For example, consider the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) which requires that gasoline and diesel fuel contain ethanol. Ram-rodded through Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2007, RFS requires the transportation fuel that's sold in the U.S. to contain a minimum volume of renewable fuels. The idea was that U.S. transportation should rely less on fossile fuels.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with that idea in theory. However, wouldn't it make sense to subject that idea to some rigorous field testing before making it a federal law, just to see if the idea works as well as to identify any potential unintended, negative consequences the idea might spawn in practice?
Not if it's an idea being promulgated from the pulpits of those who worship at the altar of environnmentalism.
According to an article in the Daily Signal, with the USA 7 years into the RFS, it's possible to take a step back and assess objectively some facts associated with the theory as it's been implemented in practice:
- Regular gasoline is more energy-efficient than ethanol, thus consumers are required to use more fuel. That wasn't supposed to happen.
- Ethanol is derived from corn. To no one's surprise, RFS has increased the demand for corn, thus raising the price of corn as much as 68%. That means the price of corn for humans and animals has risen as well, making it more expensive for the poor and starving across the globe to purchase meat, poultry, eggs, and milk. That wasn't supposed to happen.
- The original RFS targets, at best, end up being the product of some very "fuzzy" or bad math. Today, there is more ethanol than there is demand for it because RFS guarantees there will be a market for ethanol whether consumers use it or not. That wasn't supposed to happen.
As embarassing as these facts are, those who worship at the altar of environmentalism don't much care. Why? They believe continue to believe their idea is theoretically sound. Insofar as they are concerned, the problem is that the market has erred by not embracing their idea wholeheartedly in practice.
So, then, let's ask the following question: Who wins from this collossal failure?
Two prominent enemies of those who worship at the altar of environmentalism: Agribusiness--the corn growers--and big oil--the ethanol refiners and producers.
Why won't those who worship at the altar of environmentalism allow their ideas to be tested before legislating them? The reason is that they're ideologues who won't allow their theology and the dogmas it shapes to be tested by reason out of fear that their ideas may be demonstrated to be fraudulent...even if that means they will promote global hunger and enrich the two of the greedy capitalists groups they most detest.
Sounds to The Motley Monk like "winning by losing."
Let the discussion begin...
To read the article in the Daily Signal,click on the following link:
"The Ethanol Mandate Proves the Government Is a Poor Central Planner."