Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

(Bio)fueling farm policy: the biofuels boom and the 2008 farm bill

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the mid-2000s, rising gas prices, political instability, pollution, and fossil fuel depletion brought renewable domestic energy production onto the policy agenda. Biofuels, or fuels made from plant materials, came to be seen as America’s hope for energy security, environmental conservation, and rural economic revitalization. Yet even as the actual environmental, economic, and energy contributions of a biofuels boom remained debatable, support for biofuels swelled and became a prominent driver of not only US energy policy but of US farm policy as well. This paper asks why biofuels became such a powerful force in farm policy debates, and draws on policy windows theory and discourse analysis to analyze biofuels’ contributions to the passage of the 2008 farm bill. It finds that budgetary and political factors combined with a particular set of patriotic biofuels-oriented discourses to carry energy policy debates into farm policy. It also comments on the implications of biofuels policies for conservation and sustainable land use in 2008 and beyond.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Note, however, that these mandates, especially the cellulosic ethanol mandate, can be waived; and that the biofuels used do not have to come from domestic sources (GovTrack 2007; Hebert 2007).

  2. See http://academic.lexisnexis.com/online-services/academic-overview.aspx.

  3. The specific roles and impacts of budgets and party politics, as well as other political, situational, and institutional factors, on the 2008 farm bill will be discussed in greater depth later in this paper.

  4. All bolded fonts are added to highlight key frames.

  5. While greater fissures between biofuels positions appeared by 2008, contentious debates over the value of biofuels promotion surfaced only after the 2008 farm bill was already largely written.

  6. There were, however, some increases in food prices domestically, with important impacts especially for poorer consumers, as well as increased costs for livestock producers and grain exporters. There were also significantly larger increases in food prices abroad, for example in the case of tortilla prices in Mexico (Hagenbaugh 2007; Leibtag 2008). However, these concerns did not surface clearly until late in the 2008 farm bill debates.

  7. While the rise of biofuels and associated crop prices was detrimental to some parties—grain exporters and importers, some consumers domestically and especially abroad, and many livestock producers, for example—even these groups for the most part did not oppose biofuels development outright. Some opposed the subsidizing of biofuels, but flat opposition was rare.

  8. At the time of completion of this paper, however, the outlook for communities with an ethanol plant is less rosy. Many of these communities, having invested in biofuels, have become more vulnerable to the decreasing energy prices seen in 2008. A number of biofuels plants have remained idle and several companies have gone into bankruptcy (Pore 2009; Steil 2008). Thus, the rural development implications of biofuels development remain mixed.

Abbreviations

CAFE:

Corporate average fuel economy

EU:

European Union

GMO:

Genetically modified organism

USDA:

United States Department of Agriculture

WTO:

World Trade Organization

References

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges Dennis Becker, Rachel Schurman, the late G. Edward Schuh, Paul Porter, Kristen Nelson, Edith Lehrer, and Mike Cochran, as well as the editor and three anonymous reviewers of Agriculture and Human Values, for their insightful comments on earlier versions of this paper. Thanks also to Vickie Bierman, Brooke Haworth, Meagan Keefe, Lisa Kissing, and Kaitlin Steiger-Meister for their work transcribing interviews, and to the many interview participants, informants, and colleagues who gave of their time and energy for this project. The research described in this paper was funded by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship, a United States Environmental Protection Agency—Science to Achieve Results Graduate Fellowship, a MacArthur Interdisciplinary Global Change, Sustainability, and Justice Fellowship, and a University of Minnesota Graduate Fellowship. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this document are solely those of the author. The National Science Foundation, Environmental Protection Agency, and other funders have not officially endorsed this document, and the views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation, Environmental Protection Agency, or any other funder.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nadine Lehrer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lehrer, N. (Bio)fueling farm policy: the biofuels boom and the 2008 farm bill. Agric Hum Values 27, 427–444 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9247-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9247-0

Keywords

Navigation