Am I switching teams?

By Josh Reighley on February 5, 2007 4:09 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

Jess believes that the American family farmer is finally feeling the benefit of free market economics, and the world is protesting. He also believes that ethanol is more efficient than critics claim. I am sure I am not doing his argument due justice. You can read his comments in their entirety at the above link.

I am likely on dangerous ground here, because Jess, a very good friend of mine is a corn farmer, one of my uncles is in the ethanol plant building business, and my employer is probably significantly vested in the financing of this business in many ways.

Anyway, I just call it as I see it. I am scared that our country is investing so much in a industry that is not going to be sustainable.

This article builds upon my fear: January 4, 2007: Distillery Demand for Grain to Fuel Cars Vastly Understated

For the first time in a long time, I feel myself taking a rather liberal position. Taking 1/4 of the world's grain exports off the market would be a disastrous on a humanitarian level. Burning the world's food supply in our Hummers, Escalades, and Range Rovers seems to border on evil.

I think we should feed people before we feed our cars. There should be a tax on gas guzzling vehicles to even out the regressive effect of the gas prices. What I see now is wealthy people driving around in vehicles that demand a lot of gas, while the poorer folks drive around in more modest vehicles. The richer folks demand a lot of gas, thus raising the price for everyone. The richer folks are not impacted by the increasing prices nearly as much as those who are just getting by, so they continue consuming at whatever cost.

Perhaps we could issue a ration of gasoline per capita that would not be taxed, and everything in excess of your quota you would have to pay a significant premium for. The premium would go to offset the cost of gas sold within the per capita quota. If you have a family of 7 and need a large vehicle to get around, you will have the quota to use it inexpensively. If you have a family of 2 and just dig driving a Hummer, it will cost you.

The solution to America's energy and pollution problems are going to have to come from the demand side. We need to provide incentives to reduce our fuel consumption. Otherwise no matter how much fuel is available, we will be happy to consume it.

Comments

Jess and I have been having a pretty lively debate on the viability of Corn Ethanol. My contention is that the demand for ethanol is artificially created by the government political machine. It is something that everyone can pat their selves on the back about, but it does little to solve the problems that it purports to be solving. Some industries benefit greatly from the government subsidies, but the whole of society doesn't see an increase in value. Jess believes that the American family farmer is finally feeling the benefit of free market economics, and the world is protesting. He also believes that ethanol is more efficient than critics claim. I am sure I am not doing his argument due justice. You can read his comments in their entirety at the above link. I am likely on dangerous ground here, because Jess, a very good friend of mine is a corn farmer, one of my uncles is in the ethanol plant building business, and my employer is probably significantly vested in the financing of this business in many ways. Anyway, I just call it as I see it. I am scared that our country is investing so much in a industry that is not going to be sustainable. This article builds upon my fear: January 4, 2007: Distillery Demand for Grain to Fuel Cars Vastly Understated For the first time in a long time, I feel myself taking a rather liberal position. Taking 1/4 of the world's grain exports off the market would be a disastrous on a humanitarian level. Burning the world's food supply in our Hummers, Escalades, and Range Rovers seems to border on evil. I think we should feed people before we feed our cars. There should be a tax on gas guzzling vehicles to even out the regressive effect of the gas prices. What I see now is wealthy people driving around in vehicles that demand a lot of gas, while the poorer folks drive around in more modest vehicles. The richer folks demand a lot of gas, thus raising the price for everyone. The richer folks are not impacted by the increasing prices nearly as much as those who are just getting by, so they continue consuming at whatever cost. Perhaps we could issue a ration of gasoline per capita that would not be taxed, and everything in excess of your quota you would have to pay a significant premium for. The premium would go to offset the cost of gas sold within the per capita quota. If you have a family of 7 and need a large vehicle to get around, you will have the quota to use it inexpensively. If you have a family of 2 and just dig driving a Hummer, it will cost you. The solution to America's energy and pollution problems are going to have to come from the demand side. We need to provide incentives to reduce our fuel consumption. Otherwise no matter how much fuel is available, we will be happy to consume it.