- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
search
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
The Nation's Pulse
Farmer Brown Fights Back
To all appearances, green special interests are on a roll.
They have managed to get committed environmentalists appointed to key congressional committees and regulatory positions. They have a president in the White House who agrees on the broad contours of their agenda. They have already won increased fuel economy regulations, restrictions on drilling for oil and gas in the West, and billions of dollars of subsidies for wind and solar power.
But their hot streak may soon run into some trouble. Why? Because they have provoked the most powerful special interest in congressional history: farmers. These are the same folks who once convinced Congress to pay them to grow nothing. Now they are holding hostage legislation to fight so-called climate change.
At issue is ethanol, a fuel distilled from corn that can be used to run cars, but which shouldn't be used to run cars.
Ethanol is more expensive than gasoline, so it increases our pain at the pump. And burning food for fuel increases the demand for food, which makes it more expensive, so ethanol also increases our grocery bills.
That's precisely why farmers love ethanol. It increases the value of their crops. In 2007, the powerful farm lobby convinced Congress to enact a Soviet-style ethanol production quota that forces Americans to use increasing amounts of corn-fuel. As a result, U.S. farmers divert more than 500 billion pounds of corn into the fuel supply every year.
At the time, environmentalists supported ethanol, because they labored under the mistaken notion that it is a "green fuel," which results in fewer greenhouse gas emissions thought to cause climate change.
It's true that combusting ethanol emits less carbon than gasoline, but that doesn't mean much. The ethanol industry is burning so much food for fuel that it has depleted the global grain supply.
Farmers in developing countries are clear-cutting rain forests to make room for arable land to grow crops and meet global demand. According to many scientists, these land-use changes result in massive emissions of greenhouse gases.
Environmentalists campaigned to include these "indirect" emissions in the Environmental Protection Agency's calculation of ethanol's "lifecycle emissions." It's an important distinction, because in 2007, Congress also imposed a requirement that most new ethanol production should produce 20 percent less "lifecycle" greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline.
If such emissions are taken into account, much of the ethanol produced from corn could fail to meet Congress's requirements.
Farm special interests lobbied fiercely against including indirect emissions, arguing that the science was inexact. The environmentalists prevailed. In early May of this year, the EPA announced it would include the controversial emissions in its calculation of ethanol's lifecycle emissions.
Now the farm lobby is hitting back. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Colin Peterson exploded in a hearing in late May, declaring the EPA is going to "kill" the ethanol industry.
Peterson last week told the Hill newspaper that he has lined up 45 members of the House Democratic Caucus to oppose the Waxman-Markey Clean Energy and Security Act, a major climate change mitigation bill that Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to bring to the floor for a vote by July 4. If Peterson is not bluffing -- and he'd have to have the world's best poker face to pull that one off -- then he has the votes to kill the bill.
The smart money is on Peterson, who now has all the leverage. That could be bad news because environmentalists will do anything to get a climate law, even if it means they have to embrace ethanol.
Expect Pelosi to cave and permit the farm lobby to write an amendment to the bill that forces the EPA to exclude indirect emissions from its calculations. That would saddle American consumers with a climate bill to raise their utility bills and more ethanol to inflate the price of food and fuel.
That's a lose-lose-lose for everyone except for the special interests and their influential backers in Congress.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
GTM| 6.17.09 @ 7:08AM
The federally subsidized move to ethanol also increases nutrient applications on corn crops, more planting and more pollution contributing to the "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico and other waters. Also, both corn growing and ethanol production use enormous amount of water. Your federal government at work.
farmermac| 6.17.09 @ 7:51AM
I'm assuming it's ok to divert water in California to save a fish and prevent many many crop from being grown this year plus the job loss in the cental valley. There are so many contradiction in America.
Peterson has several excellent issues. The department of Agriculture does have the personnel and expetise to implement carbon sequestration. As it is currently designed the climate bill is very destructive to agriculture. Do we really need to have another finincial crisis in agriculture to satisfy urban interests when people can work together to create a better solution. I though the political system was designed to create consesus not for imposition of poorly designed regulations
Robert Rosencrans| 6.17.09 @ 8:02AM
Excellent article.
Ethanol is 20 to 40% less efficient then straight gasoline. There is also evidence that it falsely triggers oxygen sensors leading to an astronomical waste of consumer money to diagnose mysterious problems.
There is also evidence that ethanol damages on board computers and that engines are being damaged.
There are web sites where consumers are trying to find local ethanol free gasoline and with good reason.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions but in this situation it's paved with gold.
Pingback| 6.17.09 @ 10:12AM
In the News | GlobalWarming.org links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
L. Ross| 6.17.09 @ 11:49AM
Wow, we loose Dave Mathews, but we gain jerks who use the comments section to advertise overpriced shoes. I do wish they had better moderators for these boards.
Mr. Rosencranz, I know that ethanol has lower fuel economy than straight gasoline, but it is not anywhere near 20 to 40% lower, more like 2 to 5% lower. When you use such wild exagerations, you only hurt your argument and sound foolish.
See the attached link for ethanol formulations of 10%, 20% and 30%.
http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/ACEFuelEconomyStudy_001.pdf
All that said, ethanol does promote water in your fuel (since water and alchol are totally miscible in solution) you can end up paying for water. Also, as has been demonstrated many, many times, ethanol is not a fuel which can be grown in a cost effective manner in temperate climates. It takes a tropical climate with a constant growing season to make it work.
Pingback| 6.17.09 @ 11:57AM
What? ABC Turns Programming Over to Obama – BOYCOTT ABC on JUNE 24th! « Jim Blazsik links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Il Gecko| 6.17.09 @ 12:50PM
I very carefully measured the MPG performance in my Suburban. Even with the price of ethanol/gas cheaper per gallon, the increase of MPG and increase in performance I get with straight gas makes it actually slightly cheaper to burn. Market forces will prevail on this issue
Robert Rosencrans| 6.17.09 @ 1:45PM
L. Ross, et al: Your facts are not supported by the facts. Ethanol blends can vary widely so there is no concrete "study" which supports your figures. Here is quote which spells it out:
Ethanol, which is often blended in gasoline, contains less energy per gallon than gasoline. However, a 10-percent or less ethanol blend would have only a slight impact on fuel efficiency. According to U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fuel economy guidelines, E-85 (85 percent ethanol/15 percent gasoline blend) may reduce fuel efficiency by 26 percent.
(http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/energywise/index.cfm)
In effect, the more ethanol, the less efficient would the be the output.
In addition, that's a smug attitude considering that there is overwhelming evidence that ethanol is destroying the oxygen sensors and engines in millions of privately owned vehicles.
In the meantime there are thousands of articles that define the damages that are occuring nationwide to vehicles being forced to use ethanol. Here is another quote:
(http://www.evworld.com/syndicated/evworld_article_1217.cfm)
E85, which is a mix of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, should not be used in any vehicle unless it is specifically designated at manufacture as a "flex-fuel" vehicle. If you do use E85 in any gasoline car, not even just a collector car, it may be severely damaged. E85 in a car not designed for it can cause corrosion in the fuel system, damage seals and hoses and wash lubrication off the engine's cylinder walls. In addition, both E85 and widely available E10 will loosen old sludge, varnish and dirt from the inside of the fuel tank, and once these are suspended in the fuel, it will cause clogged fuel lines and fuel filters as well as block carburetor jets or fuel injectors.
It's a well-known fact that the use of E85 in a "flex-fuel" vehicle capable of using gasoline, E10 or E85, will provide far fewer miles per gallon when using E85 compared to gasoline (officially and generally stated by the Ethanol industry as a 30% drop). This is because ethanol has far less energy per gallon than does gasoline despite a higher natural octane number.
No, it is in fact a wild exageration to state that ethanol provides for efficient market forces. The mandated usage of ethanol hits the consumer with higher prices in many ways that are obvious in terms of food costs or other ways, which are beginning to manifest themselves, such as engine and sensor damage.
To pretend or imply that ethanol provides some type of good deal for the American consumer is simply fraud.
2 Guns, AZ| 6.17.09 @ 2:57PM
The real kicker in all this is:
The Gov subsidises Ethenaol @ .50/ Gal. and then requires "x" number of millions of gallons to be produced. Of course, if I were a producer and getting 50 cents per gallon, I would gladly petition the Gov for more mandates.
The problem with ethanol is really simple, it just can not compete with gasoline, even with gas at 4.00/ gal.
Ken Miller| 6.17.09 @ 3:05PM
I use diesel in half my vehicle fleet (2 cars). I grow corn. I think all farm subsidies should be stopped at this time and like government motors be taken over by the feds, then they could have their cake and eat it, too.
Marc Jeric| 6.17.09 @ 3:33PM
The overall energy equation of ethanol is negative. You have to till the land by diesel engines, fertilize it by petroleum products, harvest the corn by diesel engines, transport the corn to factory by diesel engines, heat the corn by oil burning and electricity that is produced by coal, transport ethanol by diesel engines to mixing plants, pump and mix it by electric motors turning on coal electricity, distribute the mix by diesel engines - and I have neglected several other energy-wasting steps. Overall, ethanol production increases our oil imports.
Martin Owens| 6.17.09 @ 3:33PM
Have the Feds take over the farms?
Have we forgotten the Soviet Union and its
catastrophic collective agriculture?
JerseyJ| 6.17.09 @ 4:07PM
The solution is biodiesel. It contains the highest BTU content of any of the alternative fuels. 78% less CO2 emission than petroleum diesel. Can be made from a variety of domestic renewable sources including soybeans and spent cooking oil. It can be distributed in the same infrastructure as current petroleum diesel and can be mixed with petroleum diesel in any blend. It can be used in most compression ignition engines with little or no modification. The by-product of production is glycerin which is used in soaps and other products.
If you stop and think how much of American fuel consumption is diesel (trucks, construction equipment, etc) we can make a huge dent in so-called greenhouse gases and petroleum dependency if we would start switching to biodiesel.
I drive a little diesel car that gets close to 50 mpg consistently. I shake my head at the hybrids limping along on the highway carrying a 50 lb battery and burning gas at near the same rate as I'm burning diesel as I fly by them.
My biggest problem is that I have to go out of my way though to find biodiesel blends. It's always frustrated me that the greenies and politicos always seem to tout ethanol when there's a much better alternative.
Get the facts at www.biodiesel.org.
jr| 6.17.09 @ 5:12PM
You might have heard it first right here. Farmer Brown may be one of the businesses that the Messiah will dictate that it is too big to fail. When, not if, it happens, Farmer Brown will be in the same boat as other businesses - more taxes, requiring a reduction of pollution from the toxic fertilizers and methane from those retched animals, cruelty to animals who are slaughtered, and non-employment of illegals, etc.
George True| 6.17.09 @ 5:38PM
I don't know where L. Ross gets his information, probably from some of the ethanol industry websites, which are highly misleading at best. Louis LaPointe has been a fuels and lubrication ad engine building guy in the race car world for 50 years. He has done a lot of research into the fuel efficiency of ethanol-laced fuel versus straight gasoline. He says a 10% blend of ethanol will decrease fuel efficiency by 5-30% depending on a lot of different things, with an average loss of 10-20% in fuel efficiency.
I have kept track of my fuel efficiency over the several years in two ways. FIrst, the old fashioned way: when I fill up I top off the tank and then divide the number of gallons used into the number of miles driven since the last fillup. Second, I use something called a Scan Gauge, which plugs into the outlet for the vehicle's diagnostic computer. It will give y0u unassailable information about what kind of fuel economy you are getting under different conditions, and for each tank of gas. On average, I find that I get about 17-20% lower fuel economy on ethanol-laced gas vs unadulterated gasoline. This is true for both my 2002 Lincoln and my 1995 Mitsubishi pickup truck. I haven't done any comparisons lately because anymore it is getting almost impossible to find non-ethanol gas.
So just on the fuel consumption issue alone, ethanol gasoline means that as a country we have to use at least 10-20% MORE gasoline to offset the average reduction in fuel economy. I'm still waiting for someone, anyone to explain to me how that helps the environment. Obviously, it doesn't, it does more harm than good, jst on the fuel economy issue alone. And this does not even factor in the fuel used to grow the corn, and the damage ethanol does to engines. Ethanol is a loser any way you look at it.
For the last 15 or 20 years Volkswagen has been making fuel-injected turbo diesel cars that get 45-50 mpg highway. If we just converted a fraction of the car and light truck to this proven off-the-shelf technology, we would reduce oil consumption and auto related air pollution far more than we could if we had a sea of Ethanol.
George Tesseris| 6.17.09 @ 8:19PM
If it becomes either-or, then let the climate bill die. Destruction of ecosystems and food supply risks are the bigger threat.
Marc Boyd| 6.17.09 @ 10:26PM
The other point no one mentioned is that the whole fermentation process generates copious amounts of CO2. If you have ever brewed beer or made wine, You know what I mean. For wine, the first week or two the process creates a massive amount of CO2. For the next few weeks the rate is slower, but you need a "lock" to let out the CO2 and prevent air from entering, which would oxidize the wine. For beer, you bottle and cap it before the CO2 dissipates. It gets released when you drink it!
Ethanol, over ice, stirred, not shaken.
jon| 6.18.09 @ 8:24AM
it is a government program of course it makes no sense we all know congress sells their votes but it really bugs me they sell so cheap we need a congress that sells their votes for big money these are pikers also man made climate change is a joke it is a cult now they talk about switch grass what ever that is to find a way to make ethanol if you just burn it in a power plant you get 10 x's the energy really dumb idea
Dave Lincoln| 6.18.09 @ 10:41AM
I also had assumed that the amount of energy in ethanol was about 10 % less than in gasoline, but I realize that is not the only factor that can reduce efficiency; it depends on how the alcohol burns in your engine. But, even if it's only 10%, that means 10%-ethanol fuel gives you a 1 % reduction in mileage. It is worth it to pay 3 or 4 cents more per gallon for gas that has no ethanol.
There are other problems too, regarding engines. With older cars, the seals and other parts may not work well with alcohol. I do not like being forced to get 10%-ethanol fuel for that reason, though sometimes I can find a station that advertises no ethanol. Many small aircraft engines can run on the 87 (or higher) no-lead fuel, but it is also a problem to have alcohol in that gas. It's even worse to have a problem in an aircraft engine than it is in a car. (yes, I know it's normally 100 LL fuel, but that can get pricey).
For those pushing the bio-diesel, I don't argue with your enthusiasm for that fuel, but this deal about "we should do this" or "we should do that" is a problem. If the stuff sells, good. If it doesn't, people obviously don't want it. The government should stay out of this market just like any other market. Il Gecko says "Market forces will prevail on this issue" I wish that were true, but I don't think anyone wants to let it work like that. The government wants *control*; it doesn't matter how stupid and inefficient their plans are.
JerseyJ| 6.18.09 @ 2:09PM
Dave Lincoln ... "For those pushing the bio-diesel, I don't argue with your enthusiasm for that fuel, but this deal about "we should do this" or "we should do that" is a problem. If the stuff sells, good. If it doesn't, people obviously don't want it. "
As the one I assume you were directing this comment to I have to say I agree with you 100%. If biodiesel can't stand on it's own as an affordable and viable fuel source then it should not survive. Anything that requires permanent subsidies is not a true solution. There is, however, validity to the argument that encouraging the development of the technology through temporary economic incentive is prudent.
I believe that biodiesel will stand the test as a viable, efficient, affordable fuel source as it is further developed. What I don't understand is why we're throwing good money after bad at ethanol which clearly has less upside potential and more downside potential than biodiesel. Ethanol is quickly becoming a bottomless pit which will require mandates and subsidies ad infinitum to continue to exist.
Dave Lincoln| 6.18.09 @ 3:07PM
Agreed, JerseyJ.
D. Horne| 6.18.09 @ 10:48PM
L. Ross| 6.17.09 @ 11:49AM
We have a flex fuel vehicle and I tried E85 fuel one time. The mileage was AT LEAST 25% lower than with regular gas. It was so bad I refuse to use it again.
S. Cook| 6.20.09 @ 6:51PM
Corn ethanol does use corn, but is it true that “burning food for fuel increases the demand for food, which makes it more expensive, so ethanol also increases our grocery bills?”
According to US Supply/Demand Estimates, total supply of corn in 08-09 was 13,740 million bushels. 12,140 million bushels will be used leaving a surplus of 1,600 million bushels. Without ethanol production, the surplus could be as high as 5,350 million bushels. Granted that the 3,750 million bushels of corn used in ethanol production could make an extra 21,000 million 1 lb. boxes of corn flakes.
Using the 08-09 average price of $4.20 per bushel, the value of corn in a one pound box of corn flakes is less than 8 cents. If the value of the corn in a box of corn flakes were only 4 cents, the price of a box would not be significantly less.
Farmers grow more corn when they can make a profit doing so and less corn when they do not make a profit. Corn ethanol does use corn. Corn ethanol increases farmer confidence that growing corn might be profitable. Burning corn for fuel would increase the scarcity of food, if there were not enough corn to use as food. When there is not enough corn to use as food, I will agree that using corn for ethanol production would increase grocery bills. Until that time, food is not being burned as fuel.
Pingback| 6.23.09 @ 10:11AM
Cooler Heads Digest 23 June 2009 | GlobalWarming.org links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 7.2.09 @ 11:05PM
» Catching Up links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
cheap handbags| 7.27.09 @ 5:26AM
We only sell the top grade replica cheap handbags, some of them are genuine leather handbags, yet the price is far lower than the authentic designers want you to pay. We lead you to a genuine pool of bags : collections in wide range: handbags, shoulder bags, clutches, tote bags, purses and wallets, the hottest brands you can find like replica Louis Vuitton handbags, Replica marc jacobs handags, Replica Prada handbags, Coach,Replica Chloe handbags,Burberry, Dior,replica Chanel handbags, Chloe,Replica gucci handbags, Dolce & Gabbana,Replica Balenciaga handbags . Crafted to the highest standard, from the finest materials in the industry, we guarantee the toppest Replica Hermes handbags at low price you'll find anywhere.
george| 7.29.09 @ 4:21AM
Louis Vuitton Agendas , commonly referred to as
Louis Vuitton Antigua bags, or sometimes shortened to
Louis Vuitton Antigua has become one of the most
Louis Vuitton Bequia Leather bags luxury brands.
lv salelove
sale lvnice
louis vuitton outlet
vuitton outlet good
s| 8.20.09 @ 3:38AM
Cheap Jordan,Cheap Jordan shoes,Retro Jordan,Air Yeezy Shoes,Supra shoes,Kanye West ShoesJordan shoes,New Jordans,Air Yeezy,Air Force Ones,Nike Dunks,Retro Jordan, Cheap Jordan Shoes,Nike Dunk High,True Religion Jeans,New Air Force OnesAir Yeezy Shoe,Supra Shoes,Retro Jordan,Creative Recreation,Nike DunksNike Air YeezyTrue Religion,Air Jordan Shoes,Air Shox,Air Max,Dunk Shoes.Air Jordan,Cheap Jordans,Jordan Shoes,Cheap Air Jordans,Air Jordan Shoes
Wedding Dresses| 9.10.09 @ 1:48AM
Very good article written byWedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
ah
supra shoes| 10.15.09 @ 1:00PM
Supra Shoes
Mens Supra Cruizer Cool Shoes