Moonshine Madness
Political expediency in Illinois says you support farmers by supporting corn-to-ethanol proposals wherever they crop-up. Advocates argue that growing corn for ethanol production creates jobs in Illinois, brings higher farm income, liquid fuel energy independence, and cleaner air. According to the President Bush, ethanol is the magical elixir that will potentially solve every economic, environmental and foreign policy problem we have.
Just north of my home is the southern border of the Great Corn Desert. Within it sits the chemical giant, Archer Daniel Midlands, one of the largest agricultural processors in the world. It has offices and facilities on six continents and in 60 countries and supplies a large proportion of the ethanol used as additives for America’sgasoline stocks.
The company’s ethanol competition is increasing. There are currently 109 ethanol refineries operating in the United States, with capacity to produce over 5.2 billion gallons per year. Seven other plants are expanding and 70 new refineries are being constructed to produce over 5.8 billion gallons a year – all with financial subsidies from government. New ethanol plants are being proposed all over the state and you can be sure legislators will line up to pledge their support, however misguided.
Like it or not, there are actually certain limits to growth. US farmers are now using about 8.6 million acres of farmland to grow corn for ethanol. The percentage devoted to ethanol has already grown from 3% five years ago to 20% today. President Bush, always the math wiz and strategic planner, has set a target of 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels by 2017. To achieve that with corn would require the entire U.S. corn harvest, unless yields miraculously increased and space aliens added more sustainable farm land to North America.
Say good bye to corn flakes, tortillas, and mama’s corn bread!
In the not too distant future, will you even be able to afford a corn dog at the DuQuoin State Fair? What will happen to food prices? In Mexico, the price of corn tortillas - the nutrition foundation of its poorest citizens - has recently risen about 30%, leading to consumer protests and government price controls. America’s cattle, poultry and hog farmers are already struggling to adjust to higher feed corn prices. What will happen when more corn is diverted to fuel production? At the grocery check-out counter, consumers can expect to be paying more for all corn and corn-fed meat products.
Some ethanol proponents say switching to ethanol should at least reduce our dependence on unstable foreign oil supplies, right? Hardly. If all the corn produced in America last year were dedicated to ethanol production, U.S. gasoline consumption would drop by only 12 percent.
Is it worth all this trauma to forego development of more efficient automobiles or curtailment of Saturday teen night cruising around the town square? An article in the January 2007 issue of Scientific American concludes that
"Relying on ethanol from corn is an unsustainable strategy: agriculture will never be able to supply nearly enough crop, converting it does not combat global warming, and socially it can be seen as taking food off people's plates.”
I can only conclude that finding a replacement liquid fuel for transportation use without implementing significant energy conservation measures in both the production and demand side of energy use is not possible. Are we waiting for a miracle or has moonshine madness overtaken our elected officials?
Elected officials that succumb to the political expediency of further subsidizing corn-to-ethanol ventures are delaying other smart investments in energy conservation and renewable energy production that can form the basis of a stable and sustainable future for Illinois citizens.
4 comments:
I learned something. Thanks.
But I have a quick question. Are there limits on the amount of farm land that can be used for ethanol that are built into the law? Is this something that gets debated in the legislature when they expand ethanol incentives?
There's no doubt that ethanol isn't the final answer to our problems. I wonder if it might have some use in the short term to help offset our use of oil until we find other alternatives?
Any solution must involve improving fuel efficiencey standards in cars and hopefully that will happen once we get a new President.
One additional problem you didn't mention regarding ethanol is the massive amounts of water the plants use. New ethanol plants are driving the push to build a new dam in the Springield area that we don't really need. No one has answered the question of where we'll get the water to produce so much ethanol.
Anonymous,
It is rather difficult to tell a farmer what s/he can or cannot plant. Farmers are typically given incentives to "set aside" land for uses such as wildlife and conservation, not for alternative or common crops. The marketplace is supposed to use its invisible hand. I don't know how well the issue has yet entered the debate, but may in the future when consumer interests compete with farmer's interests.
Will,
I couldn't cover all the issues related to ethanol production in one posting. I'll return to the uissue later to talk about using alternative crop options that might provide a way to make ethanol a larger piece of the puzzle.
Also, the drawdown of aquifers and rivers is a MAJOR issue in the future proliferation of ethanol plants. I'll write more about how it is affecting Illinois communities in a subsequent post.
I wonder if it might have some use in the short term to help offset our use of oil until we find other alternatives?
Ethanol doesn't really offset energy consumption; it just abstracts it. Ethanol production consumes more energy than it produces. The lower price of ethanol vs. oil hides this waste due to government subsidies for nearly every step in the ethanol production process, from the petrochemical fertilizers high-yield corn fields require, to the lower fuel efficiency most vehicles get with ethanol.
Post a Comment