Presumably, at least - the stupidity of the push and subsidies for ethanol:
---
Why are we doing something so maliciously stupid?
By Jack Kelly
World food prices have risen 83 percent in the last three years, the World
Bank says. Food riots could endanger stability of governments in 33
countries, estimated the World Bank's president, Robert Zoellick.
This burgeoning global catastrophe has many causes. Rising populations and
incomes in China and India have increased demand for food. A drought in
Australia has sent the price of wheat soaring. Our weak dollar has caused
nations which hold lots of them to buy up commodities, which hold their value.
But the two biggest culprits, says the International Food Policy Research
Institute, are soaring prices of oil and petroleum based fertilizer, which
increase the cost of growing and transporting food, and biofuels. The IFPR
says biofuels are responsible for a quarter to a third of the rise in food
prices.
That proportion soon will increase. Congress has ordered a 500 percent
increase in biofuels by 2022. The European Union has mandated that 5.75
percent of all gasoline and diesel fuel must come from biofuels by 2010.
It is economically, environmentally, and morally insane to use food for
fuel. Corn-based ethanol, the principal U.S. biofuel, is the worst
offender. Even with oil priced at more than $110 a barrel, it takes a 51
cent a gallon subsidy to make corn ethanol competitive with gasoline. And
even with the subsidy, gasoline mixed with ethanol costs drivers 20 to 30
cents a gallon more than regular gasoline, the American Automobile
Association said, because ethanol has one third less energy per gallon than
regular gas.
It takes 29 percent more fossil energy to produce corn ethanol than the
ethanol will provide, according to a 2005 study conducted principally by
Cornell University ecologist David Pimentel.
Because of its tendency to absorb water, ethanol cannot be transported by
metal pipeline, as most gasoline and diesel fuel is.
Ethanol increases two of the most dangerous air pollutants — volatile
organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) by four to seven percent
over gasoline, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Together,
VOC and NOx cause thousands of premature deaths each year, the EPA said.
I'm skeptical about man-made global warming. But if it's a problem, ethanol
production exacerbates it. NOx is a greenhouse gas with 296 times the
warming potential of carbon dioxide. A study led by Nobel laureate Paul
Crutzon estimates that NOx emissions from corn production cause up to 50
percent more warming than the substitution of ethanol for gasoline avoids.
The problem worsens if land is cleared for planting of fuel crops, because
nothing soaks up carbon dioxide like trees. Deforestation isn't a concern
in the U.S., but it's a major problem in Brazil and Indonesia.
Let's sum up. Corn-based ethanol costs much more than petroleum does, even
at present prices. About as much energy is used in its production as it
provides. It harms the environment. Diverting food crops to ethanol sends
food prices soaring. Why are we doing something so maliciously stupid?
Politics, of course. Corn is grown in Iowa. Iowa is a swing state, and
holds the nation's first presidential nominating contest.
The favors our politicians do for the corn ethanol producers goes beyond
subsidies and mandates. Corn-based ethanol is a terrible idea, but there is
something to be said for ethanol made from sugar cane. Sugar ethanol
provides eight times the energy of the fossil fuel required to make it, and
emits fewer greenhouse gases than corn ethanol. And though sugar is a food,
it isn't a staple, so sugar ethanol doesn't exert the upward pressure on
food prices that corn ethanol does. Yet we've slapped a 54 cent a gallon
tariff on sugar ethanol imports from Brazil, the world's largest producer.
We should end all subsidies and mandates for corn ethanol production. If
ethanol can't compete with oil when oil is $110 a barrel, it shouldn't be
part of our energy mix. And we should repeal the tariff on sugar ethanol.
Last week Sen. John McCain and 23 other GOP senators asked the EPA to
loosen congressional ethanol mandates. Sen. Barack Obama indicated he's
rethinking his position.
"My top priority is making sure people get enough to eat," Sen. Obama said
Sunday. "If it turns out we need to make changes in our ethanol policy to
help people get something to eat, that has got to be the step we take."
--
Gary Collard
SABR-L Moderator
gmcoll...@yahoo.com
http://sarcastipundit.blogspot.com/
"They don't pose a serious threat to us." -- Barack Obama on Iran,
speaking in Portland, Oregon on May 18
"I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."
-- Barack Obama speaking in Billings, Montana on May 19
|
