ETHANOL: Boondoggle for Agribusiness? Yah, sure you betcha....
Published by BushGreenwatch
..............................
May 26, 2005
Experts Reject Bush Rationale for Corn-Based Ethanol
In a speech at a biodiesel refinery in Virginia last week, President Bush touted the economic and environmental benefits of corn-based ethanol. Scientific evidence, however, contradicts the Administration's claims that increasing ethanol production would reduce America's dependence on foreign oil in an environmentally sound manner.
"The ethanol production process consumes more fossil fuel energy than ethanol's actual calorific value," says University of California civil and environmental engineering professor Tad Patzek, who spent two years studying the environmental impacts of ethanol.
"The energy cost of restoring the environmental damage caused by corn-based ethanol production takes seven times more energy than the amount of energy obtained from the ethanol itself," Patzek told BushGreenwatch.
Increasing production from 5 billion to as much as 8 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol per year, as the Bush energy bill calls for, "will further deplete fossil fuels, and damage soil, water, and air with no benefit to the country, other than the few recipients of big government subsidies" said Patzek.
Frank O'Donnell, President of Clean Air Watch, supports Patzek's conclusion: "Increasing ethanol production has been oversold as a pro-environmental policy," O'Donnell told BushGreenwatch, pointing out that "ethanol, particularly when used in the summer, can create high levels of smog and fine particle soot."
A California Air Resources Board report states that the federal government's move to increase the amount of ethanol in gasoline will add 70 tons of smog per day to the air in summer -- the equivalent of adding two million cars to the road. [1]
Given the environmental risks associated with ethanol production and its lack of impact in creating an energy independent America, O'Donnell asserts that, "the driving force behind the Administration's desire to boost corn-based ethanol is to help the farm industry."
The U.S. Department of Agriculture allocated $37 billion --repeat, $37 billion -- in corn subsidies from 1995 through 2003. [2]
O'Donnell adds that alternative ethanol types, derived from different forms of biomass including agricultural waste, are worth looking into. But in its effort to prop up corn prices, the Bush Administration prefers to invest the lion's share of research and development funding for renewable energy toward corn-based ethanol. In his speech, President Bush proposed $84 million for ongoing research on biofuel and ethanol.
Patzek warns against this allocation, saying that an increase in corn-based ethanol use will actually "make us more dependent on foreign oil and natural gas, and cause us to divert our attention from the more important improvements in energy efficiency for our economy."
In contrast, Brazil, a country hit hard by the sudden surge in oil prices in 1979, has been very successful in reducing its dependence on foreign oil. By increasing production of sugar-based ethanol and flex-fuel cars designed to use a combination of ethanol and gasoline, Brazil's oil imports have dropped from 85 percent of its energy consumption in 1978 to 10 percent in 2002. [3]
Many have suggested that the U.S. follow Brazil's model. Brazilian government officials have recommended that the U.S. increase imports of Brazilian sugar-based ethanol, and export its corn for human consumption. [4]
Professor Patzek notes, however, that while "producing sugar-based ethanol is significantly more efficient than corn-based ethanol, we still have to live with the gradual depletion of soil and large-scale water contamination."
Patzek recommends more efficient measures to reduce energy consumption, for example "doubling the mileage of the U.S. car fleet with existing technologies (hybrid cars, clean diesel cars). This would cut gasoline consumption by 50 percent and crude oil consumption by 20 percent."
###
SOURCES:
[1] "Dirty Prices," LA Weekly, Apr. 15, 2005.
[2] "Bush's pick to head the USDA is a big ethanol booster," Grist Magazine, Dec. 9, 2004.
[3] "Brazil's alternative-fuel strategy is a model for U.S.," The Sun Herald, Apr. 3, 2005.
[4]Ibid.
BushGreenwatch | 1320 18th Street NW 5th Floor
Washington, DC 20036 | (202) 463-6670
Web site comments: info@bushgreenwatch.org |
