-a-good-choice-for-consumers/
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
