Chicago Boyz

What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?

Recommended Photo Store
Buy Through Our Amazon Link or Banner to Support This Blog
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Lex's Tweets
  • Jonathan's Tweets
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • “Why Sustainability Standards for Biofuel Production Make Little Economic Sense”

    Posted by Jonathan on October 27th, 2009 (All posts by )

    This new paper (pdf) by Harry de Gorter and David R. Just, published in the Cato Institute’s journal, Policy Analysis, looks interesting.

    From the executive summary:

    Sustainability standards are based on “lifecycle accounting,” in which ethanol is assumed to replace gasoline; but in fact, it may be replacing coal or other energy sources. Life-cycle accounting also fails to recognize that if incentives are given for ethanol producers to use relatively “clean” inputs (e.g., natural gas), the “dirtier” inputs (e.g., coal) that might otherwise have been used for the ethanol production will simply be used by other producers to make products that are not covered by the sustainability standard. Sustainability standards reshuffle who is using what inputs—with no net reduction in national emissions.


    2 Responses to ““Why Sustainability Standards for Biofuel Production Make Little Economic Sense””

    1. Shannon Love Says:

      The entire concept of sustainability is based on a deeply flawed simplistic model of how we get resources.

      It’s based on what I like to call the “flour barrel” model in which resources are viewed as just laying around in nature like a tub of floor in an old fashion general store. In this model, everyone in the world scoops out the resource from the finite barrel. There is no feedback and everyone just keeps consuming at the same rate until we suddenly reach the bottom of the barrel and suffer a catastrophic collapse.

      In reality, there are no natural resources save the ambient oxygen in the air. Every other resources from potable water and flint chips to titanium is created by human actions. We make our resources pretty much on demand. As long as we’re free to experiment and find solutions we can create new resources indefinitely.

      The other stupid thing about “sustainability” is the idea we can perform the kind of detailed economic analysis needed to pick and choose different resource creation options without experimentation. It’s simply a variant of the mirage of central planning.

    2. Tatyana Says:

      To be LEED-certified (on 4 progressive levels) a building has to comply with a credit system scoring maximum of 57 points (for a Platinum level) within 6 categories. One of the available credits within Energy and Atmosphere category is Green Power (EA cr.4).

      This credit states that the tenant (or building’ owner) purchases 50% of the energy bill from Green (Sustainable) sources. These sources, f.ex., include “biomass”, but exclude nuclear energy.

      So, how the typical commercial tenant occupying a floor in an rental office building can achieve this? 3 ways are offered – -to purchase their G-power directly from an energy market (undoable in a hi-rise bldg), -to purchase it through utility Co usually means $extra to energy bill and not always available from local utilities) or – and that’s the most senseless – to continue your regular power consumption from a non-Green Energy local utility, but in addition to buy Tradable Renewable Certificates in a qualtity equal to 50% of your typical el. consumption!

      So you’re made to subsidy somebody’s “green” electrical generation business without even consuming the product.

      How economically appealing is it?

    Leave a Reply

    Comments Policy:  By commenting here you acknowledge that you have read the Chicago Boyz blog Comments Policy, which is posted under the comment entry box below, and agree to its terms.

    A real-time preview of your comment will appear under the comment entry box below.

    Comments Policy

    Chicago Boyz values reader contributions and invites you to comment as long as you accept a few stipulations:

    1) Chicago Boyz authors tend to share a broad outlook on issues but there is no party or company line. Each of us decides what to write and how to respond to comments on his own posts. Occasionally one or another of us will delete a comment as off-topic, excessively rude or otherwise unproductive. You may think that we deleted your comment unjustly, and you may be right, but it is usually best if you can accept it and move on.

    2) If you post a comment and it doesn't show up it was probably blocked by our spam filter. We batch-delete spam comments, typically in the morning. If you email us promptly at we may be able to retrieve and publish your comment.

    3) You may use common HTML tags (italic, bold, etc.). Please use the "href" tag to post long URLs. The spam filter tends to block comments that contain multiple URLs. If you want to post multiple URLs you should either spread them across multiple comments or email us so that we can make sure that your comment gets posted.

    4) This blog is private property. The First Amendment does not apply. We have no obligation to publish your comments, follow your instructions or indulge your arguments. If you are unwilling to operate within these loose constraints you should probably start your own blog and leave us alone.

    5) Comments made on the Chicago Boyz blog are solely the responsibility of the commenter. No comment on any post on Chicago Boyz is to be taken as a statement from or by any contributor to Chicago Boyz, the Chicago Boyz blog, its administrators or owners. Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners, by permitting comments, do not thereby endorse any claim or opinion or statement made by any commenter, nor do they represent that any claim or statement made in any comment is true. Further, Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners expressly reject and disclaim any association with any comment which suggests any threat of bodily harm to any person, including without limitation any elected official.

    6) Commenters may not post content that infringes intellectual property rights. Comments that violate this rule are subject to deletion or editing to remove the infringing content. Commenters who repeatedly violate this rule may be banned from further commenting on Chicago Boyz. See our DMCA policy for more information.