 |
By Laurel Hopwood
Is corn ethanol a panacea for the nation's energy security?
 When I first heard about corn ethanol, I thought it sounded wonderful.
Then I read the March 28, 2004 front page story in the Plain Dealer
called "Ethanol Subsidies Fuel Heated Debates". Dan Becker,
director of Sierra Club's energy program was quoted as saying "Ethanol,
especially from corn, is not a good idea."
I contacted Bob Warrick, who was serving as Agriculture Chair
for the national Sierra Club, to find out why it's not a good idea.
I learned that corn is one of the planet's most energy intensive
crops. Industrial corn production requires huge quantities of synthetic
nitrogen fertilizers, which is derived primarily from natural gas.
Corn production is also one the largest user of petroleum based
pesticides like atrazine, a known endocrine disrupter. Substantial
amounts of these chemicals drift from the target areas to contaminate
adjoining terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems causing irreversible
harm to wildlife.
Warrick further explained that corn is an crop that results in
high rates of soil erosion and depletion of ground water. The ethanol
boom has sent water demands skyrocketing, putting pressure on already
suffering sources like the Ogallala aquifer.
In U.S. corn production, soil erodes about 20 times faster than
soil can be reformed. As soil quality diminishes, production moves
to marginal land which increases the susceptibility of the corn
crop to climate fluctuations, particularly droughts.
I had a feeling that David Pimental, a leading Cornell University
agricultural expert, had something to say. Indeed, he did. According
to Pimental, "Ethanol production is wasteful of fossil energy
resources and does not increase energy security. This is because
considerably more energy, much of it high grade fossil fuels, is
required to produce ethanol than is available in the ethanol output."
Let's look at money, a common concern among the American people.
Pimental wrote that increasing ethanol production would further
inflate corn prices. "In addition to paying tax dollars for
ethanol subsidies, consumers would be paying significantly higher
food prices in the marketplace."
Here's my favorite: Ethanol raises profound ethical questions
to produce a crop that can be used for food, but instead is used
to make fuel especially in a world where many people go hungry.
Pimental calculated that powering the average U.S. automobile
for one year on ethanol would require the same space needed to
grow a year's supply of food for seven people. He further calculated
the math regarding the amount of corn needed to power an automobile "If
all the automobiles in the United States were fueled with 100%
ethanol, a total of about 97% of U.S. land area would be needed
to grow the corn feedstock. Corn would cover nearly the total land
area of the United States."
Shall we feed the investors of the ethanol industry, like Archer
Daniels Midland, or feed the American people? Corn is one the most
highly subsidized crops in the U.S. Our tax payer money is being
paid to subsidize the ethanol production industry. It's good for
the investors of huge agribusiness, but not good for the American
people.
George Bush claims that increasing ethanol production would reduce
America's dependence on foreign oil in an environmentally sound
manner. University of California civil and environmental engineering
professor Tad Patzek agrees with Pimental and refutes Bush's claim. "The
ethanol production process consumes more fossil fuel energy than
ethanol's actual calorific value."
Patzek recommends more efficient measures to reduce energy consumption,
for example "doubling the mileage of the U.S. car fleet with
existing technologies, such as hybrid cars and clean diesel cars.
This would cut gasoline consumption by 50 percent and crude oil
consumption by 20 percent."
What is needed is a huge national effort to promote conservation
- vehicles with higher fuel efficiencies, building walkable communities,
utilization of fluorescent lighting, constructing energy efficient
buildings, moving towards renewable solar, wind, geothermal energies,
etc. If the government is going to subsidize anything, it should
be conservation efforts.
|
|
