Castro's bogus argument against corn energy

William Saletan:

Just when you thought George W. Bush and Fidel Castro were dead -- one politically, the other literally -- they're back at it. Their new fight is about biofuel, the conversion of living things into liquid energy. One president says it's an assault on nature and humanity. The other says it's an agricultural revolution that will liberate the masses. Bush is the revolutionary. Castro is the reactionary.

Bush has been evangelizing for biofuel since the GOP lost control of Congress last year. Castro has been attacking it since he returned from surgery this spring. "Transforming food into fuels is a monstrosity," Castro wrote two months ago in a series of angry essays. He said it would devour the world's food supply, "killing the poor masses through hunger."

Castro's argument has gained widespread support. The Economist declared that "Castro was right" and faulted Bush's "unhealthy enthusiasm for ethanol." Foreign Affairs magazine recently published a long article titled, "How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor." Last week, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development warned that "increased demand for bio-fuels . . . could drive up world prices for many farm products." In a visit to Havana, the director of the U.N. Environment Program echoed Castro's concerns.

The critics are right about several things. Corn-based ethanol isn't very economical or environmentally helpful. It inflates food prices, and it's propped up by foolish subsidies and tariffs. But to write off biofuel is to miss the forest for the trees -- or, in this case, the grassland for the corn. Enthusiasm for ethanol isn't the problem. It's the solution.

Biofuel is our next logical technology. We've had an agricultural revolution, an industrial revolution and an information-technology revolution. Now we're putting them together to harness the power of life. Ecologically, it's ideal: a fuel that literally grows on trees.

But biofuel has aroused the same fears as free trade, with a twist. The argument against free trade was that people in poor countries would underbid and take jobs from people in rich countries. The argument against biofuel is that people in rich countries will outbid and take food from people in poor countries. The old buzzword was "job security." The new buzzword is "food security."

What critics of free trade forget is that people in rich countries aren't just producers; they're consumers. Competition from poor countries drives down wages but compensates by lowering prices. Conversely, what critics of biofuel forget is that people in poor countries aren't just consumers -- they're producers. Crop purchases by rich countries drive up prices but compensate by driving up incomes. Castro says turning food into fuel is a "waste," but that's not true. Fuel helps make food available and affordable.

...

Why people take Castro serious on anything is a mystery, especially if it involves economics. All you have to do is look at Brazil to see that he is dead wrong on the subject. If he were not such an economic dunce Cubans would also be profiting from ethanol production since cane is a better source than corn anyway. That is what Brazil is using and it has not driven up the world price of sugar. All one needs to do is look at Cuba to see that Castro does not know the first thing about economics. Liberals who credit him with insight are showing their bias and not any common sense.