Ag Weekly Online: Twin Falls, Idaho

Editor’s note: A renewable-fuels agreement between Brazil and the United States, as proposed by President Bush could allow foreign ethanol investors to receive U.S. tax subsidies to increase consumption and production of ethanol.

"Transferring the United States’ addiction on foreign oil to foreign biofuels doesn’t make sense. America’s family farmers and ranchers are prepared to meet the challenge President Bush set in his State of the Union address to increase our country’s use of renewable fuels.

Using U.S. taxpayer dollars to encourage new ethanol production in foreign countries will only directly compete with production right here at home. Instead, we should be investing our resources in building our own domestic renewable fuels capacity. This agreement is the wrong step in the wrong direction at the wrong time.

Decreasing our reliance on foreign oil while increasing our reliance on foreign biofuels is the wrong move when attempting to become energy independent. Ethanol production is the only sector in agriculture that has seen a decrease of consolidation, a direct result of farmer-owned biofuels production facilities. We should not jeopardize this achievement by having U.S. taxpayers foot the bill for foreign-owned biofuel production.

It is additionally troubling to see press reports that this new pact will open the door for foreign ethanol producers to by-pass the 54-cent-per-gallon ethanol tariff by simply importing Brazilian sugarcane and processing it in the Caribbean, which is exempt from the tariff. The current tariff ensures U.S. taxpayer dollars do not subsidize foreign-produced ethanol.

Tom Buis is president of the National Farmers union.

Comments »

Andre wrote on Jul 1, 2007 9:35 PM:

" This article is payd by OPEC "

Jay wrote on Jun 7, 2007 2:43 PM:

" Sorry losers! "

Bill Wolski wrote on May 23, 2007 5:29 AM:

" Any effort made to reduce our dependence on offshore energy, at a time when we are at maximum refinery capacity and gasoline inventories are being drawn down quickly, can only help wean us from oil. Take off the tariff. We need Brazilian supply as a matter of national security. "

Willy Ank wrote on May 20, 2007 3:36 PM:

" There are only two things to do with sugarcane: sugar or ethanol (at low cost, in both cases). Corn and other types of cereals can be process to produce food, drink or ethanol (at high cost, in the last case). If we are thinking in economical or ecological aspects cut off the 54-cent-per-gallon ethanol tariff it's more reasonable think to do. With relationship to importation of Brazilian sugarcane and processing it in the Caribbean, it's a non sense affirmation from who don't know what this product is. "

Andre wrote on May 1, 2007 10:17 AM:

" This article is payd by OPEC "

Rudy wrote on Apr 25, 2007 6:43 PM:

" Stop this kind of propagand! "

Jose wrote on Mar 22, 2007 11:32 AM:

" Not paying the 54 cents per gallon of ethanol is not a subsidy. Allowing Brazilian biofuels come to the U.S. is an excellent idea. We tax payers have been subsidizing our farmers to produce ethanol out corn which is more difficult and costly to produce. Congress should promote the production of ethanol in the U.S. and provide subsidies to those that are trying to develope the technologies necessary to make ethanol production economical. The way how congress subsidize the ethanol productiion does not make economic sense. It definately makes political sense, as the congressmen whose states grow corn and produce ethanol want to keep their citizens happy, but most importantly, the congressmen do not want to lose their votes. "

Comment on this story

Comments will be approved within 48 hours

Story Tools

Share this Story

Related Links

More Stories in News » Opinion