A couple days ago, the federal government decided to require all gasoline to contain 5% ethanol. This more or less parallels existing policies in the U.S. and in European countries. But is following in their footsteps the right, or even best, thing to do? Is it the ‘Made in Canada’ environmental policy Stephen Harper promised, for that matter?
The announcement went largely unnoticed because the media and opposition were more interested in reporting and following up on the fallout of the Bernier affair (double entendre entendree). It was given only a passing mention on the news with no examination of the logistics or implications. This is despite the fact that the same media had been reporting on the growing global food crisis for the previous few weeks. Those reports revealed that one of the causes of the crisis was the shift of much agricultural production away from food to fuel. Food, particularly corn, that was being produced for food is now being used to produce ethanol. This has resulted not only in a huge spike in food commodity prices, but also in food being taken off the ground in front of the hungriest people in the world (let’s face it – they don’t have a table to take it off of).
To add insult to injury, the economics and environmental benefits of ethanol production for fuel don’t even make sense. It actually requires more than a barrel of oil to produce a barrel of ethanol. So, instead of burning 5% more gasoline in your car and adding that much more carbon emissions to the atmosphere, an ethanol refinery will spew out even more emissions to produce the cleaner burning replacement fuel.
So, who benefits from this policy? Well, farmers do, to begin with. They benefit from high commodity prices that make farming more profitable than usual. These are good times for Canadian farmers, relatively speaking. Our unsubsidized farmers are not only able to make a decent living, they are also investing in new productivity enhancing equipment and machinery that will allow them to continue to survive and compete on an unlevel playing field against subsidized farmers elsewhere.
The government also benefits. The optics of doing something tangible about global warming boosts their credentials in the eyes of voters. All those happy, prospering farmers are voters, too. Let’s not forget that this is a minority government that could, in theory, fall at any time. In practice, of course, that hasn’t happened and isn’t likely to any time soon. Whether you voted for Stephen Harper’s Conservatives last time or not, you have to give him credit for keeping a minority government alive for three years when, statistically, they last only eighteen months. In fact, this one will probably see out a full term, unless opposition leader Stephen Dion does something out of character. The accomplishment is even more impressive when you recall how self-defeating and fractious the newly re-merged Conservative party was a few years ago. When the day comes that he is no longer Prime Minister, a struggling company might do worse than to hire Harper as their CEO.
Regardless of when the next election comes, a lot of farmers and ‘armchair environmentalists’ will probably remember this decision. That increases the government’s chances of winning a majority. The decision to require ethanol content in gasoline may prove to be not so much about a sustainable environment, as a sustainable government.
Tags: agriculture, Bernier, biofuel, carbon emissions, CEO, commodities, commodity prices, Conservative party, conservatives, environment, environmental policy, ethanol, farmers, global warming, greenhouse gases, majority government, Maxim Bernier, media, minority government, minority governments, policy, Prime Minister, productivity, Stephen Dion, Stephen Harper, subsidies, sustainability. elections, voters