by SUSAN MANN
Federal and provincial governments in Canada have supported the ethanol industry’s launch and a Greenfield Ethanol spokesman expects that will continue as innovative companies develop new biofuels and renewable chemicals.
Barry Wortzman, Greenfield vice president of business development, says in its budget Quebec just announced “support of next generation ethanol by way of operating support in order to ensure the industry can get a kick start.”
Wortzman says he thinks the federal government and other provinces will adopt that model.
“I think Canada is in the forefront of being supportive of the new industries,” he says.
He made the comments during a teleconference from Washington. D.C. organized by the Biotechnology Industry Association (BIO) held to preview some speeches and presentations at BIO’s upcoming congress on industrial biotechnology and bioprocessing. The congress will be in Toronto May 8-11.
Brent Erickson, BIO executive vice president, says industrial biotechnology is the bridge between industry and agriculture that’s creating an economic transformation away from the current petroleum-based economy. The world wide bio-based economy, which uses renewable agricultural resources to produce fuel, chemicals and other consumer materials, such as synthetic rubber, is projected to generate $230 billion in economic activity by 2020, according to a report from the World Economic Forum released at last year’s congress. “This sector has really grown.”
The United States and Canada are well positioned to lead in the development of the bio- based economy and “in capturing its value,” he says. Seven per cent of Canada’s economy, equal to about $78 billion, is already driven by biotechnology and a significant additional portion is driven by agriculture.
BIO represents more than 1,100 biotechnology companies, academic institutions, state biotechnology centres and related organizations in the United States and more than 30 other countries. BF
Comments
Not long ago, an editorial in the Wall Street Journal claimed US ethanol policy is "driving up the cost of food and fuel with no benefit for the environment or American energy security".
In addition, a bed-rock principle of economics is that any time anything depends on tariffs, subsidies, and mandates for its existence, as ethanol clearly does, the end result will always be negative for the economy.
Therefore, basic economic principles dictate that as long as ethanol is completely dependent on tariffs, subsidies, and mandates, it will always suck more out of the economy (including jobs) than what it puts back in.
Ethanol advocates can ignore basic, and undeniable, economic truth, but they can neither dispute it, nor deny it.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
That would also include the auto industry and many other businesses in Canada.
Name any Canadian industry or business (other than supply management) which, to the same extent as ethanol, takes in so much in subsidies, (consumer subsidy equivalents for supply managed goods) yet provides so little benefit to the environment, and causes so much harm to other sectors of the economy.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
I already named it.
The auto industry does not benefit the environment, causes harm to many people who die or get hurt in car accidents, destroys our roads
and air.
The nuclear industry is another, we know what can happen.
-it makes for a very unfair playing field for others needing corn.....ethanols days are numbered like Dalton's gang
Corn production has increased dramatically since ethanol production once again ramped up. If your argument about ethanol creating no jobs were true we farmers did this without any increase in labour! Or perhaps we took jobs away from the meat packing industry? What jobs were those? Migrant meat packing workers subsidizing a cheap food policy? Pre-ethanol corn was cheap and abundant, and government subsidized, which allowed grain farmers to subsidize the meat industry with cheap corn. Cheap corn filled another basic economic mandate - cheap products increase demand from new markets.
Speaking of naming industries which are subsidized, or don't include complete costing - Gasoline. The $1.24 per litre cost at the gas pump does not include the whole cost to society once that product is combusted - Environmental health. Ethanol burns cleaner and helps mitigate some of those costs - but only as long as the ethanol was produced with a net energy gain.
And to have a little fun. The government creates a consumer subsidy for all businesses and individuals with the tax code. If it weren't for filing income taxes, and tax planning, how many accountants and tax filers would we need? And since the government holds accountants liable for the accuracy of the returns they prepare who do accountants work for? The client what pays them or the government? Now there is a true consumer subsidy for an artificial business. Makes supply management look saintly!
Not long ago, every ethanol advocate was boasting about the clear, and undeniable, win/win aspect of ethanol - now, as demonstrated in your posting, ethanol has reverted to the excupatory mode which is to say, "OK, so we are parasitic, but we suck less than others".
In addition, your point about the income tax system makes no sense - firstly, the income tax system is needed to generate the tax money for things like health care. Secondly, there are no barriers to entry into the tax preparation business, and competition is wide-open, and unsubsidized. In addition, the tax system is a graduated system where the more you make, the higher tax bracket you go into - therefore, your comment about a "consumer subsidy for all businesses and individuals with the tax code", is nonsense.
The overall, and undeniable, fact of the matter is that opposition to first-generation bio-fuels is mounting for completely good reasons, and ethanol advocates are scrambling for any cover they can find.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Nobody is required to retain me, or anyone else, to prepare their income tax return(s). Many people can, and do, prepare their own returns, and do so quite competently.
Therefore, because the collecting of income taxes is necessary to generate the wealth needed to run the country(and subsidize ethanol plants), and since nobody is forced to hire anyone to help them prepare their annual income tax returns, the income tax preparation business is, in contrast to ethanol, NOT an "artificial" business.
Ironically, two years ago, ethanol advocates were boasting that ethanol was, in effect, "unsinkable" - now the tables have turned to the point where, in order to save themselves, they're prepared to throw everybody else out of the lifeboat.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
nt--an unhappy consumer in the land of turbines and solar
how good ethanol has been to them and there industry-kevin kimball
--just have too look at hydro -solar-wind turbines and what they are getting paid and same with ethanol mandates and all funds thrown at them...we may not like coal and clean energy sounds nice but when 80% of our pollution comes from Ohio Valley we will just be financial losers...if as a country we could be smart enough too not waste fuel-energy or too drive 10km. just for a tim horton's coffee we could save a lot of energy and money...but then us canadians are not known to be frugal
Post new comment