This time the evidence comes in, quite persuasively, with ethanol subsidies.
The tax credit for ethanol is an example of a cost ineffective subsidy. The cost of reducing CO2 emissions through this subsidy exceeded $1,700 per ton of CO2 avoided in 2006 and the cost of reducing oil consumption over $85 per barrel.and
...a growing body of scientific evidence suggests these gasoline alternatives will actually boost carbon-dioxide levels and thereby aggravate the problem of global warming.So we have a solution that:
- Costs a crap load of money.
- Destroys forests.
- Distorts the market by crowding out research for (potentially) better alternatives.
- Increases the cost of food - disproportionally hurting the poor.
- AND has the opposite effect as intended by hurting the environment more than the status quo.
Something tells me that this will be rationalized away as the correct approach even though it clearly isn't.
HatTip: Marginal Revolution