Another fallen giant

The volume of celebrity deaths in the past few weeks is becoming a bit disturbing. While the world is mourning the king of pop, another king has passed quietly and sadly. John Bachar was a veritible god in the world of rock climbing. For the past 30-some years, he has been dominating walls and routes that others thought were unclimbable, and doing it all without ropes. He died Sunday while free soloing in Mammoth Lakes, CA, doing what he loved, which is as much as any of us can hope for. Grist has posted a touching (though slightly overwrought) eulogy here. Below are a couple videos that, while cheesy, show the ridiculous skills this man possessed.

I realize this post doesn’t have anything to do with economics, and is tangentially related to the environment. The reason I included it is the following: we all have our motivations for engaging in this work. Mine are numerous, but a lifetime spent in nature pushing my body and mind through skiing, climbing, mountain biking, etc., drove me to environmental work and it’s what keeps me going. It’s been a tough year for luminaries in these sports, and this is my small way of remembering their achievements. Rest in peace, John.

A Primer on Allowance Distribution in Waxman-Markey

For the last month I’ve been spending a lot of time studying and modeling various allocation schemes for carbon allowances.  This kind of a big topic, so I’m going to aim this post at talking about Waxman-Markey and what its distribution plan might mean.  The current version of Waxman-Markey allocates 35% of permits to “electricity consumers” through Local Distribution Companies (LDCs).   LDCs are highly regulated entities that take power from high-voltage transmission lines, and distribute it in a usable form to Industrial, Commercial or Residential customers.  The details of how LDCs function aren’t that important, since the legislation lays out how the money should be used:

Emission allowances distributed to an electricity local distribution company under this subsection shall be used exclusively for the benefit of retail rate payers of such electricity local distribution (p575).

To the extent an electricity local distribution company uses the value of emission allowances distributed under this subsection to provide rebates, it shall, to the maximum extent practicable, provide such rebates with regard to the fixed portion of rate payers’ bills or as a fixed credit or rebate on electricity bills (p576).

To understand this, a little background on how electricity bills work is necessary. Unfortunately, every state has a different system, so forgive me if I misrepresent your state.  The basic concept is that electricity bills have a fixed portion, and a variable portion.  The fixed portion covers capital costs like transmission lines and maintenance etc.  The variable part covers the cost of generating electricity like fuel costs and other variable operating costs.

The legislation above stipulates that as much as possible, the allowance revenue should go to subsidize the fixed portion of a bill instead of the variable cost.  This is meant to allow the variable price of electricity to increase with carbon policy (and hence decrease consumption), but not increase the overall burden on consumers.

The reason why one might want the variable cost portion of a bill to increase is that it allows for a more efficient carbon policy.  As consumers face higher costs, they will reduce their consumption and emissions.  If consumers don’t face this higher variable cost, consumption will stay high, and emissions reductions under a cap and trade policy will have to come from other sectors of the economy.  This is a less efficient overall outcome since the lower hanging fruit of reduced electricity consumption cannot be taken advantage of, and other less efficitn mitigation is necessary.  This also results in a higher emissions allowance price.

The legislators seem to be somewhat aware of this, and hence the bill stipulates that money should go to reduce the fixed portion of a bill.  In practice, this isn’t exactly what will happen.  First off, residential consumers (around one third of consumption) probably aren’t sophisticated enough to think on the margin in electricity consumption decisions.  I study energy and I just look my bill total, not the individual components.  Industrial and Commercial customers, however, spend a lot more money on electricity and it is reasonable to assume that they would take higher variable costs into consideration.

The second important part is “to the maximum extent practicable.”  This is tricky since in practice very few LDCs fully separate the fixed and variable portions of their bill.  Instead, LDCs usually have some small fixed portion, but end up recovering a large portion of their fixed costs through the variable section of the bill.  Other states hardly differentiate at all.  In order to appropriately apply the allowance value to the full fixed portion of the bill, massive electricity billing reform would be needed.

If you have made it this far, you might be asking why this is important.  I come at this issue from the income distribution perspective, and these small pieces of legislative language and assumptions about consumer behavior have huge impacts on who bears the cost of carbon policy.  (In an effort not to write an essay for a post, I’ll touch on that next time.)

From the larger policy perspective, it looks like LDC allocation will be a part of Waxman-Markey as a compromise of sorts, but it doesn’t seem that the full effects of this policy have been fully analyzed.  The bottom line is that LDC allocation is a less efficient mechanism for climate policy, and will force other sectors to abate more emissions to compensate.  If we are ok with that as a compromise, so be it, but policy makers should at the very least know what they are compromising on.

New Blog of the Month: Weathervane

Take CT, add a few more decades of experience and study, keen insights from established experts in the world of climate and energy, a dash of nuance, and the intellectual backing of an institution like Resources for the Future, and what do you have? Well, my friends, you have a recipe for Weathervane, the recently resurrected RFF climate policy blog.

Weathervane was originally established in the late 1990s and quickly became a primary source for quality policy discussions on climate change and other environmental issues on Web 1.0. With the myriad sources of climate news out there, this new iteration is now looking to foment thoughtful and robust conversation and highlight the latest insights from RFF’s stable of scholars. If you want a mature perspective of the nexus of climate and economics, then Weathervane is the place to be. Check it out.

Full disclosure: Occasionally, we CTers may cross-post between our autonomous blog and Weathervane (see Andrew’s last post for an example). CT remains an independent blog that in no way represents the opinions of RFF.

NPR channels DM

NPR’s Morning Edition has run a number of pieces this week trying to illuminate the mechanics of cap-and-trade for the masses. I applaud their efforts and wish more media outlets would take the time to explain to non-practitioners how these lovely econ tools we use work. The Planet Money C&T piece this morning was especially effective at cutting through my morning fog because there’s a good chance I would explain cap-and-trade to my less enlightened acquaintances in a similar manner. Also, as one who has been known to occasionally use the word ‘dude’ excessively, it touches me in a special place in my heart. Sweet.

Back online

Yeah, I know. We’ve been gone for a while. Lots of things have been happening over the past few weeks and any marginally smarmy/useful insight you were hoping to get from the CT crew wasn’t there. Here’s my apology:

Well, don’t worry. We’re back and we promise to do better in the future. It’s going to be a long, hot brutal summer, and we intend to offer some soothing and cool perspective. stay tuned.

Tropical Forest Conservation in Waxman-Markey

Originally posted on RFF’s climate policy blog Weathervane.

For many environmental advocates, the generous forest conservation provisions in the Waxman-Markey energy bill (summary here) are a no-brainer. They target one of the world’s largest—20 percent of the global total—and most cost-effective—about half the world’s deforestation at under $10 per-ton—sources of greenhouse gas emissions reductions while protecting some of the world’s most treasured natural places.

It seems these provisions provide something for everyone, as they have found support from a broad coalition of stakeholders. U.S.-regulated entities like the potential cost-containment benefits from offsetting up to 1.5 billion tons of their emissions by paying for cheaper reductions in developing nations, and that forest conservation does not create competitiveness concerns. The global development community likes the possible poverty reduction benefits of channeling an additional $10 billion per year by 2015 in what could be seen as U.S. foreign aid to tropical forest nations. Climate policy wonks like that this forest financing will strengthen U.S. participation in ongoing global negotiations.

Is it possible, therefore, that these provisions could survive attacks from equally-strong skeptics of offsets, foreign aid, and climate action during House and Senate debates?

 

As the debate unfolds, expect three key issues to come into play:

 

1) Whether the uncertainties in Waxman-Markey’s forest “set-aside” provisions can be clarified.

Currently the bill allocates 5 percent of allowance values (Section 753(b)(1)) for the purchase of “supplemental emissions reductions”—not offsets—solely from international forest conservation. This “set-aside” must be used to purchase 720 million tons of emissions reductions per year from 2020 to 2025 and 6 billion tons overall from 2012 to 2025, and the EPA administrator is required to increase the allowance allocation if necessary to meet this target.

Based on reasonable assumptions about the size of the cap-and-trade program and cost of forest tons, including analysis done by EPA, the U.S. will be lucky to purchase half that amount (about 300 million) with the current 5 percent set-aside. Meeting the required amount may require saving up money in the initial years to spend later, but even this approach cuts it close, and will take away funds from needed capacity building in early years. Does the EPA have the authority or the will to actually follow-through with this requirement? Where will these allowances come from (they’re certainly not going to come without a fight)? 

 

2) Whether the U.S. can demonstrate a plausible pathway to delivering offset tons from forests when cap-and-trade kicks off in 2012.

 

Forest carbon transactions in voluntary carbon markets accounted for about 7.5 million tons in 2007. With the relatively stringent requirements in the bill for developing countries’ participation in U.S. carbon markets—and the current low levels of market-readiness in many of these countries—how will they be ready to potentially deliver 1 billion or even 100 million tons in 2012? One answer is that they need funding for policy-planning and capacity building, on the order of several billion dollars per year between 2010 and 2012.

The good news is that these needs are being addressed by international negotiators in Bonn as we speak—including a strong U.S. forest team—and through other initiatives. The question is, will it be enough? Should the U.S. allocate substantial additional funds in its FY10, FY11 and FY12 foreign aid budgets to specifically target this issue? Or is there another innovative solution out there?

 

3) Whether the institutional structure that manages these forest programs can be strengthened.

 

Currently, the bill places authority to manage the forest set-aside and offsets programs with the EPA, in consultation with the State Department and several other departments. This is not ideal for several reasons. First, although the EPA has expertise in environmental markets, these forest programs will require much greater on-the-ground international development and conservation experience, and international environmental negotiation experience than it possesses. With the amount of funding on the table—about $10 billion per year, as stated before—and the need to get the most bang for the buck, it may make sense to create a specialized agency with expertise in all of these key areas. What should this agency look like? How should it be structured to most effectively manage these new funds and programs?

 

These are some of the key questions that academics and environmental organizations—including RFF’s climate and forest carbon policy teams—will be seeking to answer over the next several months. If policymakers are going to continue to support strong forest conservation provisions in U.S. climate policy, which many stakeholders would argue are absolutely essential from a scientific and economic perspective, these salient questions will need good, robust answers.

How International Offsets Hurt Low Income Families

There has been some great discussion on the new Waxman-Markey bill including Danny’s previous post.  One aspect of the legislation, however,  that I don’t think has received enough attention is how offsets affect low income Americans.

First it is important to realize how large of a part offsets play in Waxman-Markey.  For a quick refresher on their role, check out Danny’s post on the subject.  Besides their large and increasing percentage of abatement, offsets are a huge factor in allowance price.  Here are a few quotes on the importance of offsets from the EIA analysis of the Waxman-Markey draft.

“Without international offsets, the allowance price would increase 96 percent.”

“The availability of offsets under WM-Draft significantly influences the allowance price.”

And from the appendix.

“Without the use of international offsets, covered sectors are forced to find an additional 39 billion metric tons of abatement.”

So, offsets have a HUGE impact on how the program functions.  Just how huge? Check out this graph from the EPA analysis.

Looking at the highlighted statistics, you can see that the 1,677 international offsets dwarfs the 408 domestic abatement in 2015.  Also, this equates to $4 billion being spent on domestic covered abatement, while $17 billion is spent on international offsets.  (The story balances out a bit looking into the future, but it still leaves us spending 50% of abatement costs abroad in 2030.)

Getting back to the original question of how offsets harm low income families, it is important to remember that climate policy is regressive.  One way to remedy this is to redistribute some of the money raised by selling allowances.  International offsets, however, don’t allow this to happen.  The EPA analysis says:

“International offset payments are calculated for each model as the product of the amount of international credits purchased and the international credit price.  Unlike the abatement costs associated with domestic covered abatement and domestic offsets, … international offsets .. are all purchased at the full price of international allowances and those payments are sent abroad.”

So, basically purchasing international offsets is equivalent to shipping money overseas.  For example, if the cheapest international offset in Mexico costs $4/ton to offset, U.S. firms still have to buy it for the international offset allowance price of $10/ton.  The remaining $6 (called the rent) will flow to international firms.  If this abatement or offset was done in the U.S., either the government or U.S. firms would be able to capture this rent.  These captured rents could then be redistributed to low income U.S. households bearing the brunt of climate policy.  With international offsets, this money is lost abroad.

I understand that offsets are being relied upon heavily for cost containment, but why hasn’t the idea of rents being shipped overseas showed up in the political debate?  Considering the average American doesn’t know what cap-and-trade is, this might be an effective way to sway public support towards a more effective system.

Unfortunately, in the current political climate, offsets will continue to be a significant part of climate policy.  Offsets can have many positive components, but they also have a direct harmful effect on low income Americans.  If this is the pill we have to swallow for climate policy to pass, then so be it.  However, I would at the very least like to see this important trade off enter the discussion.

932 pages of excitement

It’s official. The American Clean Energy and Security Act, brought to you by Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, is here, weighting in a whopping 932 pages. It should provide plenty of leisurely weekend reading. Fan of compromises will particularly enjoy the following highlights:

• Emissions targets: 20 percent reduction below 2005 emssions levels by 2020, 44 percent reduction by 2030 and 83 percent by 2050.
• 85% of emission allowances allocated for free, including 35% to the electricity industry, 15% to trade-sensitive industries, 9% to natural gas distributors, 2% to oil refineries, 5% to stop tropical deforestation, and 2% for adaptation.
• Tons of goodies to charm moderate Democrats from the Rust Belt, South, and Mountain West.

My initial reaction is that there are probably going to be a lot of things in here that piss me off, but reading legislation is not my idea of a fun Friday night. Stay tuned for marginally worthwhile analysis…

A Bit More on Cash-for-Clunkers

The WSJ ran an interesting article on the Cash-for-Clunkers program today.  Their general conclusion is that the program is mostly going to spur the sale of trucks.  I recommend you check it out

Here are a few of my favorite examples that illustrate how the program will probably function:

Say you owned a 2001 Dodge Ram four-wheel-drive pickup with a 5.9-liter engine. That truck has an EPA combined fuel economy of just 13 miles per gallon. Under the House proposal, you could scrap that vehicle and get up to $4,500 toward a truck weighing more than 6,000 pounds that got at least 15 miles per gallon. One that might qualify — depending on how weight is defined and measured — is a 2009 Dodge Ram 1500 four-wheel-drive pickup with a 5.7-liter V-8 and a combined 15 mpg.

There’s another way in which the House plan would help sell trucks. Someone who owns a big work truck — a van or pickup in the 8,500-to-10,000-pound weight class — built before the 2002 model year could get a $3,500 voucher for trading in that vehicle for a truck in the same or lower weight class. No mileage limits would apply, as trucks that big don’t have official EPA mileage ratings. In other words, a contractor who drives a Ford F250 could ditch the old one and get a new one, with the help of the Treasury.

The article makes a great point that due to CAFE standards, which haven’t increased much over the last 20 years, there aren’t many passenger cars which qualify.

To qualify for a scrappage voucher, the old car would have to get less than 18 miles per gallon. There aren’t that many “clunker” passenger cars on the road that are that thirsty on gas. You could drag in a 1987 Lincoln Town Car, if you happen to own one. (There’s one from that vintage for sale at a small used-car lot near my house.) But since passenger cars have had to measure up to a 27.5 miles-per-gallon fleet average for more than two decades, the few gas-guzzling sedans and coupes left are either pricey exotics or classic Detroit iron, neither of which are likely to be worth less than the $4,500 the government is offering.

This program basically is a cash subsidy to help automakers get rid of huge stocks of oversized pickup trucks.  There is nothing fundamentally wrong with that, just please don’t call it green and stick it in with climate legislation.

WaPo vs. Climate Change

If any of you are avid readers of the Washington Post editorial pages, then lately you might have noticed some climate change-related hating. There was of course the well-documented brouhaha back in February surrounding George Will’s spurious climate change articles and the Post’s editorial board refusing to do anything about his painfully incorrect assertions. Accusations and double talk bandied about, arguments were made, a good time was had by all.

This week, Post columnist Robert Samuelson decided to get in on the act as well. His column doesn’t do anything as egregious as question whether global warming is real or not. Instead, he goes after environmental groups that are trying to convince the public that climate change legislation will cost almost nothing. Why is this bad? Because according to him:

The claims of the Environmental Defense Fund and other environmentalists that this reduction can occur cheaply rely on economic simulations by “general equilibrium” models…The trouble is that these models embody wildly unrealistic assumptions: There are no business cycles; the economy is always at “full employment”; strong growth is assumed, based on past growth rates; the economy automatically accommodates major changes — if fossil fuel prices rise (as they would under anti-global-warming laws), consumers quickly use less and new supplies of “clean energy” magically materialize.

So, either climate change doesn’t exist or it’s a great way for those evil enviro-types to lie to us all with their voodoo economics models, according to the WaPo editorial stable. Samuelson’s claims don’t hold up much better than Will’s, though. Just like Will got pummeled by the blogosphere, Paul Krugman rides into the picture to lay an editorial pimp-slap on Samuelson, saying:

I don’t think there’s a single thing there that’s right. What on earth do business cycles have to do with it? The models may assume growth based on past trends, but they DO ask whether emissions policy would greatly slow growth — and the answer is no. Consumers aren’t assumed to “quickly” use less — the time frame in these models is decades long. And new supplies don’t “magically” appear — they respond to price incentives, which is what economics usually says…this column exemplifies a strange thing about the climate change debate. Opponents of a policy change generally believe that market economies are wonderful things, able to adapt to just about anything — anything, that is, except a government policy that puts a price on greenhouse gas emissions.

Well said, Dr. Krugman. Needless to say, if you are looking for a well thought-out and robust discussion about the pros and cons of climate change legislation, perhaps it would be wise to steer clear of the Washington Post.

What wouldn’t you be willing to give up?

This is a question that I think about frequently in the context of climate change.  Over the last few years I have become more conscious of my daily activities and their larger climate impacts.  I make sure to turn off the lights etc when I leave the house and have modified my daily life to be more climate conscious.  Most of these aren’t very difficult to remember, and take very few personal sacrifices. 

However, there are also things that I would not give up.  For example, I know that eating meat generates a lot of greenhouse gasses, but I do it anyways.  I also am a big fan of hockey in D.C. even though I know cooling down a 20,000 person arena to 60 degrees in late April is a huge waste of energy.  In the end, there are some things I just am not going to stop doing regardless of how much someone wags their finger at me. 

The truth is that everyone has their own set of preferences and their own list of things they wouldn’t give up.  So, I’m curious, what wouldn’t you give up?  I plan to come back to this topic with an actual intellectual lens at some point, but it is Friday, and I have a hockey game to go to.  

Happy Earth Day

WWWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Happy Earth Day, everyone. You should go out and celebrate. How? I recommend hugging a polar bear, because it’s really freaking cute and you might not be able to do it for much longer.

See? Really freaking cute. Have fun.

Parlez-vous Francais?

Courtesy of Env-Econ:

Out of sheer paranoia, I like to know what others are saying about us.  From Rationalite Limitee (imagine those French accent thingies on the e’s):

j’espère que ceux qui ont passé hier l’épreuve d’économie de l’agrégation d’économie-gestion ont été des lecteurs assidus de blogs du genre Environmental Economics ou Common tragedies. Avec un sujet comme “Economie de marché et gestion des ressources naturelles”, c’était du tout cuit…

Not being French, here’s the Babel Fish translation:

I hope that those which passed yesterday the test of economy of the aggregation of economy-management were assiduous readers of blogs kind Environmental Economics or Common tragedies. With a subject like “Market economy and natural stock management”, it was cooked whole…

That clears it up.

For the record, it’s better to be complimented in French (sort of) than the alternative:

Also, for the record, the Azzuri flop like choking fish.

The Onion does Offsets

Yep, that sounds about right

Thanks Rich

Earth Day Sale!

While this blog continues to have no official association with RFF, I can’t help but tell everyone about a good sale when I see one (or something like that).   I “found” this little tidbit of information from the RFF press. 

As part of an annual Earth Day sale, RFF Press is offering the opportunity to purchase books at a 40% discount.  Our publications represent some of the leading scholarship on natural resources and the environment.  This year’s sale covers all published books, including works on land and water resource management, forestry, environmental economics, international development, human ecology, and environmental law.  

We invite you to explore our catalog at www.rffpress.org/earthday.  Happy Earth Day!

So, grab a good book this earth day, head outside and enjoy the nice weather.  I know I will.  

Where have all the fish gone?

The BBC ran an early piece on an EU report set to be released tomorrow on the state of European fisheries.  Not surprisingly, among the report’s conclusions are the facts that “30% of EU fish stocks are beyond safe limits,” and “eighty-eight percent of EU stocks are fished beyond their maximum sustainable yield.” Sadly, this status is not unique, but shared by many of the world’s fisheries.

In my last post I might have suggested an undue skepticism of market-based environmental solutions.  On the contrary, and fisheries are a prime example of where economic and environmental goals can be extremely well aligned.  But for the fact that we’ve replaced mammals with fish, and a grassy clearing with oceans, fisheries are an almost exact analogue to  Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons: non-rival and non-excludable.

According to the BBC, in the face of these damaged fisheries, “one option raised is expanding the use of transferable quotas, where fishermen “own” the right to fish for many years, so gain from managing the stock sustainably.” This type of management regime grants a discrete property right to a portion of the overall quota.  Unlike traditional management where everyone in the fishery races to catch as much of the overall quota as possible, individual quota programs allow quota holders to catch their allocation at their leisure, and allowing quotas to be traded to the most efficient players.

Individual tradable quotas have become more popular in world fisheries, but are not yet standard practice.  New Zealand, Australia, Iceland, and even the U.S. have pioneered their use over the last several decades with real success, documented in several studies (EDF and one by my old advisor here to name a couple).  Hopefully studies like this will help encourage fishery managers throughout the EU (and the rest of the world) to explore tradable quotas and other assignment of property rights to the world’s fisheries.  Not only do tradable quota systems result in healthier fish populations, but also help resolve some of the other issues that come along with mis-managed fisheries – too many vessels, over-investment in hardware, short seasons.  Of course, the impacts on local communities are not always as clear-cut.  Consolidation of the fishing fleet pushes out the little guy who has relatively high costs and low margins, but that’s an issue for another day.

Strike Three for Ethanol (this week)

Corn ethanol just can’t catch a break it seems. In the wake of the CBO report which found that ethanol will likely increase GHGs in the long run and the study on antibiotic resistant bacteria from ethanol production, comes a study which finds ethanol uses three times more water than originally thought. Here is a summary.

Previous studies estimated that a gallon of corn-based bioethanol requires the use of 263 to 784 gallons of water from the farm to the fuel pump. But these estimates failed to account for widely varied regional irrigation practices, the scientists say. The scientists made a new estimate of bioethanol’s impact on the water supply using detailed irrigation data from 41 states… a gallon of ethanol may require up to over 2,100 gallons of water from farm to fuel pump, depending on the regional irrigation practice in growing corn. However, a dozen states in the Corn Belt consume less than 100 gallons of water per gallon of ethanol, making them better suited for ethanol production. link

My knowledge of water is limited, but I do know that using 2,100 gallons of water for a gallon of ethanol is terrible. Proponents of ethanol might point out that the Corn Belt ratio of 100:1 isn’t that bad, and I would agree. The problem is that as we continually increase corn ethanol production, we will have to further expand production out of this region into less efficient areas. Right now, the U.S. produces  around 9 billion gallons of corn ethanol per year. I’m scared to think about our water situation will be when we reach the 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol mandated under the RFS in 2015.

Another one bites the dust

 

Aventine, a corn ethanol producer, has joined the recent wave of ethanol refiners to file for chapter 11 bankruptcy.  This is a disturbing trend considering the subsidy ($.45/gallon) and tariff protection ($.54/gallon and 2.5% ad valorem tax) that corn ethanol already receives. 

However, not to worry, there is still the renewable fuels standard to mandate unreasonably high levels of ethanol and save the industry. 

[Aventine Chief Executive] Miller said the industry has sound long-term prospects and Aventine anticipates a strong rebound as mandates increase.

Sounds like pretty standard buisness practice for the corn ethanol industry, wait for the government to protect us a bit more and buisness will boom!

This news comes in the wake of a CBO study which says that the RFS will probably increase GHG emissions in the long run due to indirect land change effects. John at Environmental Economics already has it covered. 

My question is that can we all come together as a nation, admit we were wrong, and then stop using corn ethanol?  

 

Corn Ethanol Strikes Again

Just when you thought that corn ethanol couldn’t be any worse for everyone but corn producers the environment, there is always some other way that it finds to outdo itself.   Extending the Cure’s blog, a place that usually doesn’t write on biofuels, provides a great description of corn ethanol’s latest problem.

Evidently, unwanted bacteria cause problems in the production of ethanol, in addition to causing troublesome infections in humans and animals. Common bacteria present in corn mixes prevent the formation of ethanol, producing lactic acid instead. To forestall this development, ethanol producers use antibiotics in distilling ethanol, Forbes reports.”

 

These antibiotics along with antibiotic-resistant bacteria can find their way into one of the byproducts of the ethanol production process, dried distillers grains (DDGs), which in turn gets fed to livestock.  The sale of DDGs is crucial for corn ethanol refiners because without it they would need higher government subsidies  be operating in the red.  Potential dangers from using DDGs might be the last nail in the coffin for the corn ethanol industry considering how screwed it already is.  

can anyone say bailout?

Be sure to read the Extending the Cure post for more of the biology (not my forte) of using antibiotics and why this is a serious issue.  

Green Hell

Green conspiracies! Authoritarian environmentalists dictating the very parameters of your daily life!  Limits on how many children you can have?????

If those phrases keep you up at night worrying about the future, then this Heritage Foundation event  is for you! Here is the description of the event

Behind the smiley-face rhetoric of “sustainability” and “conservation” – that warm and fuzzy public image that the environmental movement has cultivated for itself – resides a dark agenda. In Green Hell, Steve Milloy examines how the Greens aim to regulate your behavior, downsize your lifestyle, and invade the most intimate aspects of your personal life. He reflects on the authoritarian impulse underlying the Green crusade. Whether they’re demanding that you turn down your thermostat, stop driving your car, or engage in some other senseless act of self-denial, he argues that the Greens are envisioning a grim future for you marked by endless privation.

With apocalyptic predictions of environmental doom, the Green movement has gained influence throughout American society – from schools and local planning boards to the biggest corporations in the country. And their plans are much more ambitious than you think, says Milloy. What the Greens really seek, with increasing success, is to dictate the very parameters of your daily life – where you can live, what transportation you can use, what you can eat, and even how many children you can have

I really like the communist/fascist overtones used to characterize the green movement. Even the biggest corporations (the last bastions of civilization) have fallen under their spell!! And watch out, environmentalists want to invade every aspect of our lives.

All of this from an organization who supported the Patriot act