Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-55f67697df-zh294 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-08T14:20:02.586Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - The Social Costs and Benefits of U.S. Biofuel Policies with Preexisting Distortions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2011

By
Harry de Gorter  and
David R. Just
Edited by
Gilbert E. Metcalf
Gilbert E. Metcalf
Affiliation:
Tufts University, Massachusetts
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The primary objectives of U.S. biofuel policies are to enhance energy security (reducing dependence on oil), improve the environment (mitigating global climate change and local air pollutants), and increase the prosperity for agriculture (enhancing farm income and promoting rural development while reducing tax costs of farm subsidy programs). In order to achieve these policy goals, several policies have been implemented, but the centerpieces of U.S. policy are federal and state biofuel consumption mandates and consumption subsidies (called tax credits), policies that by themselves do not discriminate against international trade. This is the focus of our chapter.

The implications of mandates and tax credits are analyzed under three different second-best constraints: a suboptimal fuel tax; adding a tax credit with a binding mandate; and interaction effects with the fiscal system in which mandates and tax credits have differential effects on government tax revenues and the size of the fiscal base. In comparing mandates to tax credits under these three preexisting distortions, this chapter does not analyze the welfare economics of policies that discriminate against trade, namely, import barriers, production subsidies, and sustainability standards. Under each second-best constraint, we simply hold ethanol consumption (and hence ethanol and corn prices) the same.

The emerging literature on biofuels has shown that mandates are superior to tax credits (de Gorter and Just 2007, 2008a, 2009b; Lapan and Moschini 2009).

Type
Chapter
Information
US Energy Tax Policy , pp. 338 - 379
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Babcock, Bruce A. 2008a. Distributional implications of U.S. ethanol policy. Review of Agricultural Economics 30 (3): 533–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babcock, Bruce A. 2008b. Situation, outlook and some key research questions pertaining to biofuels. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the USDA Economic Research Service. Conference on Energy and Agriculture: Emerging Policy and R&D Issues. Washington, D.C., March 7.Google Scholar
Bourgeon, Jean-Marc, and Tréguer, David. 2008. Killing two birds with one stone: The United States and the European Union biofuel program. Paper presented at the XIIth Congress of the European Association of Agricultural Economists, Ghent, Belgium, August 26–29.
,California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2009. Proposed Regulation to Implement the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. March 5.
Gorter, Harry, Just, David R., and Kliauga, Erika M.. 2008. Measuring the “subsidy” component of biofuel tax credits and exemptions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Trade Research Consortium, Scottsdale, Arizona, December 7–9.
Gorter, Harry, and Tsur, Yacov. 2008. Towards a genuine sustainability criterion for biofuel production. Background paper for World Bank Report Low Carbon, High Growth, Augusto de la Torre, Pablo Fajnzylberg, and John Nash (eds.), July 31. http://aem.cornell.edu/research/researchpdf/wp/Cornell_AEM_wp0912.pdf.
Gorter, Harry, Just, David R., and Tan, Qinwen. 2009. The social optimal import tariff and tax credit for ethanol with farm subsidies. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 38 (1): 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorter, Harry, and Just, David R.. 2007. The law of unintended consequences: How the U.S. biofuel tax credit with a mandate subsidizes oil consumption and has no impact on ethanol consumption. Working Paper No. 2007–20, Department of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Gorter, Harry, and Just, David R.. 2008a. The welfare economics of the U.S. ethanol consumption mandate and tax credit. Unpublished working paper, Department of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Gorter, Harry, and Just, David R.. 2008b. ‘Water’ in the U.S. ethanol tax credit and mandate: Implications for rectangular deadweight costs and the corn-oil price relationship. Review of Agricultural Economics 30 (3): 397–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorter, Harry, and Just, David R.. 2008c. The economics of the U.S. ethanol import tariff with a blend mandate and tax credit. Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization 6 (2, article 6): http://www.bepress.com/jafio/vol6/iss2/art6.
Gorter, Harry, and Just, David R.. 2008d. The forgotten flaw in biofuels policy: How tax credits in the presence of mandates subsidize oil consumption. Resources for the Future Policy Commentary, http://www.rff.org/Publications/WPC/Pages/08_06_09_Forgotten-Flaw-in-Biofuels.aspx, June 9.
Gorter, Harry, and Just, David R.. 2009a. The welfare economics of a biofuel tax credit and the interaction effects with price contingent farm subsidies. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91 (2): 477–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorter, Harry, and Just, David R.. 2009b. The economics of a blend mandate for biofuels. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91 (3): 738–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorter, Harry, and Just, David R.. 2009c. Why sustainability standards for biofuel production make little economic sense. Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 647 (October):.
Gorter, Harry, and Just, David R.. 2010. The social costs and benefits of biofuels: The intersection of environmental, energy and agricultural policy. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 32 (1): 4–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drabik, Dusan, Gorter, Harry, and Just, David R.. 2009. The economics of a blenders tax credit versus a tax exemption: The case of U.S. splash & dash biodiesel exports to the European Union. Working Paper 2009–22, AgFoodTrade.
Du, Xiaodong, Hayes, Dermot J., and Baker, Mindy L.. 2008. Ethanol: A welfare-increasing market distortion? Working Paper 08-WP 480, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD), Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
,Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Changes to Renewable Fuel Standard Program. Proposed Rule40 CFR Part 80 Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives, May 26.
,Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory, Table ES-2 http://www.epa.gov/clim atechange/emissions/downloads/08_ES.pdf last accessed 01/06/10.
,Energy Information Administration. 2009. Annual Energy Outlook 2010 Early Release, Report #DOE/EIA-0383, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/aeoref_tab.html.
Farrell, A., Plevin, R., Turner, B., et al. 2006. Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science 311 (5760): 506–508.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fischer, Carolyn, and Newell, Richard G.. 2008. Environmental and technology policies for climate mitigation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 55 (2): 142–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, Bruce. 2007. Fuel ethanol subsidies and farm price support. Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization 5 (2): Article 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goulder, Lawrence H., Parry, Ian W. H., Williams III, Roberton C., et al. 1999. The cost-effectiveness of alternative instruments for environmental protection in a second-best setting. Journal of Public Economics 72 (3): 329–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goulder, Lawrence H., Parry, Ian W. H., and Burtraw, Dallas. 1997. Revenue-raising vs. other approaches to environmental protection: The critical significance of pre-existing tax distortions. RAND Journal of Economics 28 (4): 708–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goulder, Lawrence H., and Parry, Ian W. H.. 2008. Instrument choice in environmental policy. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 2 (2): 152–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, Robert, and Cecot, Caroline. 2009. The benefits and costs of ethanol: An evaluation of the government's analysis. Journal of Regulatory Economics 35 (3): 275–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertel, Thomas W., Tyner, Wallace E., and Birur, Dileep. 2008. Biofuels for all? Understanding the global impacts of multinational mandates. GTAP Working Paper 51, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Hill, J., Polasky, S., Nelson, E., et al. 2009. Climate change and health costs of air emissions from biofuels and gasoline. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (6): 2077–2082.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holland, Stephen P., Hughes, Jonathan E., and Knittel, Christopher R.. 2009. Greenhouse gas reductions under low carbon fuel standards? American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 1 (1): 106–146.Google Scholar
,Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Paper presented at the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Tokyo, Japan.
Jacobson, Mark Z. 2009. Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Energy Environmental Science 2:148–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplow, Louis. 2004. On the (ir)relevance of distribution and labor supply distortion to government policy. Journal of Economic Perspectives 18 (4): 159–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khanna, Madhu, Ando, Amy W., and Taheripour, Farzad. 2008. Welfare effects and unintended consequences of ethanol subsidies. Review of Agricultural Economics 30 (3): 411–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koplow, Doug. 2007. Ethanol – At what cost? Government support for ethanol and biodiesel in the United States. 2007 Update. Geneva, Switzerland: Global Subsidies Initiative of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, October.
Lapan, H., and Moschini, G.. 2009. Biofuel policies and welfare: Is the stick of mandates better than the carrot of subsidies? Working Paper No. 09010, Department of Economics, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
Lasco, Christine, and Khanna, Madhu. 2009. Welfare effects of biofuels trade policy in the presence of environmental externalities. Paper presented at the ASSA Meetings, San Francisco, January. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1367101.
Leiby, Paul N. 2007. Estimating the energy security benefits of reduced U.S. oil imports. Oak Ridge National Laboratory ORNL/TM-2007/028 Oak Ridge, TN, February 28.
Martinez-Gonzalez, Ariadna, Sheldon, Ian M., and Thompson, Stanley. 2007. Estimating the welfare effects of U.S. distortions in the ethanol market using a partial equilibrium trade model. Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization 5 (2): Article 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metcalf, Gilbert. 2008. Using tax expenditures to achieve energy policy goals. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 98 (4): 90–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Donald. 2008. A note on rising food prices. Policy Research Working Paper 4682, Development Prospects Group, the World Bank.
Nordhaus, William D. 2007. A review of the Stern Review on the economics of climate change. Journal of Economic Literature 45 (3): 686–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parry, Ian W. H., and Small, Kenneth. 2005. Does Britain or the United States have the right gasoline tax? American Economic Review 95 (4): 1276–1289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rajagopal, Deepak, Sexton, Steven E., Roland-Holst, David, et al. 2007. Challenge of biofuel: Filling the tank without emptying the stomach? Environmental Research Letters 2 (November):1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runge, C. Ford, and Senauer, Benjamin. 2007. How biofuels could starve the poor. Foreign Affairs 86 (3): 41–53.Google Scholar
Schmitz, A., Moss, C. B., and Schmitz, T. G.. 2007. Ethanol: No free lunch. Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization 5 (2): Article 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searchinger, Timothy D., Heimlich, Ralph E., Houghton, Richard A., et al. 2008. Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land use change. Science 319(5867): 1238–1240. DOI: 10.1126/science.1151861.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stern, Nicholas. 2009. Imperfections in the economics of public policy, imperfections in markets, and climate change. Presidential Lecture for the European Economic Association, Barcelona, August.
Stern, Nicholas. 2007. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, Jerry, and Doren, Peter. 2007. The ethanol boondoggle. The Milken Institute Review, First Quarter:17–27.
Vedenov, Dmitry, and Wetzstein, Michael. 2008. Toward an optimal US ethanol fuel subsidy. Energy Economics 30:2073–2090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×