Every since the brouhaha between Krugman and Obama began, I've become more and more disinclined to even read Kruman's Op-Eds. Obviously this is a "cut-off-nose-to-spite-face" situation as The Professor has been a source of good information ever since the late 1990's when the NY Times would publish one or two articles a year by the "professor of economics at M.I.T.". Clear-headed and critical, Krugman's ability to explain complex economic issues in unpretentious prose quickly won me over. When he became a regular at The Times I would read his articles even if the subject was of little interest to me.
As Krugman's critiques of Obama became more acerbic it got to the point that I would first peek at his Op-Eds, looking for the word "Obama". If it was there, I would look away so as to avoid going ballistic over some terse remark. Unfortunately, there were times when I wouldn't even peek. Last Monday was one of those times, but I was saved from my myopia by BillyZoom's Diary on Krugman's Op-Ed on the world food crisis Grains Gone Wild.
This diary is not going to be a rehash of the coverage of the world food crisis. Instead, I want to focus on the following form Krugman's Op-Ed:
Where the effects of bad policy [on the looming food crisis] are clearest, however, is in the rise of demon ethanol and other biofuels.
The subsidized conversion of crops into fuel was supposed to promote energy independence and help limit global warming. But this promise was, as Time magazine bluntly put it, a "scam."
This is especially true of corn ethanol: even on optimistic estimates, producing a gallon of ethanol from corn uses most of the energy the gallon contains. But it turns out that even seemingly "good" biofuel policies, like Brazil’s use of ethanol from sugar cane, accelerate the pace of climate change by promoting deforestation.
And meanwhile, land used to grow biofuel feedstock is land not available to grow food, so subsidies to biofuels are a major factor in the food crisis. You might put it this way: people are starving in Africa so that American politicians can court votes in farm states.
Though it is often considered unprofessional to cite one's own work, Krugman was being a bit too modest when he used Time magazine as a source for the assertain that "The subsidized conversion of crops into fuel was ... a "scam." He could have easily cited himself, for in his June 25, 2000 Op-Ed RECKONINGS; Driving Under the Influence, Krugman comes down hard on "demon ethanol"
The use of ethanol -- the same stuff that gives beer its buzz -- as a fuel is one of those bad ideas that just won't go away. Back in the late-70's ethanol produced from corn was promoted as the perfect answer to the energy crisis: it was renewable, it was domestic, and it was supposed to be less polluting.
A couple of decades and quite a few billion dollars in subsidies and tax breaks later -- gasoline that contains 10 percent ethanol still pays lower taxes, amounting to a 54-cent subsidy per gallon of ethanol -- it is clear that the fuel's virtues were exaggerated. For one thing, modern farming is an energy-intensive business, and still more energy is needed to convert corn into ethanol. So this is a fuel that requires almost as much energy to produce as it releases when you burn it. True, ethanol is an ''oxidant'' that helps gasoline run cleaner; but other oxidants are easier to deal with. Those other oxidants pose pollution problems; but so does ethanol, which tends to make gasoline evaporate too easily, contributing to smog in the summer months. Put it all together and you have a product with no special virtue to recommend it, certainly no virtue that warrants a billion or so dollars a year in tax breaks and subsidies.
But the political influence of the ethanol producers has proved untouchable. Or perhaps I should say ''producer'' rather than ''producers.'' Most of the benefit from ethanol's special status goes not to the farmers but to those who turn corn into ethanol, and about half that business is controlled by one company: Archer Daniels Midland ...
A more clear-headed critique of biofuels as an alternative to petrol would not be impossible to find today, but eight years ago! I. Doubt. It. Just as many of Obama supporters have turned on Krugman (or is that, turned off?), I bet there were plenty, plenty environmentalist who thought thaT Krugman didn't know what he was talking about when he raised objections to the ethanol "scam". But as we all know, The Professor doesn't base his "opinions" on polls. He doesn't care about the popularity of a program, or if it would be harder to implement than an alternative. When Krugman thinks he's right, he's gonna explain it to you in words so simple that you will understand. Even if you don't want to. Whether you agree or not.