Turning Gold Into Straw—The Biofuels Nonsense


   Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.

National Post
    Douglas Auld and Ross McKitrick Financial Post

Canada’s biofuels blunder

Biofuel initiatives cost $3 for every dollar of social and environmental benefits

Since the turn of the century, biofuels production in the U.S. and Canada has soared more than eight-fold, driven by extremely favourable government support programs. In 2006, the new Conservative government announced its intention to accelerate and broaden the existing ethanol support system, beginning a major intrusion into the transportation fuel market. Through a combination of direct subsidies and blending mandates, the business of turning corn and other plants into a gasoline substitute called ethanol took off in North America.


   The eco-hysterics lobbied to make ethanol a “good thing” assuming, as usual, that public money is endless and need not be accounted for. So far, these conditions have been met. Lots of money spent, no benefits.

The government’s stated goal was to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). In a new report for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, we have examined the costs and benefits of Canadian biofuels policy, as well as the technical debates over whether their production and use even reduces GHG.


    GHG stands for Green House Gases. Like “chemical imbalance in the brain”, green house gases are a metaphor. There are no greenhouse gases because there is no greenhouse effect.

Ethanol displaces some fossil fuel use when it is blended in with regular gasoline. However, a litre of ethanol has less energy in it than a litre of gasoline, so you have to burn a larger volume of the blend to go as far as the equivalent amount of pure gasoline would have taken you. Determining whether use of biofuels reduces overall GHG emissions is difficult because of this factor, and also because the ethanol production process is very energy-intensive. Once researchers count up all the GHG emissions associated with the production and use of a litre of ethanol, they often find that there were more GHG’s emitted than during the production and use of a litre of gasoline.

For the purpose of cost-benefit analysis, even if the policy is cheap, if there are no GHG reductions, the cost per tonne of reductions is effectively infinite. So throughout our analysis we make assumptions that are maximally favourable to the possibility that biofuels do yield net GHG reduction in order that we can estimate the most optimistic possible benefit-cost ratio.

In economic terms, for a policy to be socially beneficial, the cost per tonne of greenhouse gas reduction policies should be at or below the conventional estimates of the “social cost of carbon.” By that measure, Canada’s biofuel support programs have been a clear failure.

Notwithstanding the fact that since 2008, there have been significant improvements in the technology to manufacture ethanol, therefore improving its GHG effectiveness, any reduction in GHG achieved by blending ethanol and gasoline continues to yield negative net social benefits. On a per-tonne basis, we estimate that the cost per tonne of CO2 equivalent reduction from production and use of corn ethanol ranges from $400 to $3,300 per tonne, and that from cellulosic ethanol is about $142 per tonne. This far exceeds the conventionally-estimated benefits of CO2 reduction of between $0 and $50 per tonne.

Put another way, over the 2008-2012 interval, allowing for very optimistic assumptions about the efficacy of reducing GHG from ethanol blending, we estimate that federal government biofuel initiatives cost Canadians between $3 and $3.50 for every dollar of social and environmental benefits achieved. Consequently the policy has failed to deliver value to Canadian taxpayers.

The most obvious recommendation to emerge from this analysis is the need to phase out the major components of current transportation biofuel policy on the grounds that the costs far exceed the social benefits and there are no realistic prospects for this situation to change.

If the government’s goal is to support the development of renewable fuels that have at least a theoretical potential to replace gasoline on a costcompetitive basis, a case can be made for limiting public research and development funds to cellulosic ethanol, namely the biofuel made from stem material of plants. But otherwise, our current biofuels policy yields only dubious environmental benefits and clear economic harm.


   The only way to stop them wasting money is to give them less of it.  Don’t limit the “research”—eliminate the whole mess. While they’re at it, they can eliminate all the “alternate energy” so called research and usage. If it must be subsidized, it shouldn’t be done.

Government Job or Respect–Which’ll It Be?
Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson, Ph.D.
Author, “
Days of Songs and Mirrors: A Jacobite in the ‘45.”
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: