Taxing CO2 will create the incentive for sequestration that does not now exist. The cost to the public will be a fraction of the cost of to the public for biofuels or other alternate energy. Ten to fifteen cents per gallon for gasoline vesus $1.00 per gallon for biodiesel or ethanol, and about three cents per kilowatt hour for fossil fuel power plants versus who knows how much for wind and solar.

The problem I have with biofuels is that we have barely started using them and already we have seen the impact on food prices.

Brian Beutler writes:

-- So important is ethanol to the building of a political coalition to support climate action, that subsidies are all but assumed. At least that's the perception.

If this is a euphemism for farm subsidies then it just one more reason to get rid of  them.

The real problem here is that the myriad arms of government are all acting in isolation, creating conflicting results that undermine any rational movement in any direction.

For example, we propose massively increasing our health care spending through government in order to fight obesity, diabetes, and other health issues. At the same time, we continue heavily subsidizing commodity crops (corn & sugar especially) that directly supply the worst types of junk food, thus effectively making soda, candy, and processed foods cheaper than produce, fruit, and whole foods. The lowest end of the food pyramid gets >90% of federal subsidies, while the high end gets nothing and indeed is actively interfered with by government regulation.

Ethanol is a real mess. It is an incredible government boondoggle, yet it is also the first thing in decades that gives small-medium grain farmers hope. We've spent most of this century hemorrhaging small family farms due to a variety of terriblle policies, and these losses have far broader implications for American society and economy than city people realize. Ethanol gives these folks what they see as their first real shot in generations to make a living again, to provide their kids jobs again, and to rebuild rural towns again.

Whatever we do with biofuels, if we shut these folks down without working to provide an alternate way, we'll suffer for it. Remember that.

If the government was smart and forward thinking about bio-fuels it would get off the corn-is-clean scam. While ethanol does burn cleaner than gasoline, it has less energy output per gallon than normal gasoline. Instead the government could subsidize the growing and manufacturing of hemp-based bio-fuels that use less water to irrigate than corn, puts out more energy per gallon than corn, is easy to grow and the pulp discard can be used as biomass fuel in other areas. The other added benefits of hemp as a primary source for bio-fuels is that it won't take food grains out of the now stressed food chain, it doesn't require the huge investments in pesticides and fertilizers to grow, it's less water intensive and it's almost a carbon-neutral fuel sequestering carbon as it grows and releasing as it's burned.

But again...the question of which biofuel to subsidize misses the bigger picture of simultaneously getting people to reduce consumption through higher meter taxes and efficiency credits at the same time you wean American energy production off of coal and oil.