back
What’s the alternative?
Posted 26 August 2013 in
Today, the Washington Post editorialized against the Renewable Fuel Standard, relying on tired, oil industry arguments against the only policy that’s reducing our nation’s reliance on fossil fuel.
But since we’ve already published several posts fact-checking these sort of editorials, we’re not going to dive into the particulars of this column. Instead, we wanted to respond specifically to the Post’s policy recommendation:
The Post editorial board admits that their own preferred policy alternative, a carbon tax, would be difficult (if not impossible) to get through Congress. We wholeheartedly agree. In fact, without the low-carbon alternative fuels supported by the RFS, such as cellulosic ethanol, a carbon tax would be completely unworkable (both politically and economically).
So what’s the Post’s solution? Lawmakers should “choose another policy that encourages conservation and innovation without absurd central planning.” Conveniently enough, they do not offer a second alternative. While it’s easier to simply wish away the complex politics that surround our energy policy, we’re happy to remind lawmakers that the Renewable Fuel Standard already encourages conservation and innovation by helping reduce GHG emissions, making ethanol cheaper than gasoline and spurring the creation of the cellulosic ethanol industry. And while some would like to pretend that the pre-RFS status quo represented a nostalgic time of perfect market competition, we recognize that without the century of subisidies and preferential treatment enjoyed by the fossil fuel industry, alternative fuels face a much steeper uphill climb. The Renewable Fuel Standard is not “absurd central planning.” It’s a market-based solution to a long-standing economic challenge.
Fuels America News & Stories
Fuels
Credit:
