I am, on the one hand, glad that everyone seems to be finally understanding the implications of diverting such a large amount of our corn crop into ethanol production. The New York Times has a story about fertilizer shortages and the interconnected effect of that combined with the fact that money people in developing countries are eating beef (which needs a LOT of grain to be raised) and the use of corn for ethanol production.
The Washington Post has a story mainly concerned with the effect of diverting so much of our corn production to ethanol. The effects of this policy have been wonderful for the farmer. They have never seen such sustained prices for their crops. It is not so hot for the end user, however. It has raised prices on other grains (as farmers plant corn instead of wheat, soybeans, etc.), all types of meat (all of them need a great deal of grain to be produced) and as a result helped cause riots around the world as food prices rise as a result of the buffer our former overflow of grain being taken away.
Of course, mandating that ethanol production hit 15 billion gallons/year by 2015 was one of the more popular parts of the energy bill signed earlier this year. It was particularly popular with people such as Sen. Chuck Grassley(R-IA) and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), in many subjects unlikely partners, but not in this. Anything that helps raise corn prices is in their constituents interest.
What is amazing is that ethanol has, at best, a net neutral effect, especially at low levels like the 10% mix that some stations use right now for standard production gasoline. Just check the GasBuddy forums on any of their local sites. These people know their MPG. They also know that their MPG drops when using an ethanol blend (it isn't as volatile as regular gas and therefore doesn't provide the same power per gallon.) Some actually claim this dip alone results in them burning more regular gasoline per mile when running an ethanol blend than when they run straight gas! (BTW, many small engines are incompatible with ethanol blends according to these boards, they will run fine for the season, but as they sit during the off-season, they corrode. Anecdotal, but I'm not taking a chance.)
Here's a snippet from the Washington Post article:
Although ethanol was once promoted as a way to slow climate change, a study published in Science magazine Feb. 29 concluded that greenhouse-gas emissions from corn and even cellulosic ethanol "exceed or match those from fossil fuels and therefore produce no greenhouse benefits." By encouraging an expansion of acreage, the study added, the use of U.S. cropland for ethanol could make climate conditions dramatically worse. And the runoff from increased use of fertilizers on expanded acreage would compound damage to waterways all the way to the Gulf of Mexico.
Interesting huh? Here are some more links:
AP: Food scientists say stop biofuels to fight world hunger
Reuters:Bush backs ethanol despite concern about food costs
So, read the articles. Draw your own conclusions. Then do what you think best. Me? I'll be avoiding ethanol, at least until they start using switchgrass to produce it instead of corn. Agree or Disagree, your comments are welcome.
Pat McGovern Sphere: Related Content
