THE BRAZILIAN MODEL-WHAT IT DOESN'T TEACH US
Everybody and his brother is touting the Brazilian model as something we Americans could emulate. I beg to differ.
The 60 Minutes ethanol story on Saturday night, and today's New York Times op-ed from Vinod Khosla and Tom Daschle both over-hype the Brazilian success story.
Here's why. At the time of the Arab Oil Embargo in 1973, Brazil was importing 70% of its oil, and America was importing about 30%. The two countries began diametrically opposite programs to deal with the dilemma. As we all know, the US relied on conservation thru FORCING MANUFACTURERS TO BUILD MORE FUEL-EFFICIENT VEHICLES, and Brazil decided in the same year on a two-pronged approach; to foster the production of ethanol, AND look for more domestic oil. Brazil's strategy was NOT one of conservation, but was a strategy of REPLACEMENT of imported fuel.
Today, the US has conserved its way to 60% dependency on imported oil, and Brazil will this year declare its independence from imported petroleum. The truth of the matter is that Brazil's liquid fuel consumption is still only 20% ethanol, and 80% DOMESTICALLY PRODUCED PETROLEUM. Brazil's success then, is not due to ethanol, but due primarily to the fact that there are now oil derricks in places where there were none before.
What can we learn from this? I would suggest that we should learn that we probably cannot EMULATE the Brazilian model. Our environmental lobby is so powerful that there is not a rock we could overturn within our country to get at oil. Our politicians have succumbed so completely that WE DON'T HAVE A CHANCE TO CONSIDER INCREASING OUR DOMESTICALLY PRODUCED PETROLEUM AS BRAZIL HAS DONE. If we cannot drill in ANWR, a GOD-FORSAKEN WASTELAND, then what makes anyone think they're going to let us disrupt TRULY PRISTINE MOUNTAIN VIEWS in Colorado and Utah to get at shale oil?
This leaves us with one alternative, and in the end, it may be a good thing that our hands will have been tied, when it comes to petroleum, as it FORCES us to hang our hat on renewables to solve our problem.
I'm SO in favor of persuing renewable fuels, as you can probably tell, but we have to do it differently than Brazil did, and we should realize this and quit lying to people by presenting the Brazilian model as something we could emulate. We have to do so much more to accomplish what Brazil has done, but that doesn't mean we can't do it. We are going to have to rely on hybrids, flex-fuelers, ethanol, methanol, bio-diesel, corn, switchgrass, orange peels, soybeans, bio-engineered enzymes, bio-conversion, syngas methodology, and technologies which haven't even been invented yet, to get to where we have to go.
The only thing we can learn from Brazil is that conservation is NOT the way to go.
posted by corndog @ 4:35 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
I'd like to point out that our conservation of fuel option never did materialize in 1973. Big Oil and the Americans over stimulated fuel Ego trumped that program thru increased speed limits and large oversized inefficient vehicles. Frankly it never had a chance.
Hi Corndog,
I would like to draw attention to a few things:
There is no "silver-bullet" - ethanol will not replace gas, but will complement it. I'm all for finding new oil deposits - I just don't think there are many to find. That is why I am banking my MBA on ethanol. If oil goes back down to US$20 a barrel, I will get burned. My parents are in shock that I am willing to take this risk. But isn't capitalism all about taking risks?
Going back to the silver bullet: as long as the debate is framed in those terms (either this OR that, not this AND that), we won't be seeing cheap (i.e., under 2.5/gal) fuels any time soon. If tomorrow we said, "well, let's reduce the tariff on Brazilian ethanol, let's reduce subsidies to American agribusiness, let's explore the tar sands in Alebrta etc.), and develop a COMPREHENSIVE POLICY with all these items, then we would make some progress. As long as it's, "The Miracle Fuel vs. Oil as Usual", we won't get anywhere.
For that to happen, of course, there has to be an informed debate about what really HAPPENED in Brazil after 1975 (when the ethanol program was started by the Brazilian government). All the focus right now is on what IS HAPPENNING. Brazil (a large, industrialized nation, with 30 metropolitan centers with more than a million people), certainly has a lot to teach to the U.S. - not only the DO's (which a lot of people hype up), but also the DON'Ts (which anybody ever mentions).
If I were at a big research or investment organization, I would get a team of legal, financial, environmental, energy, engineering, sociology, etc. experts down to Brazil ASAP to collect data on what happened over the past 31 years. Then America could really start to have an educated debate.
How much did ethanol contribute to Brazil's self-sufficiency? How much of it can be laid down to more oil production? To demand reduction efforts? To better management? All of these questions can be easily understood by studying the Brazilian experience - with info that's all in the public domain, BTW.
Unfortunately, right now, the three-card monte in place says: 1) Look! Brazil used ethanol successfully! 2) We can make ethanol right here in the Heartland, using corn! 3) By using our ethanol America can be like Brazil.
Time for the people who represent American drivers to do something about it.
Henrique
pacific ethanolhttp://www.ethanol-stock.infoWhile money can't buy you happiness, it certainly allows you to buy your choice of misery.pacific ethanol
history of ethanolhttp://www.ethanol-stock.infoI coundn't repair your brakes, so i made your horn louder.history of ethanol
Post a Comment
<< Home