Is ethanol the answer (part 4)

Updated below:


Previously, I've posted three pieces on the advantages and disadvantages of using ethanol. They are here, here, and here. In those blurbs I've argued rather strongly against corn ethanol. It does very little, perhaps nothing to reduce green house gases and doesn't even contribute significantly to our efforts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I did note that celulosic ethanol, made from switch grass, has some future potential but is not yet proven. Meanwhile, I failed to mention sugar cane-based ethanol. Today, Tom Friedman has a column in the NY Times [behind subscription wall] on that subject, and, for the first time in a long, long while, Friedman has said something I agree with:

I asked Dr. José Goldemberg, secretary for the environment for São Paulo State and a pioneer of Brazil’s ethanol industry, the obvious question: Is the fact that the U.S. has imposed a 54-cents-a-gallon tariff to prevent Americans from importing sugar ethanol from Brazil “just stupid or really stupid.”

Thanks to pressure from Midwest farmers and agribusinesses, who want to protect the U.S. corn ethanol industry from competition from Brazilian sugar ethanol, we have imposed a stiff tariff to keep it out. We do this even though Brazilian sugar ethanol provides eight times the energy of the fossil fuel used to make it, while American corn ethanol provides only 1.3 times the energy of the fossil fuel used to make it. We do this even though sugar ethanol reduces greenhouses gases more than corn ethanol. And we do this even though sugar cane ethanol can easily be grown in poor tropical countries in Africa or the Caribbean, and could actually help alleviate their poverty.

Yes, you read all this right. We tax imported sugar ethanol, which could finance our poor friends, but we don’t tax imported crude oil, which definitely finances our rich enemies. We’d rather power anti-Americans with our energy purchases than promote antipoverty.

“It’s really stupid,” answered Dr. Goldemberg.

If I seem upset about this, I am. Development and environmental experts have long searched for environmentally sustainable ways to alleviate rural poverty — especially for people who live in places like Brazil, where there is a constant temptation to log the Amazon. Sure, ecotourism and rain forest soap are nice, but they never really scale. As a result, rural people in Brazil are always tempted go back to logging or farming sensitive areas.

Ethanol from sugar cane could be a scalable, sustainable alternative — if we are smart and get rid of silly tariffs, and if Brazil is smart and starts thinking right now about how to expand its sugar cane biofuel industry without harming the environment.

The good news is that sugar cane doesn’t require irrigation and can’t grow in much of the Amazon, because it is too wet. So if the Brazilian sugar industry does realize its plan to grow from 15 million to 25 million acres over the next few years, it need not threaten the Amazon.

It's time to turn off the import tarriffs on this stuff as well as the direct subsidies to the corn industry. Unfortunately, it's not going to happen under Bush, and probably not under a Democrat either.

Update:

One more illustration of the fact that we have to be very careful about what we assume about these things comes from this quote about hydrogen cars referenced by Andrew Tobias:

Have you questioned anyone how much energy is needed to produce a hydrogen you're going to pay for? You need electricity to run the equipment reforming hydrogen to the useable for FC form. And then, the hydrogen is going to be used to get back electricity to run a vehicle propulsion motor. What's wrong with this picture? Isn't it simpler, cheaper, more efficient and just plain makes more sense to just store initial electricity directly in a car's battery in the first place?

Hydrogen is an extremely clever scam. When you step back and ask, "Where will the hydrogen come from?" the house of cards falls apart. You will get hydrogen from fossil fuels. The most economic way to get hydrogen is to catalyze natural gas. When you do this, you throw away 50% of the fuel value. If you were to put that hydrogen into a fuel-cell car, it would only go 50% the distance (at best) that a hybrid car would, if fueled from the natural gas directly. The oil company loves it. They get to sell twice as much per mile driven. It is also twice as much CO2 per mile driven . . .