What a vicious chain of events our politicians have set into motion. It just continues to worsen.
It started out innocently enough. Oil prices were climbing. Our energy production was shifting to an ever greater extent to countries that are hostile to the U.S.
So, Step 1 is to propose a solution:
1. Subsidize ethanol production to encourage biofuels and enhance energy security.
However, subsidies didn’t do the trick. It was still too expensive to produce ethanol. People still chose gasoline derived from hostile sources over more expensive ethanol. What we really needed was Step 2.
2. Let’s mandate ethanol usage.
At the point that the subsidy turns into a mandate, things change. Now, the fuel doesn’t have to be economically priced. It is going into the fuel supply regardless of the price. And this kicks off a massive expansion of ethanol capacity.
But soon we notice that too many people are building ethanol plants. This is causing a glut of ethanol, and putting downward pressure on the price of ethanol. On the other side, it is raising the price of corn. This lowers the margins for ethanol producers, and some producers start to go bankrupt. Projects are delayed or cancelled. The solution? Proceed to Step 3 (which was entirely predictable):
3. We need to raise the mandate for ethanol usage.
Unfortunately this leads to more of the problems that arose from the original mandate. Corn prices go even higher. Land prices continue to climb. Land is shifted to corn production, forcing commodity prices up in other areas. Very few segments of the population are experiencing true benefits.
The primary beneficiaries are commercial corn (and other commodity) farmers who purchased their land several years prior to the mandate. They are truly experiencing a windfall from these policies, and thus will fight the hardest to continue down this ill-advised road.
Secondary beneficiaries are lobbyists who defend the practice, as well as those who are willing to write papers (commissioned by the National Corn Growers Association) that downplay the consequences (or even better, point the finger in another direction).
The ethanol producer is hurt each time the overbuilding cycle occurs. They are starting to realize that the energy business is often low margin (and cyclical), and not as lucrative as they once thought. Maybe the solution is to increase the mandate again? 😉
The cattle rancher (like my Dad) and pig and poultry farmers get hurt from higher feed prices that cut into already razor-thin (or negative) margins.
The person trying to buy farmland is hurt by land prices that have exploded as a result of the mandates (unless they inherit family land).
The environment suffers as the mandated corn production means more herbicide, pesticide, and fertilizer usage, some of which ends up in our waterways.
The person who eats is hurt because higher commodity prices ripple through their food budgets, already stretched because of increasing energy costs.
So what’s the solution to this mess that has been made? I think it is simple, really. We all need to become either corn lobbyists or corn farmers. That way we all get rich and can afford to pay the financial consequences of spiralling inflation resulting from these mandates. (I suppose we will need to be subsidized for our farm purchase, since farms have gotten pretty expensive).
As for the impact on the environment? We can simply commission a study to show that there is in fact no impact on the environment. Ah, the aquifers. I forgot about those. Looks like I will need to commission another study.