The United States is drunk on ethanol, and our judgment is impaired. Despite the growing consensus that global warming is a real threat that must be addressed sooner rather than later, little has actually been accomplished. One of the most popular proposals is to grow copious amounts of corn and turn it into ethanol, an alternative to fossil fuels. This sounds like a nice idea, but the problem with this is that there is no way for us to grow that much corn. Paul Krugman of the New York Times pointed out in a 2007 column that “researchers at the University of Minnesota estimate that converting the entire U.S. corn crop into ethanol would replace only 12 percent of our gasoline consumption.” Twelve percent is not enough, and we obviously can’t commit all of our corn production to ethanol.

Even if we could grow enough, it would still be a bad idea. Corn is a notoriously inefficient energy source-growing it, transporting it and converting it into ethanol requires a great deal of energy consumption and carbon emissions. Ethanol from Brazilian sugarcane is a much better alternative, and ethanol now accounts for 30 percent of Brazilian automotive fuel. However, Americans are prevented from taking advantage of this clean-burning and efficient energy source due to a senseless 54 cent-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol.

Using corn to produce ethanol has plenty of unintended costs as well. A recent study published in the prestigious journal Science has argued that corn ethanol production actually increases carbon emissions because it encourages the destruction of carbon fixing forests and grasslands as farmers clear them to grow more corn.

Although ethanol (if produced efficiently) will no doubt play a role in slowing the effects of global warming, those who focus on it are missing the forest for the trees. The problem of global warming can only be solved by reducing activity that emits carbon into the atmosphere, namely the burning of fossil fuels. The only way to reduce this activity is to make it more costly for individuals and corporations. And the only way to make it more costly is a carbon tax.

The most obvious manifestation of such a tax would be a significantly larger tax on gasoline used in automobiles. The benefits of such a tax would be enormous and not only to decrease carbon emissions. With the national debt soaring to over nine trillion dollars under the Bush administration, and the looming prospect of budget-busting entitlement spending increases, a tax on gasoline could serve as an important source of revenue. In addition, because a gas tax is a tax on consumption, it does not discourage saving the way income taxes do. Other benefits of a gas tax include reduced traffic congestion and, as suggested by Charles Courtemanche, a graduate student in economics here at Wash. U., a decrease in obesity due to increased bicycling and walking and less eating out at restaurants.

If a large enough gas tax were implemented, it could also lower the global price of oil, decreasing the revenues of the despotic governments of oil-producing nations such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. According to Thomas Friedman’s First Law of Petropolitics, there is a direct relationship between the price of oil and the ability of oil-rich dictators to remain in power. As long as these autocrats can count on large oil revenues, it is difficult to hold them accountable for their bad behavior. If the price of oil were to drop sufficiently, domestic unrest and the need to trade would leave Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in quite a pickle.

Some might object that a gas tax would be regressive and that it is better to just force automobile companies to make more fuel-efficient cars. If this is a concern, it would be easy to cut other taxes, like the regressive payroll tax, to help out those with lower incomes. Furthermore, requirements on automakers to make more fuel-efficient vehicles are very costly, and these costs will be passed onto consumers in the form of higher car prices and fewer jobs in the automotive industry.

One of the greatest challenges the world faces in the 21st century will be a reduction in carbon emissions. As the world’s richest nation and one of its worst emitters, the United States has an opportunity and an obligation to lead the fight against global warming. If we don’t pass a large carbon tax, it is unlikely that anyone else will.

Bill is a senior in Arts & Sciences. He can be reached via e-mail at [email protected].

Popularity: unranked [?]

 Print This Post

This entry was posted on Monday, February 25th, 2008 at 12:00 pm and is filed under Forum. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.