Undoing America's ethanol mistake
Print- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
6 Comments
- •
Favorite- •
-
Report error
-
Thank you for your submission.Error report or correction
- Close
-
- •
Nobel-Prize winning economist Milton Friedman once said, “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” When Congress passed legislation to greatly expand America’s commitment to biofuels, it intended to create energy independence and protect the environment. But the results have been quite different. New evidence suggests ethanol is causing great harm to the environment. In recent weeks, the correlation between government biofuel mandates and rapidly rising food prices has become undeniable. At a time when the U.S. economy is facing recession, Congress needs to reform its “food-to-fuel” policies and look at alternatives to strengthen energy security.
On Dec. 19, 2007, President Bush signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act. This legislation had several positive features, including higher fuel standards for cars and greater investment in renewable energies, such as solar power. But the bill required a huge spike in the biofuel production requirement from 7.5 billion in 2012 to 36 billion gallons in 2022. Nearly all our domestic corn and grain supply is needed to meet this mandate, robbing the world of one of its most important sources of food. Since February 2006, the price of corn, wheat, and soybean has increased by more than 240 percent. Rising food prices are hitting the pockets of lower-income Americans and people who live on fixed incomes.
While the blame for higher costs shouldn’t rest exclusively with biofuels – drought and rising oil costs are contributing factors – the expansion of biofuels has been a major source of the problem. For the first time in 30 years, food riots are breaking out in many parts of the globe, including major countries such as Mexico, Pakistan, and Indonesia. The fact that America’s energy policies are creating global instability should concern the leaders of both political parties.
Restraining the dangerous effects of artificially inflated demand for ethanol should be an issue that unites both conservatives and progressives. As a recent Time cover story pointed out, biofuel mandates increase greenhouse gasses and create incentives for global deforestation. In the Amazon basin, huge swaths of forest are being cleared to meet the growing hunger for biofuels. In addition, relief organizations are facing gaping shortfalls as the cost of food outpaces their ability to provide aid for the 800 million people who lack food security.
The recent food crisis does not mean we should entirely abandon biofuels. The best way to lower energy prices and reduce our dependence on foreign oil is to accelerate production of all forms of domestic energy. Expanding biofuels is counterproductive. We should be tapping into a broad portfolio of energy options, including clean coal, nuclear power, and wave energy. The key is increasing energy supply. By taking these measures, we can enable biofuels to be part of the energy solution.
Congress must take action. I am introducing legislation that will freeze the biofuel mandate at current levels, instead of steadily increasing it through 2022. This is a commonsense measure that will reduce pressure on global food prices and restore balance to America’s energy policy.
As the Senate debates this issue, we must remain focused on the facts. At one point, expanding biofuels made sense for America’s energy security. But the recent surge in food prices has forced us to adapt. The global demand for energy and food is expected to rise about 50 percent in the next 20 years, and the United States is well-positioned to be a leader in both areas. But that will require a careful, finely-tuned approach to America’s farm products. By freezing the biofuel mandate at current levels, we will go a long way to achieving that goal.
U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison is the chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee.
-
Print
- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
6 Comments
- •
- Favorite
- •
-
Report error
-
Thank you for your submission.Error report or correction
- Close
-
- •
Comments
Oh Kenneth I fear the Sierra Club gettin started in too many things. They have done things in the Western States that have created many problems. Go to DC, you will see one of the nicer looking office buildings, it belongs to the Sierra Club. Pretty good for a non profit. I talked to a guy who use to belong to it. He was in DC on a trip one year with his son so he decided to go by to see what the club had at the main office. He saw the building and never gave them another penney. Thought the money was going for OTHER environmental things.
They can help on things. But from what I read and heard of what they did in the west, I would sleep with one eye open.
May 4, 2008 at 6:26 p.m.It can easily wind up your land is not exactly your land anymore.
Kenneth, back on topic, you said, "The mash is then dried, nutrients added, and it goes right back into the food chain."
The corn mash left after extraction of the ethanol does go back into the livestock food system. Couldn't find statistics on whether or how much volume loss there might be but it does have to have "some nutrients added" after the distillation process to be viable livestock food. Of course I don't know of many farmers who don't supplement grain feeds with some sort of supplements anyway.
The thing is though, ya can't make Post Toasties outta what's left over and our Jolly Green Giant buddy won't can what's left for HEB's shelves. And this doesn't even begin to touch on the fact that such a major sector of our agribusiness is becoming more and more devoted to harvesting more and more profitable corn from ever increasing acreages. That means less wheat, less oats, less soybeans, less milo, less rice and, in some cases where irrigation is possible, even less cotton. And anyone in any market will be quick to tell you that the less there is of something the more its value increases.
One would tend to think then that as this glut of corn saturates the market its value would decrease but we can't ignore the other side of the supply/demand equation. The demand for corn has skyrocketed in the face of biofuels so much so fast that even the increased supply can't depress the price. (Well after all, consider our unquenchable thirst for oil.) Sadly though, most livestock, like us requires a balanced and mixed diet. They won't do well on a one-course diet of corn - or left over corn mash. It's perhaps more round about than Ms. Hutchinson has explained but the push for corn-for-fuel *is* a large factor driving up the cost of food.
Alternative, non-food sources of biofuels should be developed and utilized to produce energy in conjunction with the other sources you and she already mentioned; wind, solar and sea sources are practically untapped and nuclear is seriously underutilized considering the technologies and safety factors we've developed recently.
Still, it'll be years before we can reasonably have the infrastrutcture in place to utilize alternatives for sources of transportation energy. But if we begin today to transform or replace so many of the dirty electrical generation sites with clean nuclear plants, wind turbine farms and sea wave generators we can make serious in-roads into the damage we're doing to our environment in the *near* future. (And for the record, I'm not convinced man is causing or has singularly caused global warming. I'm open to the idea but still skeptical. I'm much more concerned with getting the OPEC monkey off our back.) One thing I hate to see though is for the US to pours hundreds of billions of dollars, time and energy into developing the *wrong* alternative solutions then have to eat our losses and start over again. I don't think corn - or any food source - for fuel is the best alternative.
Ms. Hutchison is right. Get us off the corn ethanol bandwagon and on to something more viable, more productive and less perilous to the world's stomach.
We may not have to go to Grandma's for Thanksgiving after all, but we gotta eat.
Ernie
May 4, 2008 at 5:13 p.m.What those that want so much to keep religion out of the government need to look at keeping the religion of environmentaism out of the government. It is getting out of control there.
May 4, 2008 at 3:18 p.m.Senator Hutchinson's admission that biofuels, specifically ethanol production from corn are helping to increase, not decrease the destruction of the environment and also drive up the cost of food around the world is encouraging. We are already witnessing critical starvation problems in many populations. Somehow, I always wondered what God thought of our idea of putting food he gave us for human sustenance into our gas tanks. Urgent action is needed now on this issue, and to take the position that a "freeze" at the current level of ethanol production (and therefore demand for corn) would help solve the problem defies logic, unless one is trying to both appease the ethanol industry and face environmental damage and hunger issues at the same time. There can be no compromise. My suspicion is that God expects us to do more than "freeze" the levels of production of ethanol, and would rather see us scrap it altogether. Especially when we have other rapidly developing technologies for powering vehicles ready to go.
May 3, 2008 at 10:12 p.m.The house is burning down and a garden hose will not do. The current food and environmental crises call for decisive action, not compromise. The Congress should act to help bring food prices down now, and put the food into the bellies of starving children instead of our gas tanks.