After only a couple of years, the U.S. strategy on biofuels and climate change has a clear record: dramatically higher food prices and an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

Government programs have encouraged farmers to use marginal land to produce fuel crops, increasing carbon dioxide emissions in the process, in an effort to receive subsidies or the high prices such crops now fetch due to government mandates.

Now, this state is poised to follow those damaging policy footsteps. Washington legislators of both parties saw biofuel mandates and subsidies as a way to send taxpayer dollars to farming communities and to prove to environmental activists that they were serious about climate change.

Now that the damage caused by those policies is obvious, Washington politicians should re-examine their policies and follow a strategy that harnesses the promise of biofuels without creating the truly damaging unintended consequences we are seeing.

In 2006, the Washington Legislature passed a series of laws designed to promote biofuel production. This year, 2 percent of all diesel and gasoline sold in the state must contain biofuels. Those numbers can rise to 5 percent for diesel and 10 percent for gasoline if the governor determines Washington has the capacity to produce part of that amount.

Worldwide, such mandates have led to dramatic increases in food prices and farming techniques that can actually increase CO emissions. Faced with penalties if they do not meet the targets, gas stations are willing to pay extra for the limited supply of biofuels. This artificially pushes up demand and, therefore, prices.

Farmers, looking to reap the rewards of those high prices, plant in less productive lands which require more fertilizer and labor. As a result, farmers end up putting more energy into the ground than will be produced by the crop. Farmers still profit even if biofuels don't reduce CO emissions, which is supposed to be the policy goal.

The Royal Society in the United Kingdom reported earlier this year that such production targets are likely to increase CO emissions.

It notes, "There is a real danger that a policy framework driven solely by supply targets will result in biofuel pathways being developed that miss opportunities to deliver reductions in greenhouse gas emissions."

Under such a system, it says, "there is no direct incentive to invest in the systems that would deliver the lowest greenhouse gas biofuels." The incentive for farmers and politicians is to invest in systems that deliver the most in subsidies and political benefit.

State budget writers also provided $23 million in earmarks for selected biofuel projects. These funds further distort those negative incentives and may actually make it more difficult to develop the next generation of biofuels.

Many in the business and academic community are currently working on biofuels that cost less and produce more energy than they use and hold the promise of creating real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Those efforts, however, are undercut by political subsidies.

If, for instance, a gallon of ethanol can be produced for $4, subsidies can bring that cost down to $3, making it more attractive to consumers. However, it also becomes more attractive when compared to second-generation fuels as well.

The technology may exist to produce second- generation fuels, like lignocellulosic biofuel, at $3.50 per gallon. With ethanol at $4, this new technology becomes the fuel of choice, reducing costs and CO2 emissions. When compared to the subsidized price, however, the promise of that new fuel is lost and taxpayers continue to pay more and CO2 reductions are lost.

These problems are why many environmental activists who previously supported these programs, have turned against biofuel subsidies and mandates. Even the United Nations, home to the leading voice of concern about climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has condemned biofuels.

Now it is time for Washington to rethink its approach on biofuels and switch away from this costly and ineffective path. Biofuels hold promise, but political strategies that create perverse incentives should be removed so farmers, scientists and businesses can continue to innovate, reducing carbon dioxide emissions and prices.

Those forces made Washington a leader in the creative and high-tech economy. They can make us a leader in technologies that truly reduce greenhouse gases.

Todd Myers is director of the Center for Environment at Washington Policy Center, a West Seattle think tank. For more information visit washingtonpolicy.org or call 937-9691.