Ethanol's Failed Promise

[RedEarth]

The willingness to try, fail and try again is the essence of scientific progress. The same sometimes holds true for public policy. It is in this spirit that today, Earth Day, we call upon Congress to revisit recently enacted federal mandates requiring the diversion of foodstuffs for production of biofuels. These "food-to-fuel" mandates were meant to move America toward energy independence and mitigate global climate change. But the evidence irrefutably demonstrates that this policy is not delivering on either goal. In fact, it is causing environmental harm and contributing to a growing global food crisis.

Food-to-fuel mandates were created for the right reasons. The hope of using American-grown crops to fuel our cars seemed like a win-win-win scenario: Our farmers would enjoy the benefit of crop-price stability. Our national security would be enhanced by having a new domestic energy source. Our environment would be protected by a cleaner fuel. But the likelihood of these outcomes was never seriously tested, and new evidence has shown that the justifications for these mandates were inaccurate.

It is now abundantly clear that food-to-fuel mandates are leading to increased environmental damage. First, producing ethanol requires huge amounts of energy -- most of which comes from coal. Second, the production process creates a number of hazardous byproducts, and some production facilities are reportedly dumping these in local water sources.

Third, food-to-fuel mandates are helping drive up the price of agricultural staples, leading to significant changes in land use with major environmental harm. Here in the United States, farmers are pulling land out of the federal conservation program, threatening fragile habitats. Increased agricultural production also means increased fertilizer use. The National Academy of Sciences reported last month that meeting the congressional food-to-fuel mandate by 2022 would lead to a 10 to 19 percent increase in the size of the Gulf of Mexico's "dead zone" -- an area so polluted by fertilizer runoff that no aquatic life can survive there.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/21/AR2008042102555.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[DU9598]

1. Food Corn is not used to make ethanol

We have mounds of corn sitting on the ground outside of silos in Iowa. Ethanol production is not causing food shortages. That has been disproven time and again - but big oil keeps the myth alive.

[orangerevolution]

2. Does the land that is being used for Ethanol Corn

only have a single use?

If it were not being used for growing ethanol corn, it could not be used for anything else, it would sit idle?

Couldn't it be used for growing something other than corn? There is a thing called crop rotation to keep the soil healthy.

[thunder rising]

3. food-to-fuel mandates ... that's got to be a framing from BIG OIL ... broccoli is the answer!

[depakid]

4. If it's coming from the Post, you know its influenced by K street

That paper's proven time and again that it wont publish anything objective (even basic honesty is a challenge). Nope, at the very least, they'll color their copy to promote whatever the the far right agenda de jour happens to be

[RedEarth]

5. Lester Brown is part of the far right agenda? I wasn't aware of that.

I'd really like to see some information on his far right background, since I was always under the impression he was one of the more respected environmentalist. Also, I didn't see anything far right in the article I posted...maybe it was there and I missed it.

[AdHocSolver]

6. Ethanol was never designed to save oil. Its main purpose is to increase profits for agribusiness.

Ethanol was touted in the 1990's as an ingredient to help gasoline burn "cleaner" and so reduce smog. It never really worked. One reason it didn't work is that it reduced mileage so that you had to burn more gas to drive the same number of miles. Burning more gas kept the smog levels up. But the propaganda value for the auto and oil companies maintained the practice.

Originally only large cities had to add ethanol to the gas (even though it didn't help). Our politicians had to do something to show their "concern" for the environment. As long as ethanol use was not widespread, it did not increase prices dramatically.

The agribusinesses liked the ethanol use because the increased demand increased their profits. They had to come up with a new gimmick to increase demand even more, and the high oil imports met their need for a new marketing gimmick. From reducing smog (which it didn't), they came up with a new ad campaign: substitute "renewable" ethanol for gasoline to replace oil. Ethanol doesn't save gas either since mileage is adversely affected.

However, using corn to make ethanol does increase profits. It also increases the cost of food, but that is neither the problem of the oil companies nor agribusiness.