Multiple-Authorship blog platform on issues related to sugarcane cultivation and industrial applications
Sugarcane ethanol plays a modest but important role supplying the United States with clean renewable fuel. Last year, Brazilian sugarcane ethanol comprised only 3 percent of all renewable fuel consumed by Americans, but provided nearly one-quarter of the U.S. supply of advanced biofuels. Is that amount significant? It is if you care about cleaner air and a healthier planet! The 460 million gallons of sugarcane ethanol Americans used in 2012 cut CO2 emissions by the same amount as planting nearly 57 million trees and letting them grow for 10 years.
These vital facts are getting lost in a debate that's heating up in Washington, D.C. over renewable fuels. The key policy – known as the Renewable Fuel Standard – was enacted to improve U.S. energy security and reduce greenhouse gases. And the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is clearly working as Congress intended when measured in terms of increasing American consumption of renewable fuel. It has grown production and use of biofuels in the U.S. from around 4 billion gallons in 2006 to 15 billion gallons last year. But critics and special interests are lining up to urge changes by both Congressional legislators and environmental regulators.
So sugarcane ethanol producers, along with our colleagues in the advanced biofuels industry, plan to step up our profile. We'll take a more active role setting the record straight on the importance and benefits of this advanced biofuel – starting with new information available at our dedicated website: Sugarcane.org/rfs. Here you'll find a brief summary of the issue and our position that Congress and environmental regulators should maintain American access to clean, advanced biofuels like sugarcane ethanol. We also answer many frequently asked questions. Topics like: What is sugarcane ethanol? Why would Americans want it? What are advanced biofuels and other biomaterials from sugarcane? And many more.
You'll also see more regular posts from me and other collaborators here on the Sugarcane Blog. So to kick things off, I'd like to reiterate some guiding principles (first articulated by my friend and colleague Joel Velasco) that will serve as ground rules for our blogging and participation in the RFS debate:
- Honesty. Americans' trust in government keeps getting lower. I think this decline is mostly because our policy discussions are no longer honest debates, but a litany of overheated talking points that all too often veer from the truth. So, on this blog, we commit to sticking to the truth and promise to admit if we come up short. Honesty is the best prescription to regain the public trust.
- Consistency. Cherry-picking may be a good strategy at an orchard, but not for public policy. Being consistent means practicing what we preach, demanding accountability and, yes, being fair and balanced.
- Sweet Humor. There's nothing wrong with mixing a little fun with work, and we'll try to do that on this blog as well. Like this: In Brazil, a common sugar industry saying is "drink the best, drive the rest." That's because the national drink in Brazil, the "caipirinha", is made with sugarcane alcohol, which, when it fills the tank of our cars, is called ethanol. We're eagerly awaiting the "booze vs. fuel" debate to heat up. Any takers?
So take a look around and check back whenever you want an update. You'll find that the United States and Brazil are the world's largest biofuels producers and exporters. Both countries recently removed trade barriers protecting their domestic ethanol industries and have taken initial steps towards greater energy cooperation. And I firmly believe that Brazil and the U.S. have a responsibility to work together to build a global biofuels market that provides clean, affordable and sustainable solutions to the planet's growing energy needs. That's the ultimate goal of the campaign we renew today.
Most Americans who start the day stirring a spoonful of sugar into their coffee would be surprised to learn they generally pay more for the sweetener than residents of other countries buying it on the global market. Major American commodities traders track two prices for sugar – a world price and a more expensive U.S. price.
Why the difference? According to the Wall Street Journal, "U.S. prices tend to be higher than world prices because the U.S. restricts sugar imports as part of the [U.S. Department of Agriculture’s] price-support program” for sugar (subscription required). One USDA economist recently estimated this price-support scheme could cost American taxpayers $80 million in 2013 on top of requiring U.S. consumers to pay artificially higher prices for raw sugar, candy and other confections.
Given these sour facts and movement in the U.S. Congress to reform the sugar program, I'm not surprised the American Sugar Alliance is trying to change the subject to defend its price supports. Last month, the group released a report arguing that Congress must maintain current U.S. sugar policy "to shield consumers from foreign market manipulation," particularly by Brazil which subsidizes sugar production according to the American Sugar Alliance.
The influential Cato Institute took a look at the group’s report and summarized its findings succinctly:
The sugar lobby for years have been complaining that we need the sugar program, which keeps prices high for producers by keeping imports strictly controlled, in order to enable “reliable” (i.e., managed) access to sugar. Now they think sugar is too available (i.e., cheap)? For sure, if I was a Brazilian taxpayer, I would baulk at the thought of subsidising (if that in fact is the situation) the sugar addictions of my richer neighbours to my north, but as a consumer? Muito obrigado! The sugar lobby’s talking points are getting ever more creative. But none of them are valid.
I added emphasis on the last line above and was tempted to end my rebuttal there! However, the Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association felt obligated to set the record straight on this misleading report which overstates Brazilian support for domestic producers and turns a blind eye to comparable programs in the U.S. You can download our point-by-point response here, and see for yourself how the American Sugar Alliance’s report reveals “the desperate need of the American sugar industry to keep the U.S. market closed and protected from competition.”