News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Unlikely alliance fights NSW ethanol mandate 

Unlikely alliance fights NSW ethanol mandate

30 Mar, 2009 05:42 PM
An unlikely alliance, comprising service stations, social and community services, fuel distributors, stockfeed manufacturers and feedlotters, has been formed to oppose the increase in the NSW ethanol mandate from 2pc to 10pc in July 2011.

The alliance collectively believes that the NSW Biofuel (Ethanol Content) Amendment Bill 2009 will not only risk jobs and industries in rural areas, but will lead to increased fuel, grain and food prices for negligible fuel security, environmental and regional development benefit.

The alliance says it represents the very sectors of the economy that the NSW Government argues will benefit from the mandate - consumers, service stations and farmers.

The alliance is made up of Service Station Australia Ltd, Council of Social Services to NSW, Australasian Convenience and Petroleum Marketing Association, Australian Lot Feeders’ Association, Australian Pork Limited, Stock Feed Manufacturers’ Council of Australia, Australian Dairy Farmers, Australian Chicken Meat Federation and Australian Egg Corporation Limited.

The group says the only jobs created will be for the Government assisted monopoly ethanol supplier.

From a fuel perspective, the alliance is concerned the current supply arrangements will not be able to meet the mandate supply targets.

The alliance is also critical of continuing NSW Government statements that consumers are financially better off - it claims the 2-3 cent discount at the bowser does not offset ethanol's poorer fuel economy.

And it says the 10pc ethanol mandate will increase grain prices above world parity levels given the reduced supply available after the Government ethanol targets are met.

The group also argues the mandate will increase food prices, citing analysis from the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the OECD which says that Government biofuel support and protection policies were to blame for the majority of the 140pc increase in global food prices between 2002 and 2008.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
The organisations that oppose the ethanol initiative DO NOT have animal and human health as a central focus to farming and food production. These organisations are driven by self-interest and ignorance about the ethanol industry. The modern ethanol plants can recycle wet distillers grain as nutrient rich, value-added products to these organisations and support animal welfare. Ethanol production is a wealth and health creation industry and such infrastructure is essential to supporting cleaner air, healthy food production and sustainable farming.
Posted by Mangiri, 31/03/2009 7:52:04 AM
An unlikely alliance for sure. More like a mob. However, there is something about this whole business that doesn't look right. Why don't they make the ethanol from sugar cane? Nowhere yet have I seen a good report on the economics of ethanol production, but the best one that I saw said that ethanol from sugar cane is half the cost of from corn, which is a long way ahead of the rest.
Posted by Ted O'Brien., 31/03/2009 8:02:54 AM
Does anyone else remember that chickens, pigs, cattle are actually grazing and foraging animals? So it's not for the animals' sake that we grow such energy and input exhaustive meals of grain but so that ALFA, Australian pig producer peak body, the high density poultry industries can have their snouts in the money trough.
Posted by deb, 31/03/2009 11:23:06 AM
Extremely unlikely alliance! All the best research has proven the ethanol made from cane is way way way more cost efficient and produces, obviously more ethanol per tonne crushed. We have struggled for 8 years as cane farmers through drought, flood as disease infestations, isn't it time we look at other primary producers other than within their tunnel vision!! What an absolute joke, the only reason ethanol is being produced with grain now is because the Federal Government handed out so much money to get them started. Last year a summary was put to the Feds that with $26M every sugar mill in Queensland could have an ethanol plant built within to create another sustainability brake for struggling farmers. So maybe these people need to look outside their square and realise, like other posted comments have stated, it is not all about you. THERE IS MORE THAN ONE WAY TO SKIN A ... JED
Posted by JED, 31/03/2009 11:43:06 PM
What we really need is government investment in cellulosic ethanol technology - producing ethanol from cheap and abundant non-food cellulose sources like wheat straw, bagasse and energy crops.

We have the technology, so let's build some plants and then work out ways to lower the costs.

Posted by ethanerd, 2/04/2009 3:09:31 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
25 March, 2009
27 March, 2009
29 March, 2009
POLL
Q: Are land clearing laws having a negative environmental impact on your property?

Yes
(67.7%)

No
(30%)

Other
(2.2%)

Total Votes: 496
Poll Date: 29 March, 2009

Most popular articles

SPRAY AWARDS NEWS MREC



Stock & Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...