One of the perqs of having feet in both the environmental and libertarian worlds is that the Antiplanner gets emails from people of a wide range of political persuasions. But I was still surprised to get an email from someone promising to “bring the good news about Ethanol and renewable energy for American energy independence.” In fact, as the Antiplanner’s faithful ally, Ken Green, points out in a recent paper, it is really hard to find any good news regarding ethanol in the United States.
When mixed with gasoline, Green reports, ethanol produces more nitrogen oxides (which, aside from being a constituent of photochemical smog, is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide) than gasoline alone. As a result, an article in a recent Science magazine reported that corn-based ethanol “nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years.”
Green also notes that meeting U.S. ethanol goals will require a diversion of more than 30 million acres of croplands to corn, which in turn will lead farmers to convert 27 million acres of other lands — conservation lands, forests, range, or pasture — to croplands. As a result, ethanol production will “lead to sharply higher food prices.” Green’s concluding recommendation for ethanol is that that people should “drink it, not drive it.”
If the law of karma were put into play now, the levitra india spirit of Christmas would burn as intensely bright for the mayor and his firefighters as it will be for the couple whose home they intentionally destroyed by their refusal to save it. Going for a small number of effortless and simple steps now will assist keep away from this promising trouble even as you get it as the reasonable costs cheapest viagra generic along with some extra free pills from our online pharmacy. Erection breakdown, Impotence or Erectile Dysfunction is treatable at any age, and awareness of this fact has been revealed by the talented and expert herbal researchers who have also provided sufficient amount of scientific explanations as well for supporting the same. best viagra price Kamagra-treated patients have shown eightieth improvement in terms of erection, penetration and cialis soft order sustaining the erection over a longer period of time. If ethanol is so bad, why is there still any support for it? The answer, says a writer for the San Francisco Chronicle, is that there is an “unholy alliance of environmentalists, agribusiness, biofuel corporations and politicians has been touting ethanol as the cure to all our environmental ills, when in fact it may be doing more harm than good.”
American farmers have been major recipients of federal subsidies since at least the 1930s. The Clinton administration’s commendable push for free trade and criticism of European food subsidies in the 1990s put ag subsidies at risk. Subsidies were originally justified based on the need to insulate farmers from business cycles. But the fact that the farmers who receive the most subsidies tend to be some of the wealthiest people in America tends to reduce the credibility of this argument.
Fortunately for corn farmers and Archer Daniels Midland (which produces 40 percent of the ethanol used for fuel), global warming and energy independence issues provide a cover for subsidies. So we waste billions of dollars a year on something that neither saves much energy nor reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
This is the fatal flaw in any scheme to use government to solve some problem. Those who are most powerful will gladly step up and be the recipients of government largesse, and once the programs are started, they are almost impossible to kill.
Although Green is part of the Corporate Misinformation Infrastructure, it is still possible to be right twice a day and convey useful information. One thing is clear: it was clear to just about everyone that corn-based ethanol was going to be problematic, and cellulosic ethanol wasn’t ready yet.*
How come corn states were able to implement such bad policy? A few influential politicians paid back their corporate benefactors: ADM, Monsanto, Cargill. Ding-dang pandering politicians!**
No.
Not on this issue.
The briefest Google search shows this to be bullsh*t.
Apparently this was something Randal felt he didn’t need to check, as the message comported with his ideology
DS
* I’m checking a Uni project paper as we speak, and it was even clear to a young 20-something that this wasn’t going to go well…
** A possible first: Randal and I kind of agree for the second time in a week!
Antiplanner,
Apologize for not getting around to posting on yesterday’s topic about my hometown’s rail corridors. There is much going on, but I had a number of items to attend to at the day job and joined a local activist group to attend an evening seminar conducted by a historian from our flood control district.
Yes, the current ethanol policy is a mess and has given ethanol a bad name. I would add that, with current technology, that ethanol from sugar cane is the best solution, cost wise and energy yield wise. However, since the U.S. (and much of the rest of the world) also has a punitive agricultural tariff policy that shuts out Brazilian sugar cane, we cannot reap the benefit of using this much better form of ethanol, thus ADM has stuck us with using corn for fuel rather than food for livestock and people.
In the long run, either fuel prices will have to continue to rise, or technology will have to improve, in order to obtain ethanol from cellulose materials. A number of strong candidates for growing ethanol have been identified, including switch grass and popular trees, both of which will probably yield 600 – 1500 gallons per acre verses 400 gallons per acre from corn.
But the real winner appears to be the agave plant, which can yield 2,000 gallons per acre. That article also notes that up to 50 percent of the land in Mexico (Mexico is 761,000 square miles total) could be used for cultivating agave. If true, that would mean some 243 million acres could be used for cultivating agave in Mexico alone.
Using these plants as energy crops would avoid using prime farm land for fuel crops. I am confident that our descendants will be able to extract substantial liquid fuels for transportation purposes, but we need to figure out a way to make the process of making cellulose ethanol more affordable.
“The briefest Google search shows this to be bullsh*t.”
Actually, I just did a brief Google search. All of the usual suspects here showed up. One was even missing: The American Lung Association. The ALA has sadly been one of the advocacy organizations whoring itself out for the corn ethanol lobby in MN.
Neal,
1) I think you meant “poplar” trees.
2) I agree with you about the effects of agricultural tariffs and sugar production, but am still concerned about the current process of sugar cane production and processing in places like Brazil, which usually entail net GHG increases.
3) I am also doubtful about the efficacy of “advanced” biofuels policies in the U.S. I just find it very hard to believe that the same government/rent-seeker collaboration that gave us corn ethanol subsidies and mandates would produce anything different if the name of the rose were “poplar” or “agave”, for example.
Lastly, I encourage everyone here to take a look at the YouTube video clips from Paul Collier’s recent presentation at the Aspen Ideas festival. Amid a discussion of recent food price increases, he manages to touch on U.S. biofuels policy, along with Europe’s “folly”.
MJ,
The Google return for ethanol + environmentalists belies what you wrote above. Saying something doesn’t make it true, as anyone can check for themselves. The fact that some don’t check makes it convenient for shills and salesmen.
Perhaps you were simply gullible and credulous, and wanted badly to believe the op-ed columnist who was loosey-goosey with the facts, omitted key context and conflated a number of things together. Seems to be a common rhetorical tactic for some ideological groups.
HTH.
DS
This really shows that people are driving too much and need to be charged for evry mile that they drive.
Pingback: » The Antiplanner
IIRC, at one point years ago the American Lung Association was opposed to ethanol because of the health issues NO2 caused. I’m not sure why they changed their stance.
Ethanol combustion results in less NOx than petroleum fuels, but not much. The EROEI deficit in corn ethanol likely makes up for the savings and could make it worse in a poorly-maintained engine.
Again, there is an EROEI deficit for corn ethanol; there is disagreement whether there is a deficit for cellulosic ethanol.
DS
Dan,
That’s not the search term I used. I typed in ethanol + subsidies. No need for an angry ad hominem.