Liberal Talk Radio

I’m not a huge ethanol fan, but it sure would be better if it could compete without subsidies:

The Bush plan to cut gasoline use means more ethanol imports for the U.S., says Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. In Davos, Switzerland, where he’s attending the World Economic Forum, Bodman also told reporters he sees the 54-cents-per-gallon import tariff on ethanol going away after 2008, and that the 51-cents-per-gallon subsidy to U.S. farmers will be history after 2010.

Importing cellulosic ethanol from Brazil is the only way it’s going to work. That is, until we get all those switchgrass plants online.

In other energy-related wonkery, Kevin Drum notes how huge increase in gas prices over the last 18 months had a minimal impact on driving habits in L.A. He uses this data to conclude that a gas tax won’t be enough to change habits. I get his point about the inelasticity of demand, but I still think that’s mostly in the short term. You need to sustain high gas prices for 5 to 10 years for people to be able to change their driving habits - buy new cars, move closer to their jobs and schools, etc. 18 months just doesn’t tell you much.

Furthermore, the point isn’t necessarily to decrease demand, it’s to slow the rate of growth, which this seems to have accomplished.

Update: Charles Krauthammer (!), in a killer column, agrees, making 3 non-ethanol recommendations for the energy crisis. First:

Tax gas to $4 a gallon. With oil prices having fallen to $55 a barrel, now is the time. The effect of a gas-tax hike will be seen in less than two years, and you don’t even have to go back to the 1970s and the subsequent radical reduction in consumption to see how. Just look at last summer. Gas prices spike to $3 — with the premium going to Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chávez and assorted sheiks rather than the U.S. Treasury — and, presto, SUV sales plunge, the Prius is cool and car ads once again begin featuring miles-per-gallon ratings.

No regulator, no fuel-efficiency standards, no presidential exhortations, no grand experiments with switch grass. Raise the price, and people change their habits. It’s the essence of capitalism.

He also wants to drill in ANWR, which I don’t like, but his third suggestion is fine by me:

Nukes produce waste as well, but it comes out concentrated — very toxic and lasting nearly forever. But because it is packed into a small, manageable volume, it is more controllable. And it doesn’t pollute the atmosphere. At all.

There is no free lunch. Producing energy is going to produce waste. You pick your poison, and you find a way to manage it. Want to do something about global warming? How many global warming activists are willing to say the word nuclear?

2 out of 3 ain’t bad. Let’s forget about ethanol for now, and figure out how to deal with storing and decontaminating nuclear waste.