google
yahoo
bing

The Ethanol Quandary

February 12th, 2007 at 06:00am Geraldine

The New York Times had an article yesterday on the economic growth that ethanol is spurring across rural America, even in places like Grinnell. However, the article only grazed on the hidden costs and unintended consequences of this boom.

The rise in the use of ethanol has raised corn prices considerably. As this article from Bloomberg News mentions, corn “surpassed $4.20 a bushel Jan. 17, almost double its September price.” This has big consequences for American consumers. Hogs, chickens and cows rely on corn for their feed. This has led to higher prices for pork and beef but also for soybeans, which serve as an alternate feed for livestock, not to mention all sorts of other foods ranging from bread to pop.

However, the consequences have been far graver internationally. In Mexico, the rise of corn prices has led to a giant surge in the price of tortillas, which is the basic staple for most poor and working class Mexicans. The result has led to most poor Mexicans being forced choose between spending “up to a third of their income on tortillas — or eating less or switching to cheaper [and much less healthy] alternatives.” It is beginning to ripple into a political crisis with over 75,000 Mexicans holding a protest against the rising prices 10 days ago.

Ethanol isn’t even that good for the environment either. The Bloomberg article points to a June 2006 study by researchers at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis that found that there may be a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions as a result of growing more corn for ethanol. The article goes on to explain that this happens because “crops have to be irrigated, plowed with tractors, doused with nitrogen fertilizers and transported to ethanol distilleries, which power their machinery with natural gas or coal. Croplands are less effective than forests or grasslands in absorbing carbon dioxide, the heat-trapping gas blamed for global warming.”

The final issue is that the ethanol boom creates an unsustainable boom in corn prices. If a Democratic Congress raises CAFE standards as expected, Americans will be consuming less gasoline, not to mention gasoline alternatives such as ethanol. However, this is only small potatoes compared to the long term issue. The President announced an initiative several years ago to make hydrogen fuel cells a viable option by 2020. Even if that estimate is off by ten years, that will create a real long term issue. If, by then, growth in alternative fuels has continued at the current pace, much of our nation’s agricultural sector will be geared towards producing ethanol, biodiesel and other substitutes for gasoline. However, there is no need for a substitute for gasoline when you’ve found a substitute for the internal combustion engine. This creates the inherent potential for a farm crisis that would dwarf the one in the 1980s.

As the use of alternative fuels increases, these issues will become more pressing. The question is how to deal with the difficult balance between spurring economic growth in rural America and decreasing our dependence on Middle Eastern oil on one hand and keeping food prices low for consumers and protecting our economy and environment in the long term on the other. There is no easy answer but it is a question that should be and needs to be asked.

Related Posts

Entry Filed under: Miscellaneous, Agriculture

Related Searches: , , , ,

3 Comments Add your own

  • 1. JW  |  February 12th, 2007 at 10:46 am

    That’s one of the problems with Gov. Culver’s straight-shot economic development plan that focuses solely on ethanol production. We don’t have any assurance that ethanol is going to be the God send that he thinks it will be. And we are doing nothing else to develop our economy right now. Also, farmers are encouraged to plant acres that had been out of production and in conservation reserve in recent years. This feels a lot like the early 80s when corn prices were at a premium and everyone said, ‘make hay today, forget about the future.’ And then the bottom dropped out. If that happens in Iowa, we can lay it squarely at Culver’s feet. He needs to show more interest in a diversified and sustainable agriculture policy that includes ehtanol but doesn’t rely on it solely to spur economic growth.

    Ethanol production is like the emperor’s new clothes. No one has the guts to say, “these are naked promises.”

  • 2. Rich Marks  |  February 12th, 2007 at 11:13 am

    The ethanol issue is not well understood. Our politicians have jumped on it to get the farm vote. The Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) have jumped on it because they get fuel economy credits for dual fuel vehicles and it “looks” environmentally good, even if the owners use just burn gasoline.
    Most of the ethanol used today is not for E85 but for E10 which is standard gas with 10% ethanol to replace an additive the industry is getting away from to boost octane. We consume more than a 1 1/4 gallons of gas per man, women and child PER DAY in the USA today. That is a lot of gas and ethanol.
    But the big, big issue is why will anyone buy E85 for their cars? It has about 20-25% less energy content which means you need to fill up 25% more often and it currently is not selling for 25% less. It just does not make any sense (or cents).
    Corn based ethanol requires more energy to produce a gallon than it saves. Cellulosic ethanol must be developed for ethanol to have a chance. And what than happens to all these corn based ethanol plants and farmers? In Michigan, there is talk of farmers getting out of the dairy business and converting their farms to corn fields.
    We have all the wrong incentives for alternative fuels because gas is too cheap. Go to my Blog and read about the JEDI Fund. We must change the economics to cause changes in behaviors.
    My other big gripe is why should the OEM’s get credits for dual fuel vehicles that are not using ethanol? The Government wants it so they can look like they are complying with EPAct, but they aren’t. The OEM’s should get credits based on percentage of ethanol being used in their vehicles. And that is practially zero.

  • 3. Bob from ALAMN  |  February 13th, 2007 at 6:37 am

    When in the hell did Bloomberg News become the authoritative source on which alternative fuel is “green” or not?

    The American Lung Association of the Upper Midwest (includes Iowa) can set you straight on E85 and biodiesel at this site:

    www.CleanAirChoice.org

Leave a Comment

Required

Required, hidden

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Calendar

February 2007
M T W T F S S
« Jan   Mar »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728  

Most Recent Posts