Source: Clean Fuels Development Coalition, July 17, 2007
The production of ethanol from corn has had minimal, if any, impact on consumer food prices while reducing fuel costs to consumers across the country, according to a new study released.
U.S. Senator E. Benjamin Nelson (D-NE), Chairman of the Ethanol Across America education campaign, hailed a new Issue Brief addressing these issues as a calm voice in a debate that has become confused due to misinformation.
"America's farmers are the most efficient and productive in the world," said Senator Nelson. "With this new demand, will come increased yields and a likely leveling of prices. Even a recent study by critics of the corn ethanol industry concedes that the level of production we are calling for in Congress should not appreciably affect corn prices. We are also working hard to diversify our biofuel production by utilizing new feedstocks that range from specialty energy crops to waste materials."
The Issue Brief, which is a compilation of existing data and research, makes the point that while corn prices have indeed nearly doubled in the past year, according to the U.S. Commerce Department's Consumer Price Index (CPI), food costs have increased just 2%, which is less than their historical average of 2.9% per year. And, during this time, petroleum prices increases have had an even greater impact due to higher costs of bringing products to market and food processing.
According to Douglas A. Durante, Director of the Ethanol Across America campaign, ethanol clearly is helping consumers at the gas pump. According to a survey this week by the Nebraska Ethanol Board, fuel prices in Nebraska are among the highest in the nation yet ethanol blends ranging from E10 to E85 are significantly less expensive than gasoline. "The petroleum industry can not have it both ways," said Durante. "They cannot continually blame high prices on tight fuel supplies, and then ignore the fact that ethanol adds to the fuel supply. After they take advantage of tax incentives they are making significant profits off of ethanol and as the Nebraska example illustrates, they can still offer ethanol at a lower cost."
"I think we are losing sight of the big picture and our pressing needs of producing our own energy, reducing greenhouse gases, creating jobs across the U.S., and revitalizing rural America. We welcome thoughtful questions regarding the use of our resources and we ask that the answers be given equal attention."
"While it is not a silver bullet, and never intended to be, through the ethanol program we are addressing our most fundamental problem, which is that we are sending billions of dollars to foreign oil interests with nothing to show for it other than increased dependence on others for our transportation fuels," said Durante. "Corn ethanol is one step towards energy independence and it is a step that benefits all consumers. As we move towards a wider range of non petroleum feedstocks these benefits will be even greater."
Read the Report: The Impact of Ethanol Production on Food, Feed, and Fuel
* * * * *
Author John Coonen is a Partner in The Coffee Group, established in 1987 as a non-partisan campaign and cause marketing firm in Chicago, Illinois; Greensboro, North Carolina; and Boulder, Colorado.
Photo credit: Sjlocke / iStockPhoto
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 9
OPEC funds our enemies. We fund OPEC. Funny how that works?
I think we NEED to WORK ON SOLUTIONS NOW, rather than wait another 30 years before getting off our collective asses to get anything accomplished. Addicts find reasons NOT to change. There will always be addicts.
Key is, there need to be more folks taking active steps to solve that problem, while making sure we're not creating a BIGGER ONE along the way. Thing is, the world is isn't zero-sum. No matter WHAT solutions we choose, there will be down-sides. That's where best judgment comes in.
Saying there aren't enough farm fields to supply the US needs for fuel is self-evident. That is why these fuels are considered supplemental. They won't REPLACE OIL entirely--yet.
We need to be careful NOT to get into an "either oil OR (insert alternative fuel here)" argument.
There aren't enough cows in the USA to feed every man, woman and child red meat for dinner every day of the week either. That's why we have poultry, pork, vegetables, and more...
The solution for fuel in the early 1900s through the 90's has been ONE standard diet of crude oil. The solution for the FUTURE of fuels to operate our vehicles will be a smorgasbord, which will keep the price of all fuels in check, and give us all more choice as well.
Biofuels:
- Ethanol (in all its forms)
- Biodiesel (replaces conventional diesel)
- Biomass (new technologies coming soon to create "gasoline" from wood, etc)
- Hydrogen (this will be the "killer app" when perfected)
Electricity
Natural Gas
Start supplementing, and we'll get there. I'd rather we not run from a fantastic start of a solution when the problem is so dangerous to ignore.
E85 is not "THE" answer. It is AN answer...which will quickly get folks thinking "hey, I don't need this OPEC oil after all. Time to tell them to take a leap."
When you look at our Nations oil fields, you'll see that the US began drilling back in the 1900's early on. Venezuela was next, and so forth. Russia too, and multiple places. The US uses the MOST crude than other nations. Back in the 40's the US ranked highest, along with Europe. Now, in 2007, there are three places around the world that do NOT use crude. And by crude, I mean if you buy saran wrap, Ziploc baggies, milk in jugs, Capri sun juice boxes, eggs in cartons, or GAS, you are consumers of crude. It is not just automobiles that use crude oil. Every product we use, our technology, our cell phones, computers, ipods, mp3 players, dishwashers, televisions, everything we have that makes our lives comfortable and technologically savvy uses crude to produce it. When people say they don't support the war, I ask them if they own a computer, if they own a cell phone, or purchase milk in plastic jugs and they usually say yes, therefore yes you DO support the war.
This war is certainly about helping the local Iraqi's form a better government sure. It is so they can prosper naturally, and prevent them from dealing with terrorist who would rather keep them enslaved in fear and poor. It is mostly about OIL though. Shake your head as much as you like, the truth be known, those oil fields in Iraq are the LAST of our dear departed dinosaur squeezings left that haven't been tapped to DEATH and peaked. (Hubberts Peak Theory)
We are currently in the depletion of finite resources for crude, and up until now, Iraq (Saddam) would not allow us entry or use of his oil fields. He was too ignorant to realize the cash cow he had at his feet, and even though his own oil minister gave him information, he wasn't savvy enough to understand. He wanted Kuwait, because he was BEGINNING to "get it". If we partner with Iraq, help the Iraqi's establish a new government, we will be able to work with that government and enjoy the pleasure of oil from Iraq for a good 50 years. Our own national reserve is not enough.
Alternative fuel sources NEED to be sought and developed, but currently we are not at the technological stage where we can get any cheaper than crude.
So yes, we WILL fight for our way of life, we will fight for resources that give us that way of life, and we will fight to maintain the upper echelon status of the world as a super-power because WE CAN, and we have a military who will voluntarily go to war to fight for our freedoms and LIBERTIES (having crude). If we do not establish a stronghold in Iraq side by side with the Iraqi people, terrorists WILL, and they will literally hold our Nation by the PURSE strings over the crude oil resources.
The only "alternative" fuel source we have right now that can be tapped ASAP and cost NOTHING to ANYONE is your own personal physical strength. Buy a bike or some fancy tennis shoes and bike or walk where you need to go. Most people are not going to put sweat equity into their own transportation, so we need CRUDE.