The study shows that corn-based bioethanol, which is produced extensively in the US, has a higher combined environmental and health burden than conventional fuels.
And of course corn ethanol is what the politicians subsidise while they tax the cleaner conventional fuels.
Idiocy in action, but then that’s politics.
4 responses so far ↓
1 Letters From A Tory // Feb 3, 2009 at 10:52 am
It’s the second wave of biofuels that will make or break whether they are economically and environmentally worth pursuing.
The technology at the moment strikes me as a bit primitive.
2 dearieme // Feb 3, 2009 at 3:40 pm
LFAT: it’s not particularly that the technology is primitive, it is that the very idea that making fuel ethanol from corn is loopy.
3 Serf // Feb 3, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Sugar cane, yes, corn no.
This year we will see a number of new cellulosic ethanol investments. Then we will see if ethanol has a future.
Its a crap fuel, difficult to handle, but if the cost is right…….
As to the tax subsidy issue, a carbon tax would neatly sort out the good ideas from the bad, but reduce opportunities for pork barrel politics and meddling.
4 ZT // Feb 3, 2009 at 6:54 pm
The Iowa caucus has a lot to answer for.
Leave a Comment