by Igor Derysh
Shocking new studies released by the nation's top university researchers show that ethanol is having the polar-opposite effect on global warming and the economy than was intended.
Ever since global climate change made its way into the spotlight following the release of Al Gore's documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” the number one environmental issue on everyone's mind has been alternative fuels. The proposed solution was to curb our dependency on high carbon emitting oil by increasing the use of ethanol biofuels in vehicles. How could Al Gore and thousands of scientists have gotten it so wrong?
Every political action has unintended consequences but in the case of ethanol, these consequences are dire. In a panic over the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that petroleum produces and the rising cost thereof, scientists and politicians alike began to push for increased use of ethanol fuels, which produce 20% less emissions in cars. While this is true, not taken into account were all of the effects that increased corn ethanol production would have.
Having rushed into the ethanol craze headfirst, we failed to realize that production of corn ethanol fuel actually increases greenhouse gas emissions in incredible amounts. According to Science Magazine, in order to increase production of corn for ethanol biofuel, farmers require more land to plant on. This supply and demand has led to countless acres of woodlands to be destroyed to create more land for more output. Not to mention that a recent Science Daily article stated that corn ethanol is twice as expensive as petroleum, meaning that Americans are not going to be seeing any relief at the pump from this gradual change to biofuels.
Of the many problems with corn ethanol, the conversion of forestry to corn farms is the biggest one. Due to the amount of area required, these woodlands are being burned in obscene amounts, resulting in the massive amount of emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. As if that was not bad enough, the tree and plants being destroyed are actually our greatest resource in curbing the effects of global climate change as they absorb the carbon dioxide that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere.
According to Time magazine, 750,000 acres of forestry were destroyed in the last six-months of 2007 to create land for the production of corn. 750,000 acres is roughly the size of Rhode Island.
A report from Wetlands International shows Indonesia has actually bulldozed so much of its wilderness that it has risen from twenty-first to third among top carbon emitting countries.
Scientists estimate that deforestation accounts for 20% of all greenhouse gas emissions, so it becomes pretty obvious that to cut down forestry to create a more sustainable environment is preposterous. In fact, according to a recent Princeton University study, production of corn ethanol will actually increase greenhouse gas emissions by 93% over the next 30 years, rendering the 20% cut in emissions from petroleum to ethanol meaningless.
Another side effect of increased ethanol production is decreased food production. Thanks to rising demand and large government subsidies, farmers are more inclined to grow corn for ethanol fuel than for food. This leads to higher food prices in a volatile economy. The University of Iowa estimates that the average food bill increased by $50 in the last six months of 2007.
Another concern is the food situation around the world. Rising food needs have been declared a global emergency by the United Nations, who has asked for $500 million in additional funding for its food program. According to time magazine, the amount of corn used for to fill up an ethanol fueled SUV can feed one person for an entire year.
These worries have not resonated in Washington as politicians on both sides of the aisle continue to push for increased ethanol production. President George W. Bush's energy legislation calls for refineries to add 36 billion gallons of fuel ethanol to gasoline by 2022, six-times as much as is used now.
During the presidential campaign, Senator Hillary Clinton unveiled her economic plan in Iowa, the biofuel mecca of the United States. The Clinton energy plan would require all gas stations to offer ethanol by 2017 and mandates that refineries add 60 billion gallons to gasoline by 2030.
Even if some elected officials would like to put on the brakes on the ethanol craze, it will be really hard to convince others to do the same. Biofuels has become an enormous economic commodity. In fact, according to Time magazine, “Big Bio” is expected to be worth $100 billion by 2010. Lobbyists for large industries such as this one have and will always continue to play an enormous part on the policies of Washington.
No presidential candidate has come out against the use of corn ethanol in this campaign because of Iowa's importance in the race. Republican presidential nominee, Senator John McCain, admonished the use of corn ethanol during his campaign in 2000 and paid the price. No one has made the same mistake since. Iowa, the first caucus state of the campaign, brings in roughly $1.8 billion a year in income from corn ethanol and 53,000 Iowa jobs are dependent upon it.
Corn ethanol is not the only problematic biofuel, however. Production of biofuels from switch grass and wood also consume more energy than they produce. Researchers have concluded that switching to these fuels would increase greenhouse gas emissions by 50%. The only ethanol fuel that is efficient enough to produce more energy than it consumes is sugar ethanol.
Corn ethanol would not even go very far in reducing our dependency on foreign oil. According to the Cato Institute, if we used all of the corn that is produced in the United States for ethanol and not for food, gasoline consumption would only drop by about 12%. This would not even cut our dependency on Middle Eastern oil, which amounts to 14% of our total consumption.
Tim Searchinger, a research scholar and lead author of the Princeton University study of the effects of ethanol, suggests that America did not consider every aspect of ethanol consumption before creating legislation to increase it.
“We should be focusing on our use of biofuels from waste products,” Searchinger said in an interview with the Desert Sun.
“And you have to be careful how much you require. Use the right biofuels, but don't require too much too fast. Right now, we're making almost exclusively that wrong biofuels.”
|
