KIPLINGER RECOMMENDS

Home > Energy Costs, Going Green

COMMENT

BUZZ UP

DIGG

CHECK OUT:

EXECUTIVE POLL

Bernard Madoff, convicted of running an $65 billion Ponzi scheme, was sentenced to 150 years in jail. What’s your take on his punishment?

Compare Price Quotes 100+ Services

OUR PREMIUM CONTENT

The Kiplinger Tax Letter
The Kiplinger Agriculture Letter
The Kiplinger California Letter
Kiplinger's Biofuels Market Alert
Kiplinger's Retirement Report

SUBSCRIBER HELP

CURRENT LETTER

By Knight Kiplinger

The Kiplinger Washington Editors

July 2, 2009

By year-end or so, Congress will give the nod to a major rewriting of the nation's financial regulatory system. This week’s Kiplinger Letter explores whether the package will do more harm than good and what lawmakers are likely to include.

ALSO IN THIS ISSUE: The Economy, Business Costs, Taxes, Supreme Court, Energy, Workplace Regulations, Climate Change, Health Care Legislation and Foreign Policy

PREVIOUS ISSUES

CORRECTIONS

TRY THE LETTER:
Subscribe | See Sample

YOUR FEEDBACK

SUBSCRIBERLOG: Got a topic you'd like to discuss? Or a problem or question? Please join our exclusive forum for Letter subscribers only.

ASK US: A Kiplinger Letter editor will promptly answer subscriber questions.

OPEN FORUM: Share your insights and analysis with other visitors.

I just attended a franchise seminar. The speaker represents a few hundred franchises that (he says) are hand picked. He has the prospect (aka victim?) answer some questions about themselves then he makes recomendations - based on your personality, capital situation, etc.. If you pick a franchise, then he does some due dilligence for you. If you both decide it's a good idea, he helps you get started. He says he offers this service free of charge, which means he gets a commission if he's able to sell you a franchise. Has anyone done this? Successfully? Unsuccessfully?

-- fender

Biofuels Doubters are Emerging

Critics are questioning the wisdom of huge government subsidies granted to some biofuels, especially corn-based ethanol.

Worth Reading: The Quick Take from Kiplinger

September 2007

Bart Mongoven

Stratfor

Bart Mongoven is vice president for Stratfor's Public Policy Intelligence Group, guiding the direction of long-range research and analysis as well as overseeing all public policy client projects. Mongoven has an extensive background in the study of activism in Asia, Australia, Europe and sub-Saharan Africa. His international experience covers a wide range of topics, from environmental and human rights organizations to the development of international conventions.

The headlong rush toward development of biofuels, especially ethanol made from corn, is causing critics and policy makers to raise some serious questions. Will corn-based ethanol deliver the promised benefits? Is the push toward ethanol -- fueled by huge subsidies in both United States and Europe -- creating a food vs. fuel dilemma? In an article entitled "Biofuels Backlash," Stratfor analyst Bart Mongoven says the criticism is loudest in Europe but is unlikely to have effect on policy either there or in the United States.

Skeptics are "running head-on into the powerful agricultural lobbies in the United States and Europe that so successfully championed the issue in the first place." Mongoven writes. He points out that the environmental groups in the United States that once found little environmental benefit from corn-based ethanol have been silent in recent years as Congress pressed to put greater emphasis on the fuel as a replacement for gasoline. Why? The support of farm-state lawmakers broadens an alliance behind the environmental movement's chief goal: a cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

However, the influence of agricultural interests could ultimately cause some serious setbacks to efforts to move industrialized nations away from carbon fuels -- and have economic consequences for developing countries as well. Brazil, Mongoven points out, makes ethanol from sugar cane that is far more environmentally friendly than the corn-based fuel. But the farm industries both here and in Europe have fought tooth and nail to erect barriers to the import of Brazilian ethanol.

READER COMMENTS

Post a comment

Hide comment form

Read all comments (7)

Read recent comments

POSTED BY: A.U. Daniels (September 21, 2007 10:58 AM)
Any conversion of food production to fuel production will raise food prices and immorally ask poor people to subsidize our lust for continuing unbridled use of the internal combustion engine. Biofuel production only makes sense if the fuel is produced from inedible byroducts of food production, e.g. cornstalks not corn.

POSTED BY: Kent Webb (September 21, 2007 04:47 PM)
The subsidized corn based ethanol initiatives were needed to kick start the industry both politically and from an infrastructure development standpoint. It also kept hard pressed American Farmers in business over the last 10 years. Ultimately, corn based ethanol should give way to cellulosic ethanol; or more competitive sugarcane ethanol if cellulosic does not prove out quickly enough. The 53 cent tariff on surgarcane based ethanol should be phased out once the E85 car fleet and the E85 fuel distribution system is well established. Then the political support of farm state politicians will not be as crucial and market based decisions can be safely made. Besides, with the increasing wealth and thus increasingly meat-based diets in the formerly developing world, demand for corn should rise to be able to absorb America's corn production capacity at a price that corn producers can be successful at.

POSTED BY: machine (September 22, 2007 09:55 PM)
There is also the argument that producing ethanol consumes alot of energy. In fact, more then is created. Its time we just address the issue head on and communize vehicles in cities in an effort to stop pollution. These dumb and useless ideas are coming from a generation that was supposed to change the world. The hippie generation is an old busted up sack of dust, useless and greedy. If JFK got us to the moon in less then 8 years, i am sure we can have 100 mile range battery powered vehicles in all city's, its not that difficult, all it will take is the guts to stay...STOP.

POSTED BY: eschm (September 23, 2007 08:23 AM)
another comment paid for by the oil lobby

POSTED BY: reenum (September 23, 2007 09:34 AM)
It would seem like fiber would make a better alcohol. The farmers need it for fertilizer, but could harvest it every other year. This would include corn plants, wheat -- every type, dried gathered and put into distilation tanks. The farmers have the land, but people could build cheep distilation plants on it in a co-op. Trucking could also be co-op'ed.

POSTED BY: Tom (September 23, 2007 07:05 PM)
What do people eat in Brazil?

POSTED BY: MEtrash (September 24, 2007 02:18 AM)
The corn used in the production of ethanol is not the sweet corn you eat from the grocery store. It is the already ripened form of the corn kernal which can only be used for ethanol production animal feed and other products (e.g. corn syrup). In fact the corn that is raised for human consumption is not even the same type of corn raised for ethanol and cattle feed. Ethanol corn and cattle feed corn is a hybrid which would not be very tasty to humans even if taken from the stalk for "roasting ears". In the state that it is harvested, the corn is inedible by humans and only by cattle once it is ground. Now comes the next question. One is always hearing that American cattle are grain fed and as such are unhealthy as compared to range fed cattle (e.g bison meat is supposed be more healthy for humans than cattle for this very reason). Range fed cattle are predominantly raised in Australia and Argentina. Both of these countries enjoy a hearty export market to the U.S. where people supposedly rave about their beef. So if the trend is toward range fed beef then why all the grief over corn fed to cattle becoming expensive?

MORE: Kiplinger Recommends | Energy Costs, Going Green

TOOLS: