Want to "subsidize" biofuels efficiently? Don't tax them. The US gas tax is $0.184 / gallon. Just apply that tax on oil-based fuels, and exempt biofuels. Now, you've "subsidized" ethanol, biodiesel, et al, and the higher the blend content, the higher the subsidy.

Were it up to me, I might argue that the change should be revenue neutral -- and therefore it might be necessary to adjust the $0.184 each year so that the total revenue per mile driven is the same. The elegance to this plan is that the market always has a carrot/stick to increase the content of the biofuel in the blend.

Interesting that only 57% of respondents knew what biofuels are yet 82% advocated more government spending on them. Interesting also that the poll apparently did not ask respondents about whether or not switching to biofuels would have an impact on global warming - deemed too controversial perhaps?

Still, many readers of this forum will be happy to see a generally very positive attitude towards biofuels among the US population. Of course, this survey was done for the biotech lobby in an effort to get Congress to be generous to them. The questions appear to have been posed in a somewhat leading way. If the oil majors had funded the study, the results would likely have come out quite differently.

IMHO, there is currently no need for direct subsidies to the biofuels industry in any OECD country - it is thriving as it is. Even the US tariff on imported ethanol is highly questionable.

By contrast, public funding for long-range research on the impact of biofuels is entirely appropriate. Example topics include:

- global IP protection for energy crop genetics and agricultural methods
- invasive species/gene risk mitigation
- technical standards (i.e. fuel characteristics, blend compositions, engine test procedures etc.)
- maritime law framework for grow biofuel feedstock (algae) on the open ocean
- macroeconomic and geopolitical impact of various biofuel market share scenarios, including land use arbitration strategies

In addition, policy research on taxes (carbon/nuke waste vs. income) would be worthwhile. Like it or not, every tax influences consumer demand. A permanent shift away from unsustainable to sustainable energy may not be possible with the current financial goalposts.

Of course, US Congressmen tend to freak out about the T word. They will always prefer to receive compaign contributions for inserting earmarks into bills for "high-concept" projects that generate a small number of very expensive jobs in their constituencies. Never mind that those prjects might well have found private backers anyhow. Plus ca change...

People don't want increased tarrifs or taxes just subsidies. Most people have no concept that the government has to raise funds somewhere to find subsidies. You notice that was not among the questions asked. I wish someone would ask, because if couched in terms of energy independance or national security, I think the majority would support higher gas taxes as well.

*puts both fingers to his mouth and whistles* Hey, politicians? You reading this? Your constituents want more renewable biofuels...SO DELIVER ALREADY!

Cervus -

you make a valid point. However, there's only so much tropical land you can reasonably allocate to fuel production without impacting either the food supply or the remaining rainforests.

Oil palms, jatropha etc. don't grow next to coal-fired power stations in OECD countries nor on bodies of water. This is where the algal oil research comes in. Time will tell if unit costs can be brought down with genetic cross-breding/manipulation and computerized process control technology that did not even exist in the early 90s. On land, open racetrack ponds have been proven and remain the cheapest option. On a body of water, the focus would be on containing a deliberate algal bloom floating on the surface (incl. impact on ecosystems below and beyond).

“…US Congressmen tend to freak out about the T word…”

That’s right. Both federal and increasingly state governments tend to avoid direct taxation by imposing even increasing minimal biofuel requirements. This way consumers bear price increase indirectly. The good thing about such approach is that inherently inefficient step of collecting, redistributing, and spending tax dollars by government authorities is minimized.