Ethanol Disaster: Told You So
Hate to say “we told you so,” but maybe pointing out CAGW’s prescience on ethanol mandates will encourage lawmakers to heed our advice in the future.
March 20, 2008:
Corn Ethanol is Not a Panacea
When corn is converted into fuel, less of it is available for human and animal consumption, driving up the price of products made from corn, such as corn oil, corn syrup, corn meal, and animal feed. Taxpayer subsidies for corn-based ethanol have enticed farmers to over-plant corn, as opposed to other food crops, such as soybeans or wheat. With supply and demand economics at work, less soybeans and wheat means higher prices for these crops. When these higher prices move through the food chain, consumers end up paying more for turkey, chicken, beef, bread, pasta, and other commodities.
Furthermore, because more land is being used for biofuel crops, the clearing of rainforests and grasslands has increased to make room to plant much-needed food crops or even more biofuel crops. The studies found that clearing forests and grasslands for biofuels could release more CO2 into the atmosphere than gasoline, depending on what grew on the land before or how it was utilized. Joseph Fargione of the Nature Conservancy, one study’s leading author said, “Any biofuel that causes land clearing is likely to increase global warming. It takes decades to centuries to repay the carbon debt that is created from clearing land.”
February 19, 2008:
Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008
More scientific studies are showing that ethanol, particularly corn ethanol, is not the panacea to solve our energy woes. Two studies from the February 8 Science magazine point out that converting crops, such as corn, sugarcane, and palm oil, into fuel is causing food shortages and destroying forests. For those concerned about global warming, scientists are finding that some manufacturing of biofuels emits more CO2 than gasoline. Citizens around the world are beginning to see the unintended consequences of politicians making decisions about energy policy and use.
December 5, 2007:
CCAGW to House: Put Brakes on Energy Bill
“Passing this bill will exacerbate the problems created by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. That bill mandated that 4 billion gallons of renewable fuel (mostly ethanol) be added to our gasoline supply by 2006 and 7.5 billion gallons by 2012. This has raised the price of corn and increased the cost of other grains, meat, and poultry. Estimates are that last year ethanol production cost Americans an additional $14 billion in food prices and taxpayers $2.7 billion in subsidies. Plus, ethanol is only a tiny proportion of the 140 billion gallons of gasoline the U.S. uses each year. …”
Government Waste Watch, Winter 2007:
Energy Woes
For example, according to an article in the July, 2007 Rolling Stone (no corporate mouthpiece), cellulosic ethanol (produced from woody plant matter such as trees, grass, and agricultural waste) faces daunting engineering hurdles. Even if those obstacles are overcome, the U.S. would have to use 13 percent of its land, seven times more than is used for corn production today, to reach the goal of replacing 50 percent of gasoline with cellulosic fuels. That will restrict growth of other farm products and further drive up the price of food supplies.
If the mandate for renewable fuels such as ethanol becomes law, the consequences are dramatic. Rolling Stone pointed out that current corn ethanol production is only 3.5 percent of gasoline production, but it gobbles up 25 percent of the total corn crop. Reaching the mandate contained in H.R. 6 will only replace seven percent of current domestic oil needs. Even if the entire corn crop was devoted to ethanol, only 12 percent of current gasoline use would be replaced.
In addition, for those concerned about greenhouse gases, a study published in the August “Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions” by P.J. Crutzen et al. pointed out that the release of nitrous oxide (N2O) in the production of biofuels could negate any savings realized from a reduction of fossil fuel CO2 emissions.
Before requiring the increased production of ethanol, members of Congress should read the October 2007 report “Leaping Before They Looked: Lessons from Europe’s Experience with the 2003 Biofuels Directive” by the Clean Air Task Force, which details how a 2003 European Union mandate to increase and promote the use of biofuels “has exacerbated some of the very problems it was designed to solve, driving up food prices, leading to increased deforestation in tropical countries, worsening global warming, and increasing imports of biooils.”
August 27, 2007:
Davis-Bacon for Ethanol Plants: New Ways to Waste Money
Made in the United States from corn, ethanol is a gasoline substitute; running cars on ethanol means using less oil. The federal government heavily subsidizes corn growers and ethanol producers. Rolling Stone reporter Jeff Goodell observed in the July 24th issue that ethanol receives more than 200 tax breaks and at least $5.5 billion in subsidies per year. According to Goodell, ethanol production represents only 3.5 percent of the nation’s gasoline consumption, but it consumes 20 percent of the entire U.S. corn crop. The Energy Information Administration reported that “Ethanol relies heavily on Federal and State subsidies to remain economically viable as a gasoline blending component.”
It is fair to say that many of the 114 ethanol plants that exist across the country would never have been built if not for government subsidies. Foreign Affairs reports that within a few years these plants will consume half of the nation’s domestic corn supplies, drastically increasing the price of corn and many other foods. Subsidies for ethanol keep taxes high and have increased the price of corn to its highest level in 10 years. For the average American, this adds up to both a higher tax bill and a higher grocery bill. …
July 30, 2007:
A Joint Letter to the U. S. House of Representatives on H. R. 6 and Other Legislation to Raise Energy Prices
Title I of H. R. 6 as passed by the Senate would increase the current renewable fuel mandate of 7.5 billion gallons to 36 billion gallons by the year 2022, while leaving in place the 51 cents per gallon federal tax credit. Whatever percentage of the fuel mix renewable fuels constitute in 2022 would then become the mandatory minimum in 2023 and beyond, providing bio-fuel producers a permanent guaranteed market share, regardless of changes in technology or consumer preference. This is corporate welfare joined to a Soviet-style production quota system. …
The current 7.5 billion gallon ethanol mandate has already inflated food prices. Corn is a feedstock for meat, poultry, and dairy products, and in the form of corn sweeteners and syrups is used extensively in processed foods. Title I would increase Americans’ pain at the plate as well as at the pump. …
Title I also undermines global food security. The UN World Food Program recently warned that rising food prices are reducing its ability to feed the hungry. Diverting ever larger amounts of U.S. grain from food to fuel would further inflate food prices worldwide and threaten millions of hungry people who depend on imports of American grain for their survival.
Filed under: Pork
I have to wonder if the complaints against ethanol are all coming from the same source. There is nothing original or substantial about what is being said. Nobody talks to the farmers about the cost of fuel, fertilizer or equipment going up because of the huge increases in oil and diesel. And nobody talks about the increased demand for products and energy by other countries such as India and China. If corn and other crops had not gone up over the past couple of years, many farmers would have gone under.
The real culprit is the oil industry. If oil was not so expensive and fuel was readily available, would we even be entertaining ethanol? We need to have a national energy program that addresses the fact that we are not the only consumer of energy. We need to all get behind a national push to solve this problem just like when we sent a man to the moon. Grain ethanol is not the solution. But it is a step towards it. Cellulosic ethanol offers far more promise but it is not commercially viable yet. But while we work on that viability, we can be getting an infrastructure in place with grain ethanol that will accept cellulosic ethanol when it comes.
As for food costs and starving countries, I agree that there is nothing worse in our world then not being able to feed people. And it is sad that in the times we live that there are still people starving. But this is also not something new. Countries have been going through this forever. And sometimes the problem is not with food shortages, but more with corruption and politics.
Maybe there is truth in the saying that your own house should be in order before you can help others. A strong energy policy would do this.