Cincinnatus BLOG *** Political Commentary - Social Commentary

Malthus believed we would be unable to feed ourselves as our numbers expanded. He postulated that short-term gains in living standards would inevitably be undermined as population growth outstripped food production. Malthus of course, has been proven wrong as technology permitted us to grow more food from existing farmland. Yet, despite all we have accomplished in improving our agricultural efficiency and reducing population growth, billions are still malnourished. Given this reality, is the mass production of ethanol from corn a sound policy?

Are we so blinded by evangelical climate soothsayers that we believe we can burn a significant portion of our basic food stock, corn, to power our cars and not increase global hunger? If ethanol is so important to our future why not import sugar cane from the poor countries of this hemisphere and produce it more efficiently? The ethanol policy of the United States is the poster child for mass irrationality. It allows us to pander to a small constituency, corn farmers, at the expense of 300 million Americans and billons of hungry people.

At the moment the United States is utilizing 25-33% of our most important food stock, corn, to produce ethanol for transportation. The energy inputs in the ethanol cultivation and production process are so high that there is little if any reduction in carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. Whatever burning ethanol in a motor vehicle saves is more than offset by CO₂ creation during the growing and manufacturing process.

The logic of using corn ethanol, which increases the volatility of gasoline, seems to be, to put it mildly, flawed. Due to its volatility, ethanol significantly increases air pollution when added to gasoline specifically, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and NOx (nitrogen oxides). When NOx and (VOCs) react in the presence of sunlight, they form photochemical smog. This well-known form of air pollution is especially prevalent in the summer. Children, people with lung diseases, like asthma, and those who work or exercise outside, are susceptible to the adverse effects of smog, notably damage to lung tissue and reduction in lung function. NOx is a green house gas and makes an additional independent contribution to global warming. If that’s not bad enough, NOx and sulfur dioxide react with other substances in the air to form acids, which fall to earth as acid rain. If that doesn’t leave you scratching your head think about this: Large quantities of scarce fresh water are needed to produce corn-based ethanol - as much as 200 gallons for every gallon of ethanol produced. Fresh potable water may be the most precious resource we have and we appear to be wasting large quantities on an inefficient solution to our energy problem.

As the barker in old television commercials has been heard to utter - so you say you want more? Corn ethanol is an economic disaster A) Corn production is subsidized: B) Ethanol production is subsidized (mce_marker.51 per gallon federal blenders credit): C) The most insidious tax results from the fact that 25% of the U.S. corn crop in 2008 will be used to produce ethanol thereby, driving up the cost not only of corn, but all of the food products derived from corn feed such as chicken and cattle.  (Corn is also an ingredient in 75% of processed food.)

This tax on foods prices is further exacerbated by the double incentive for farmers to grow corn and thus allocate less acreage to wheat and as a consequence driving up the price of bread. The result is “food inflation on steroids”. Apologists for corn ethanol point out that the protein fraction of corn is not used in the manufacturing process thus; it is available to feed livestock. However, corn is a high-energy, low-protein food source. Typically, corn contains 70% starch and only 11% protein. Newer varieties contain up to 18% protein but that would make them less desirable as a source of ethanol.

In addition, if a foreigner wants to sell us ethanol made from more efficient sugar cane we tack on an additional  $.54 a gallon in import duties. What better way to stick it to the American consumer? What accounts for this foolishness?  There are 21 corn states and thus, 42 senators who pander to corn farmers who benefit from this fleecing of the nation! To paraphrase Winston Churchill; never have so many paid so much for so little to so few.

The only thing worse than continuing to promote a policy that centers on corn ethanol would be to encourage the production of ethanol made from the even less efficient “fuel stock” switch grass. Even with improvements in enzyme degradation and manufacturing process 1 BTU of input is likely to result in only 0.5 BTU of output. As Karen Hopkin pointed out in the July 30, 2008 issue of Scientific American online -

“Biofuels sound like such a good idea - A clean-burning fuel that reduces our need for foreign oil. What’s not to like? Well, for one thing, turning corn into biodiesel could be taking food off hungry people’s plates. “Okay,” biofuel advocates say, “suppose we just use the stems and leaves that are left over after crops are harvested? That should solve the problem.” Well, maybe not entirely. Because removing that so-called crop residue takes food away from soil microbes. They convert that material into the nutrients that crops need. So says USDA scientist Ann Kennedy of Washington State University.

Microbes break down crop residue to form organic matter-the stuff that gives soil its rich, dark color. Organic matter, in turn, provides nutrients, helps the soil retain water, and prevents erosion. So, if you harvest the crop residue to produce biofuels, you remove the materials that are fodder for the bugs that make organic matter. Soil quality would drop, and farmers would have to find some other way to fertilize their fields. So biofuels are not a magic bullet. Maybe you should just eat the corn and ride your bike”.