UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES - FUEL OR FOOD

Adam Smith, the great 18th century Scottish philosopher and economist coined the term and defined the Law of Unintentional Consequences which he applied to the building of wealth. In 1936, the American sociologist, Robert K. Merton, further codified the law applying it to political and sociologic policies and actions. He listed 5 sources for this phenomenon: 1. Ignorance
2. Error 3. Imperious Immediacy of Action 4. Basic Values and 5. Self Defeating Prediction. Ignorance and error are pretty much self explanatory and Basic Values and Self Defeating Prediction will require an in-depth discussion at a later time. The 3rd cause is the focus of this article.
Basically what is meant by Imperious Immediacy of Action is that a person or group wants the intended consequences of an action that there is willful ignorance of any unintended effects.
The word Imperious is significant because it imports to the person advocating a position, a place superior to all others. This arrogance results in the denigration of anyone who dissents or questions the policy.
In the rush to make Ethanol the main alternative fuel additive, those who raised
precautionary issues were dismissed and written off. Recent events now make those dissenters seem prescient.
According to the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. 18 to 20% of the domestic corn crop has been taken out of the food chain in the last 12 months with the expectation that the figure will rise to over 25% in the coming season. This diversion has resulted in a dramatic rise in corn prices. Mexico has seen a doubling in the price of corn tortillas resulting in massive demonstrations. In the U.S. the cost of food products that use corn and corn by-products such as corn syrup has increased dramatically. The price of chicken, pork, eggs and other foods dependent on corn as feed has also gone up as much as 25%.
As these unintended consequences have become widely known their appeal has diminished even among the most green eco-activists.
Sen. JohnMcCain has joined with over 2 dozen Republican senators in opposition to the Ethanol subsidy. McCain has long questioned the governmental support for Ethanol and voted against it. Sen. Barack Obama has been a staunch supporter of Ethanol even crossing party lines to vote for the Bush administration's Energy Bill citing its inclusion of Ethanol and other forms of alternative energy.
A more comprehensive look at alternatives should include a discussion of Butanol. Offering a 20% increase of energy efficiency over ethanol with a 13.5% less evaporation, Butanol also has the benefit of compatability with existing infrastructure allowing it to be transported through existing pipelines rather than having to be delivered via truck,barge and rail. It also has the added advantage of not being an additive but a 1 for 1 replacement of gasoline. It should be clear that Butanol is made through the fermentation of grass, leaves, agricultural waste and other biomass. The only biproduct created in the fermentation and exhausted from an internal combustion engine is CO2 so is considered environmentally green.
As the infatuation for Ethanol continues to diminish and other alternatives are developed, it is hoped that there is a clear-eyed dispassionate look down range assessing those troublesome unintended consequences.

The Edge