In Brazil you can get gasoline, gasohol, alcohol, bio-diesel, diesel and natural gas — all at the pump.

recordonline.com – The U.S. has a really stupid policy on sugar ethanol — How does any of this represent free trade?

I asked Dr. Jose 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.



  1. @$tr0Gh0$t says:

    Well, I just read an article that Honda has developed a new way to make ethanol from non eatable plants instead of corn, sugar cane or soybeans, that reduces by 70% hydrocarbon emissions and by 40% CO2 emissions.
    I wonder it this too will be taxed into oblivion to protect the US farmers.

  2. greg says:

    Free Trade thumping US? thats a joke,

    http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/trade/bp30_cotton.htm
    If you wanted to intentionally and maliciously set out to impoverish a load of developing world farmers, cotton subsidies is what you would do.

    the EU has also got some very harmful crap going in the same vein

  3. AB CD says:

    I thought you hated free trade John?

  4. RTaylor says:

    All nations protect industry vital to their economy. There are several crops that has a higher carbohydrate yield than corn that can be used for biofuel. The sweet potato is an interesting alternative. Corn is a highly automated crop, and the equipment is perfected. They’ve been tinkering with the gnome for decades, so higher sugar yielding hybrids may be possible. Why set up another dependency on foreign products?

  5. Max Bell says:

    4: Republicans then are to Republicans now as Christians then are to Christians now, and frequently, they are the same thing. Coincidence? You decide. Which is which?

    5: So what you’re saying is that communism is good for America?

  6. AB CD says:

    Wait now you’re claiming Democrats support free trade? Could you let the unions know? I didn’t call John a Republican. Take a look through his posts, and you’ll see he’s been against free trade. Or so I thought.

  7. moss says:

    AB CD — I know it’s useless trying to get you to look beyond the end of Rush Limbaugh’s nose, but, most independent, thoughtful, reflective adults (as rare as they may be) don’t “think” the way you do. The narrowest of black-and-white definitions, e.g. the whole world is comprised of republicans and democrats, only works in the mind of obedient sectarian acolytes — cannon fodder for demogogues.

    You don’t remember pieces John wrote about using the word “republikan” instead of republican to describe the cruds who own that party nowadays? You have no perception of the numerous issues discussed on these pages by any number of individuals who don’t fit at all inside that tiny cardboard box you require of political discourse?

    Ptooey!

  8. Dirtboy says:

    Seems to me that there is a tariff on imported sugar as well, and it has been on the books for at least 80 years. Thats why most food manufacturers use corn syrup instead of cane sugar: its cheaper after the tariff, even though globally sugar is much cheaper. They also pay sugar cane growers in LA not to grow crops.

    I think it has something to do with the midwest only being able to grow corn. It isn’t wet enough to grow sugar cane. Corn is the major source of income.

    If you think about it, our economy is not only oil based, but corn based as well.

  9. xrayspex says:

    Thanks to pressure from Midwest farmers and agribusinesses

    Farmers, heh. More like ADM and Monsanto. (QUICK! Queue the Monsanto astroturf army!!!)

    Happily, there’s a solution. Just pay ADM not to grow corn, the way we currently pay farmers not to grow peanuts, soybeans, and cotton, and maybe they’ll allow us to import processed alcohol. The public gets lower fuel prices and ADM increases shareholder value.

  10. rlj_151 says:

    Not surprised. Not the first time the US has imposed tarrifs on things that were covered on free trade. Won’t be the last. Just wait, it will turn around to bite you.

  11. Frank IBC says:

    Is it any surprise that when American politicians preach “free trade” to the rest of the world, people outside the USA hear “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you”?

  12. V says:

    Hmmm… Has it ever occured to them that if we waited on these kind of restrictions to see what’s necessary that maybe we could actually get this technology off the ground. Instead they’re protecting farmers from an imaginery fear of being run out of business by a product that isn’t even being sold yet to a hypothetical market.

    Wait, I forgot, the government has lot’s of friends in big oil.

  13. Roc Rizzo says:

    Bring back ALL tarriffs, and there will be more jobs in the US! We will make things here again! Just make sure that tarriffs are fair to UNITED STATES workers! Screw the corporations!

  14. Gig says:

    Wait a minute. I thought one of the reasons we wanted alcohol based fuel was to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

    Why now do you want to make us dependant on foreign alcohol?

  15. Frank IBC says:

    Gig –

    Because I trust Brazil a lot more than I do Saudi Arabia or Iran.

    Rocky –

    Bring back ALL tarriffs, and there will be more jobs in the US! We will make things here again! Just make sure that tarriffs are fair to UNITED STATES workers!

    Increasing prices and protecting inefficient industries is NOT going to creat jobs in the long run.

    Screw the corporations!

    That’s supposed to help create jobs?

  16. mxpwr03 says:

    Sorry to rain on your liberal parade, but the Democratic Party was vehemently opposed to CAFTA-DR because of sugar cane lobbyist in a few states (the legislation did pass but only by one vote). This is another example of why producers are much more efficient at receiving rent seeking benefits, at the cost of every consumer. I hope one day there will be a SAFTA agreement, but I’m not holding my breath.

  17. Roc Rizzo says:

    NO MORE FREAKIN’ Trade agreements.

    They are killing us here in the US, and making the people who run these multi-national corporations rich, rich, rich!!!

  18. Frank IBC says:

    They are killing us here in the US

    Er, how so, Rocky? The economy is doing quite well at the moment.

  19. mxpwr03 says:

    Roc Rizzo, I think you’ve been watching to much Lou Dobbs, you should do a google search for David Ricardo, and read some of his work. Oh just for the record, those devilish multi-national companies employ quite a large number of American workers, along with generating nice dividend yields.

  20. Frank IBC says:

    Or maybe he needs to move out of union-strangled, mafia-strangled New Jersey and to a prosperous state in the sunbelt.

  21. god says:

    Ricardo? And Ayn Rand for interpersonal ethics, too. And maybe Cardinal Richelieu for any of the politics Karl Rove left out.

  22. Mark says:

    Er Frank IBC, maybe you particular discipline hasnt been affected yet, the industry I’m in has been affected hugely. After 25 years in the computer industry, average income for myself and coleagues have been cut by 30%. Speak for yourself.

    I call a jihad on Trade agreements.

  23. ECA says:

    Whats so FREE about free trade.
    Still cant trade with Cuba.
    US has placed a 25% tarriff on Canada lumber.
    They STILL wont let us purchase Direct from distributours, or makers of products to lower costs.
    Parts from out of our country are sold to US corps, at DIRT prices, but we dont GET those prices, at the store, cant even get it for 2 times markup..

    So where is FREE in Free trade?? Its not for the Public, its for the corps..

  24. Frank IBC says:

    ECA –

    See my #14. The US government has a ways to go on free trade.

  25. tallwookie says:

    its all about energy subsidies

  26. ECA says:

    I have a better concept for Tarriff??

    Make products sell for a MAX price when they hit the docks..
    THEn corps will THINK about makeing things in the US, that CAN be marked up, HIGHER.
    We arnt beating the QUALITY issue, anymore..SO why not reverse the tarriff?

  27. ECA says:

    excuse me I forgot something…

    Think about it…Would you want to sell a Japaneese vehicle at $8,000 and NOT make $10,000+ profit margin?? Or sell an american made car at $20,000, and make your $10,000 profit?

    If they DONT compete(corps) FORCE them to compete.

  28. AB CD says:

    #8, Why are you directing that comment at me? I was responding to post #4, and I think you should have issued your statement to them:

    Only Republicans hate free trade, civil liberties,small government and peace.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5648 access attempts in the last 7 days.