Today in Biofuels Opinion: “The president supports maintaining the 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol.”
Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa: “I’m glad the administration made clear so quickly that the president supports maintaining the 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol. In light of the administration’s very clear response, I’ll lift my objection to proceeding to Mr [Thomas] Shannon’s nomination”.
From Joelle Brink, Digest special correspondent: “Prejudice: is it undermining the biofuels industry? A successful ship builder I know once recounted his apprenticeship under a man who was always right. “I know I’m right,” his boss used to say, “because I’ve thought about it a lot.” Said the ship builder, “He was a legend in his own mind.” Mental legends seem to flock to the biofuels industry like crows to corn, especially as critics. One thing they all have in common is not having done their homework in a long time. They’re still telling us not to frighten the horses when the horses are already out to pasture.
“Long discredited favorites like the dangers of corn ethanol, food vs. fuel, and indirect land use pop out of the closet like spooks at Halloween. It can’t all be the fault of Big Oil and the grocers’ association. Ordinary human sloth and cussedness must surely bear part of the blame.
“Certainly news outlets are part of the problem. Especially in this age of 24/7 coverage, a correspondent who scores big with a story is automatically under great pressure to draw the story out as long as possible for the sake of the news outlet. Some writers even make their reputations by slamming biofuels and then have too much at stake to change their minds.
“But hierarchical organizations tend to be the worst offenders. Readers of Biofuels Digest who have served in such organizations may agree that typically promotion is dependent on agreement with superiors, and bucking the system is a ticket to the unemployment office. What is worse, opinions tend to be exchanged at the same or higher levels rather than being informed by the research and direct experience of subordinates.
“International organizations are no different, and are perhaps worse because their leaders log so many hours in the air en route to meetings with counterparts on other continents. The combination of jet lag and constant exposure to the received wisdom of counterparts at the same lofty level is as fertile a ground for ideological pandemics as for physical ones.
“Let me say in closing that these remarks are purely theoretical and in no way intended as a criticism of any of the distinguished organizations in whose service it has been my honor to labor.”
Free Subscription to the Daily Biofuels Digest e-newsletter
Subscribe FREE to the world's most-widely read biofuels daily. Enter your email in the box below,
Related Stories
Hot Topics
The Hottest 50 Companies in Bioenergy
Latest algae-to-energy news
Latest jatropha news
Latest Waste-to-energy news
Entry Information
Filed Under: Opinion
Comments: 2 | Post a Comment | Trackback URL
Post a Comment | Trackback URL
You must be logged in to post a comment.
femtobeam | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply
The biofuels industry initiative began as one of US energy independence and the 54 cent tariff on imported ethanol makes sense from 2 perspectives.
First, it reverses the corn to ethanol subsidy that resulted in higher corn prices for both livestock and people, forcing massive sell offs by ranchers who lost their livestock to high feed prices as the banks foreclosed on them. Although it was a boon for farmers temporarily, much of our agriculture moved south of the border and began a dangerous system of deforestation for either crops or cattle there. It began to create a dependency of the US on foreign agriculture as well as foreign oil, especially from China.
Second, the tariff is protective of domestic, US based biofuel industry and prevents dumping of prices for biofuels imports into the US, like ethanol. This happened in the US electronics industry in the 1980’s and in the automobile industry in the 1990’s. Underselling the competitor at any price, even taking a loss in order to obtain and retain market share, is now the norm. No doubt that dumping of oil prices will occur as the domestic biofuels industry develops.
Third, the big oil and agriculture companies have for the most part moved their operations offshore, even if that is only in a banking sense to avoid taxation. These companies have a monopoly with their partners that will be nearly impossible to break without US Government support of the new domestic biofuels industry. This means support for small businesses and innovation, not the standard big corporate controllers.
Biofuels is a big word and the number of types of feedstocks, methods, and fuels are growing by the day. The entire field has become a new convergent industry of pioneering in science and engineering with new materials The importance of Government grants, loans and other incentives to encourage small business in the face of unfair trade practices is what is needed and support for this from the Obama administration is encouraging, even for slothful, albeit poorer, customers of big oil energy and multinational high margin food producers.
Curtis Dyle | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply
Joelle is right. Too many people are using old arguments, especially the food vs. fuel and indirect land use arguments. I had a long discussion with our local liberal (an acedemic with two PhD’s) and she finally understands that she doesn’t have to worry about what will happen to the poor harness makers and blacksmiths.