Categories
Economics

[1653] Of the side effect of state intervention

As I was doing some research, I stumbled upon an amusing article about biofuel, incentives given to it and the unintended consequence. It is old but the lesson is for all of us to learn for all times.

Fast-rising worries over global warming have created a biofuel boondoggle.

Called “splash and dash,” “touch and go,” or an unfair trade practice, it features biofuels traders who exploit a US tax credit, European drivers who get cheaper diesel fuel, and American taxpayers, who are footing the bill.

It also illustrates a cautionary tale of how government incentives, no matter how well-intentioned, can sometimes be subverted into windfalls for the few.

“You have US taxpayers providing a very nice tax incentive, and they’re not receiving any energy-security benefit or added fuel to the marketplace or benefits to US development in return,” says Joe Jobe, chief executive officer of the National Biodiesel Board, which represents US biodiesel producers.

[…]

Created under the 2004 American Jobs Act, the “blenders tax credit” was supposed to boost US production of biodiesel by encouraging US diesel marketers to blend regular petroleum diesel with fuel made from soybeans or other agricultural products. It succeeded, perhaps too well.

Attracted by the $1-per-gallon subsidy, US diesel-fuel marketers mixed away, setting off a nationwide boom in biodiesel refinery building. But no one anticipated splash-and-dash.

The maneuver begins with a shipload of biodiesel from, say, Malaysia, which pulls into a US port like Houston, says John Baize, an industry consultant in Falls Church, Va. Unlike domestic diesel-biodiesel blends, which typically contain from 1 to 10 percent of biodiesel, the Malaysian fuel starts off as 100 percent biodiesel, typically made from palm oil.

[…]

The US importer of the load applies to the Internal Revenue Service for the credit — a dollar for each of the 9 million biodiesel gallons, Mr. Baize calculates. The next day the tanker can set sail — dash — for Europe. There, the US importer resells the biodiesel, taking advantage of European fuel-tax credits that, in effect, keep biodiesel prices above US prices.

[…]

European officials are also unhappy about the practice. Such “touch and go” maneuvers could quickly become a much larger problem, warned Raffaello Garofalo, secretary general of the European Biodiesel Board, in a March 19 letter to the European Trade Commissioner.

European manufacturers are worried about all US biodiesel imports — not just the splash-and-dash variety — because the subsidized fuel is flooding their markets, cutting into their domestic biodiesel business and lowering prices.

[…]

So rich is the US subsidy, however, and awash in biodiesel is the European market at present, that a third form of imported biodiesel is now reportedly hitting European shores — at US taxpayer expense. European biodiesel producers themselves are shipping fuel to US ports to get the US blenders credit and then bringing it back to Europe for sale, according to British press accounts.

But US biodiesel manufacturers and Congress may not be in a hurry to close the loophole, some insiders say. That’s because the blenders credit not only benefits splash-and-dash traders, it gives US producers of soybean-based biodiesel a distinct export advantage, industry insiders say.

[…]

Ultimately, this rise of US exports points to a larger American problem: a serious imbalance between domestic biodiesel production capacity and demand, some experts say. [Biofuel boondoggle: US subsidy aids Europe’s drivers. Mark Clayton. Christian Science Monitor. June 8 2007]

Categories
Economics

[1629] Of is biofuel the cause of the food crisis?

Roger Cohen at the NYT insists that biofuel is not the cause of food crisis, or at least not a major one if one wants to be accurate about magnitude, since it is still a small industry. Instead, he is convinced that what is causing it is protectionism.

Much larger trends are at work. They dwarf the still tiny biofuel industry (roughly a $40 billion annual business, or the equivalent of Exxon Mobil’s $40.6 billion profits in 2007). I refer to the rise of more than one-third of humanity in China and India, the disintegrating dollar and soaring oil prices.

[…]

What sense does it make to have a surplus of environmentally friendly Brazilian sugar-based ethanol with a yield eight times higher than U.S. corn ethanol and zero impact on food prices being kept from an American market by a tariff of 54 cents on a gallon while Iowan corn ethanol gets a subsidy?

[…]

The real scam lies in developed world protectionism and skewed subsidies, not the biofuel idea. [Bring on the Right Biofuels. Roger Cohen. NYT. April 25 2008]

Honestly, it is hard for me to say without looking at the data but I am leaning to his conclusion. Maybe, this warrants a short essay by itself.

Anyway, another go at the Doha Round, anybody?

Categories
Environment

[1028] Of 2006 top Malaysian environmental issues

With a little over 24 hours before 2006 comes to a close, let us revisit all the green issues mentioned in two other entries — entry [775] and [879]:

  1. Smelly tap water in the Klang Valley in February. Not just smelly, it smelled like shit. The smell was caused by ammonia released from several improperly managed landfills. The landfills later were shut down, at least, according to reports. See [756].
  2. The tabling of the Water Services Industry Bill in April. Proposed death penalty to polluters. See [765].
  3. With the shut down of landfills, a related problem ensued: shortage of landfills in April too. See [775].
  4. Big flood in the northern states early in the year. See [775].
  5. Flash flood in Shah Alam. Local residents were positively angry. See [775].
  6. Deforestation in various states. TV3 played an active role in informing the public. See [709] and [720].
  7. The Malaysian Nature Society’s Save Belum-Temengor campaign. See [885]
  8. The drive towards biofuel. See [775].
  9. Proposed mega palm oil estate by Indonesia on Borneo. It affects Malaysia because, well, it would be on the border. See [775].
  10. Proposed nuclear energy for Malaysia. See [775].
  11. Bird flu. See [775].
  12. Landslide at Genting Highlands. See [775].
  13. Damage to Sipadan coral reef in May. The accident forced the Sabah state government to halt construction of a huge facility at Sipadan after coming under attack from the public. See [791].
  14. Metal smelter in Bakun. See [879].
  15. Cancellation of Broga incinerator. See [879].
  16. Haze. And yeah, I told you so. See [879].
  17. In practical terms, the extinction of leatherback turtle in Malaysia. See [855].
  18. Sustainable forestry program. See [853].
  19. Congestion tax in Kuala Lumpur in August. It came back in December after the Kuala Lumpur mayor made a comment on it. This is a progressive policy but the public transportation system must be improved first. See [854].
  20. Growing rhinoceros population in Borneo. See [879].

That is a compilation of issues that started between January and some time in September 2006, inclusively. But of course, a year does not end in September and so, the complication continues.

  1. El Niño is officially back in September. See [883] and [886].
  2. The hunt for a killer crocodile in October. The act of revenge turn for the worse and became a merciless culling of crocodiles. The effort was criticized by greens and the culling immediately stopped in October. See [896].
  3. Temporary ban lift on commercial usage of paraquat. Something smell fishy. See [897].
  4. Legalization of turtle eggs collection by Terengganu state government in October. See [912].
  5. 300MV coal power plant in Sabah, as reported in November. See [975].
  6. New Orleans of Malaysia. See [1018].
  7. And perhaps, finally, after all these years, climate change. See [1017].

Will 2007 be a better year? Will the haze return?

Stay alive and find out next year.