I recently received an email from FOE (friends of the earth), an environmental interest group, about ethanol:
"Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), chair of the Senate Energy and Resources Committee, has passed through his committee a bill that would require an annual production of 36 billion gallons of biofuels per year by 2022. This bill is on course to be the backbone of major energy legislation that will come to a vote on the Senate floor in early June.
Tell your senators to overhaul or scrap this bill.
What?!? But aren't biofuels an alternative to fossil fuels -- and part of the answer to energy security? Shouldn't an environmental group like Friends of the Earth be backing such initiatives?
The truth is that biofuels can be a good alternative to oil and coal, and Friends of the Earth is excited about the opportunities offered by the production of some biofuels. But science matters, and science tells us that not all biofuels are created equal.
Sen. Bingaman's bill would mandate production of up to 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol -- equivalent to half the corn currently grown in the entire United States. This is not a clean prospect.
Growing and processing this much corn for fuel would:
* Create over 100 million metric tons of global warming pollution
* Lead to the ecologically damaging conversion of millions of acres of land
* Increase non-sustainable agriculture, erosion, pesticide use and fertilizer use
* Require 60 billion gallons of water
* Drive the price of corn through the roof, effectively taking it out of the diet of many of the world's poor (the amount of corn it would take to fill one 25-gallon SUV tank with ethanol could feed a person for a year!)
Perhaps most discouraging, recent reports suggest the burning of corn ethanol generates as much or more pollution as the burning of gasoline.
Senators need to know there are promising biofuel crops out there -- including switchgrass and even algae -- that can be converted to fuel with less intensive use of resources and result in cleaner final products. Like many things, the devil is in the details, and when it comes to biofuels the Senate must pay attention to those details.
Our activists in states with a senator serving on Bingaman's committee weighed in before this bill passed out of committee, and their pressure helped Friends of the Earth staff negotiate some important improvements -- including mandates for a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gasses for biofuels produced in newly built factories. But this bill is still far too bad to support. Tell both of your senators that Sen. Bingaman's bill, as written, should not be the foundation for major energy legislation.
To find out more about why this legislation is bad, check out our fact sheet.
- Friends of the Earth
Take action here: http://www.FOE.org/biofuels_action"
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 24
That's a freakin' hoot! Spoken like a true, highly deluded, bubble-encased neocon! Yes, by all means, the "free market" must be left to rape, pillage, war, destroy, and gather wealth for the masters, without restraint! Fascism isn't so bad.
You could not be more incorrect. CORN: STRONG DEMAND, FEWER ACRES
Why is this? The answer is rather simple, we grow the same amount of corn but export less.
See the above article.
Most irrigated corn is produced out west and used as cattle feed, not Ethanol. While it is true that it takes a substantial amount of water to produce Ethanol, it is also true that this water is treated and recycled again and again through the process.
Pure disinformation.
Worldwide the corn market is flush with corn from Chinese and South American producers. Traditionally American farmers have raised subsidized crops that have been exported to third world countries with devastating effects on the local economies. For instance, it is cheaper for Mexico to import subsidized Iowa corn than it is to raise it locally. This costs Mexico jobs and Americans tax money.
What is not being said here is that American yellow corn, otherwise known as field corn is not edible by humans. I challenge anyone who actually believes that the corn used for Ethanol is edible to take a bite out of a ripe cob of field corn.
Trust me, you do not want to do this. Field corn is ground into animal feed or used to produce plastics and corn based oils -- but only a very tiny percentage of yellow corn is consumed to humans.
Uses of corn: 2006
Animal Feed 50%
Food/Seed/Industrial/Ethanol 30.1%
Export 19.1%
--Yes, we export less. Then other countries produce more, probably in even more ecologically harmful places, marginally poor land, in inefficient ways, and likely with more chemical fertilizers. When the best land is allready producing corn, you'll need to use more poorer land and use more chemicals. Even if the U.S didn't have more acreage, worldwide acreage would go up.
"Most irrigated corn is produced out west and used as cattle feed, not Ethanol. While it is true that it takes a substantial amount of water to produce Ethanol, it is also true that this water is treated and recycled again and again through the process."
--Even if you ignore the amount of water that must be used in the processing of ethanol, farming is water-intensive. This has become a major problem in many farming areas, where drought and higher water demand is draining aquifers. Some farmers need to dig wells in excess of 80 ft when only about 50 years ago a 30-40 ft well would have done.
"Worldwide the corn market is flush with corn from Chinese and South American producers. Traditionally American farmers have raised subsidized crops that have been exported to third world countries with devastating effects on the local economies. For instance, it is cheaper for Mexico to import subsidized Iowa corn than it is to raise it locally. This costs Mexico jobs and Americans tax money. "
--You're actually right on the mark with this one. This is why I think subsidizing farmers is a really bad idea, for both the U.S and foreign countries. There are also groups that have concluded that corn and other commodity crops (including soy, cotton, wheat, etc) is why processed sugary foods and drinks are so cheap and why they're the main component of the average American's caloric intake. But farming, especially corn farming which uses a lot of land, fertilizer, pesticides, water, etc, and we should keep it to a minimum if possible. Saying otherwise would be like suggesting we should have more, let's say, open pit mining.
Okay, I am completely confused. First you complain that poor people are starving because they cannot chew on the rock hard yellow corn that we used to export in great quantities which ruined their local market, then you spin right around and say that other countries should not grow the same rock hard unedible yellow corn because that is bad for the environment.
You need work on this more.
So now you don't care about the poor. I thought these people were starving because we are making Ethanol. Now you are saying that raising corn anywhere is a bad idea.
I am going to be rather harsh here. It seems that you only care about the poor when it makes for a good talking point.
I think we can both agree that America exporting corn to the third world is a bad thing --- so let's cut the crap about wringing our hands about people starving because of Ethanol.
Now that still leaves us with 19% of the corn crop to use for Ethanol. We can produce LESS corn and still produce MORE Ethanol if we do it at the expense of exports.
So what was your complaint again?
Folks --- let's stop making rhectorical arguments based on what SOUNDS significant. Instead, please pull out the sharp pencils and do the math.
I think we all can agree on that.
The simple fact is: corn ethanol is building the infrastructure and market that cellulous ethanol will thrive on.
"Okay, I am completely confused. First you complain that poor people are starving because they cannot chew on the rock hard yellow corn that we used to export in great quantities which ruined their local market, then you spin right around and say that other countries should not grow the same rock hard unedible yellow corn because that is bad for the environment."
--Farming is bad for the environment however you look at it, and should be minimized. Rising demand contributed by ethanol will raise world corn prices, and as farmers substitute other crops for corn, other crops. There's now way of getting around it, it's an economic fact. Rising crop prices make food more expensive, which is the hardest on the poor (even if you can't eat the yellow corn, it's the single largest source of calories in the American diet and is in almost every food source, if you don't believe me look it up, and also will raise meat, dairy, and poultry prices). Yes, it will help world corn producers, but it will have an equally (if not more) harmful effect on world food consumers. Just as subsidizing U.S farmers to the point where they can export so much that they can sell it for below production costs, artificially raising corn prices by subsidizing ethanol production.
There's a guy pulling hundreds of pounds of seaweed from one Lake Erie shore town's marina, every day. Considering the amount of coast line, there must be tens of thousands of pounds available, daily. No planting, feeding weeding, watering, fertilizing or pesticiding required. Keeping the water clean and driving boats across it makes it thrive. Talk about renewable.
SOMETHING needs to be figured out for that stuff.
The price of gasoline will curtail some use. In our family we try to minimize travel. We make a major effort to keep lists of things that we need or need to do and sort them by the direction we travel. If we are out of something, we don't dash out for it. We substitute or change the menu. Short term we can all do things to lower demand for gasoline and thus emissions as well.
Long term, our government needs to call together our visionaries. We need to look at how we use things currently, what we can do to influence people to make major changes in their lifestyles, what we need our elected representatives to support, and what we need to do to recall those who do not realize they work for us.
Once we identify the broad range of changes that are needed, we have to sell it as beneficial to the individual and a patriotic cause for our country and the Earth. Even small changes here and there will help, but we need to 'think big.'
your comment is my favorite because you step back and look at the big picture. I think we put the cart in front of the horse when we look at alternative fuels as a means to use more energy than we are using now for transportation. That is not the FIRST thing we should be doing. Step one should be requiring that our transportation become more efficient in the use of fuels or electricity. Reduce the SIZE of the problem first, then look for harder more complex solutions like the mix of fuels that require lots of infrastructure and planning.
We have pussyfooted around the task of getting Detroit to build more efficient vehicles. As a result they have clung to their SUV craze and lost market share to Toyota and Honda.
Again you are using both sides of the same arguement to make a point. On one hand you tell us corn syrup is making us fat and killing us with cholestrol from fattened cattle, then you spin around and tell us that using corn for something else is driving up foot prices.
Why not just pick one side of the argument and stay with it?
We export 19% of our corn crop --- that puts farmers abroad out of business. We can create MORE Ethanol with LESS acres by reducing our exports.
It is exports that is driving corn prices up for Americans, not Ethanol.
It is considered polite when attacking an entire industry -- to have the courtesy to provide some substantiation other than breathless condemnations from "Friends of the Earth". While we can all agree that these activists may have the best of intentions -- most of us who have actually encountered them, know them not to be the most rational informed of people.
For instance when you suggest rising corn prices is causing food prices to rise, you fail to account for the fact that commodities like corn are only a marginal cost to the consumer.
In point of fact, many foods that rely heavily on corn are dropping in price for instance: milk, which in the Northeast is the lowest in 20 years.
How can this be if Ethanol is "causing food prices to rise"?
See Corn prices and ethanol: Are the markets flaky - or working as they should?
Ethanol has been criticized as producing no net gain environmentally because of the alleged petroleum consumption which occurs during the production of the crops used in its distillation. It would seem this could be avoided by changing the fuel which is used in the machinery employed in production to somethig like eco-diesel and by going organic when it comes to fertilizer and pesticides. There would still be something of a hit on the environment if we start pulling acreage from the Conservation Reserve Program. However, in my mind, the net gain or loss because of that depends upon a lot of other factors such as whether trash farming techniques combined with cover crops are used. Presently, it makes sense to move either towards ethanol or the electric car.
While the distillation infrastructure for making alcohol out of cellulose will be different than that of corn based production, the delivery and blending infrastructure is likely to be very similar so it does make sense to move forward. We need, however, to make sure this is not a boondoggle aimed at firing porkbarrel out to the Red States which are already raking in more federal tax dollars than they contribute (strange how their citizens complain about the tax and spend liberals on the coasts!)
But neither corn based, other natural oil based, or cellulose based -- this is ultimately not going to be sufficient to overcome the problem. We cannot rely on the people to conserve, so we have to make sure that the homes and toys they use are as energy efficient as possible, and we are going to have to start decentralizing our society -- we can no longer afford the suburbs.
I, by the way, do not agree with the comment that all farming is environmentally destructive. The well tended and carefully crafted pastoral mode is not necessarily environmentally destructive and in many, if not all, ways is capable of sustaining a greater quantity and diversity of animal and plant life than say mature forests. Plus, we now know that one of the reasons the Great Plains were the Great Plains was because of the Native Americans occasionally deliberately setting it a fire to improve (get this) improve hunting and game populations.
Second, it's probably not relevant here but field corn is edible! I've eaten it and so have many millions of other people, some without knowing it.
Finally, the idea that corn subsidies is the cause of youthful obesity does not hold water! How about blending into that kids raised indoors, many hours in front of TV sets, lack of physical chores and effort required of kids, text editing instead of walking over to the friend's house? How about too much spare time in which to overeat? I think that corn subsidies comes out rather minor in this game! That does not justify corn subsidies. I don't have the information needed to make a fair evaluation of their value.
While I recognize that ethanol is not really "cost of energy" effective it does have the advantage of being able to put in a tank and run down the road while nuclear, for example, lacks that ability at this time. My first concern is that we divorce ourselves from our need for Mideast oil and that means using all other forms available including drilling in the ANWR or offshore, hydrogen, coal, nuclear, wind, tides, solar and any other which might be available! Accomplishing this will greatly add to the security of our nation and should have been started long ago!
Field corn per se is not edible, like I said, you would not want to bite into a cob of mature corn.. Yet you are right, with a great deal of processing there are edible products made from it, such corn fructose, or corn oils, however, only a very tiny percentage of the corn harvest goes into these products.
The cliche "Ethanol is made from food" is more of a sound bite than a truthful statement.
Before declaring that something is not the solution, it is best to describe the problem. If the problem you are trying to solve is to dramatically reduce greenhouse emissions and achieve energy independence through bio-fuels then you are correct - ethanol from corn is not the solution.
But no one has ever suggested that it is.
On the otherhand, if the problem is polluted air in metropolitan areas, an over-reliance on imported oil and the lack of an infra-structure to our eventual bio-fuels solution - then corn-based ethanol IS the solution.
The cost of corn is approximately $350 per acre which yields approximately 114 bushels which in turn would yield about 285 gallons of ethanol ie the corn alone would cost about 1.25 per gallon then you have to add fermenting, distilling and distribution to the cost so clearly the stuff would be quite expensive.
And to top it all off the energy cost of producing the ethanol is 75 percent of the energy produced. So when all is said and done 100,000 acres of good farm land would produce about 28,500,000 gallons of ethanol, but it would consume about 21,375,000 in the process so the effective yield would be 7,125,000 gallons for the rest of the economy. Wow! Right? Well remember that is a year's yield and we need about 219,000,000,000 gallons a year. So that 100,000 acres would be good for about .00325% of our requirements. Or to put it another way we would need 3,073,684,210 acres growing corn to meet our needs. There are only 2,368,000,000 acres in the whole country and I can guarantee you that the vast majority of those simply will not grow corn! Ethanol from corn (or any other crop grown solely for that purpose) will never be practical as a significant source of gasoline replacement.
It is being used, right here and right now to make biodiesel fuel for use in cars, trucks and any diesel engine.
Since it is made from something that is considered a waste product, it seems to be an ideal situation.
And it will remain renewable as long as the US remains addicted to fast food.
While I am glad that at least someone from the anti-Ethanol camp has seen fit to do at least a little research, but it would be great if you would look into what corn-based Ethanol is actually used for.
- 98% of Ethanol that is produced for fuel goes into a 10% blend with gasoline to satisfy the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
So how does clean air become a boondoggle?
Again glad to see the numbers, again dissappointed at your lack of research. To get the true economics of Ethanol you have to account for all the inputs, and all the outputs.
You missed something, the largest output other than Ethanol itself are co-products such as oils and distillers grains that are used for livestock feed.
Again, glad about the numbers, again little analysis.
While you are somewhat correct about the energy inputs and the outputs, you fail to describe the form of what is going in and what is coming out. Ethanol, even at a 10% blend, is replacing gasoline, a petroleum product. The primary sources of energy used to produce Ethanol are sunlight and natural gas.
If we ignore sunlight as an energy source, one could still say that the production of Ethanol is a process that transforms clean domestic natural gas into a form that the current automobile fleet can consume. It replaces rather dirty petroleum that is imported from unstable foreign sources.
So how is that a bad thing?
Similarly, if the Bush administration proposes the thinning of forest, or selective cutting of small acreages, everyone assumes it is a fiasco and some sort of wholesale clearcutting. In fact, if we stop forest fires from happening, we need to replace their natural effect with something else (either controlled burns or logging). I don't like the Bush administration either, but we need to take each policy by itself, rather than promoting it or opposing it on the basis of party loyalty.
The partisan bickering has us choosing things according to who it benefits politically, rather than whether it stands the test of science.
I am convinced that forest fires are normal and natural and if we stop them we have to take steps to correct the overgrowth some other way. I have yet to fully understand the ethanol issue, but I think it is being held hostage to politics. It's good that we talk about it; it's bad if we argue about it.