It's sometimes very instructive to go back in to the past and look at bad policy decisions and their outcomes.

Blogs are a great source of history. Join me in going back to this Matt Rosenberg post on BioDiesel and Ethanol from 2005.

Not to just toot my own horn, but my comments then were largely spot on. Look where we are today with the high price of gasoline fuel, even higher price of ethanol and high food prices. A large part of the problem is the failure of ethanol subsidy. And further that with the disaster of the Midwest floods in our key corn producing region that shows the fragility and ridiculousness of any real value from corn ethanol. BioDiesel prices are significantly higher than even gasoline or oil diesel prices. How's $6 a gallon for BioDiesel sound? You've got to be pretty devoted and/or guilt ridden Seattle enviro-nut to pay those prices. Good intentions do not a market make.

See what happens when big money pressures government for subsidy and monopoly of parts of a key commodity market like that of oil? Martin Tobias is a Republican and ex-Microsoftie with a lot of money who was able to raise capital for and Eastern WA Biofuel plant and start www.seattlebiodiesel.com. A large customer of Seattle Biodiesel/ Imperium Renewables was King County Metro Transit. Hmmm, good stewardship of our tax dollars? Or just a fanciful following of locals with money and the big Enviro-Feel-Good BioFuel buzz in 2005 and 2006?

In today's culture we seem to be obsessed with those who have a lot of money and trust their judgment simply because they have money. And we get obsessed with can't-we-all-just-hug-the-earth environmental rhetoric. I've got nothing against the rich, but common sense showed then, as it does today that there is not enough arable land for Ethanol to ever truly make a dent in our fuel needs. We are far better off overcoming our irrational environmental policies and NIMBYism to drill for oil in our own country where we know there are billions of barrels. And by building nuclear plants that allow us to use existing US uranium fuel to power our energy needs in a much cleaner, denser and longer lasting form of terrestrial energy than coal or natural gas.

And a much better use of government money than subsidies to rich slick talkers would be to create incentives for those who can come up with better fuel technologies to extend and replace our current gasoline based infrastructure. How about a national $500 Million prize for a new engine, carburetor, battery technology, etc.

And this is not something that can happen overnight as it will take decades to phase in new autos, new filling stations, new engine technologies, etc.

Allowing the market to make these decisions through the laws of supply and demand coupled with some guidance in the form of incentive policy is the correct method to achieve results. Mandating ethanol subsidies, ethanol formulations, prohibiting oil drilling, anti-man environmental rhetoric, go nowhere billion dollar trains, and shady fuel contracts to local governments, etc. will only lead to perverse market distortion, high prices and a failure to achieve any meaningful future direction.

Want lower prices and a sensible market based future energy policy?

Vote Environmentalist Energy Policy Obstructing Democrats out in November. Start with Governor Christine Gregoire who won't allow long standing WA nuclear ingenuity to flourish in the Tri Cities at the Areva plant.

Update:

Even the World Bank is now acknowledging that Ethanol is a major factor in high food prices.

We can thank the "Ethanol Entrepreneurs" like Tobias and their Government subsidy doling enablers for this predicament. Now that all of the fallacies of "green power" have been exposed, can we just dump all of these ridiculous market tampering schemes and drill for oil and build nuclear power plants? When third world countries start starving en masse, that will be double the blood on the hands of dictator and environment loving Progressives.