notes economist Tyler Cowen. To repeat, that is $1,700/ton — just a bit larger than the $25/ton that we estimate is required for a carbon-tax to flatten CO2 concentrations around 2050 without destroying the Western economies.
I am not shocked, but it is worse than I had thought. Here is the full paper. But the funny thing is, that’s not even the worse thing I read about biofuels today. Courtesy of Daniel Akst, try this article:
…a growing body of scientific evidence suggests these gasoline alternatives will actually boost carbon-dioxide levels and thereby aggravate the problem of global warming. A study published in the latest issue of Science finds that corn-based ethanol, instead of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions by a hoped-for 20%, will nearly double the output of CO2 and other gases that trap the sun’s heat. A separate paper in Science concludes that the clearing of native habitats around the world to grow more biofuel crops will lead to more carbon emissions.
Bureaucrats are biofools. For in-depth documentation, see my earlier post OECD report/ stop biofuels subsidies — excerpt:
The OECD Round Table on Sustainable Development has just released a thorough 57-page study on the costs, efficiency and environmental impact of biofuels. The full text of the report is here: Biofuels: is the cure worse than the disease? [PDF].
I’m very pleased with the quality of the work, and the conclusions — which I’ll paraphrase as “stop the subsidies, carbon tax each fuel for its externalities, then get government out of the way and let the markets work”.
Technorati Tags: Ethanol
0 Responses to “Corn ethanol subsidy cost $1,700 per ton of CO2 avoided in 2006”