Corn Ethanol

Government Support

According to estimates from the EPA, the transportation sector accounted for 27% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the United States (not to mention, transportation is a major contributor of air pollutants such as carbon monoxide and nitrous oxides).  Some believe that corn ethanol is the answer to this problem.  The government, for one, has been a huge proponent.  President George W. Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into being and increased requirements for the amount of corn ethanol to be mixed with gasoline from 5 billion to 7.5 billion gallons.  Along with this, the government backs ethanol with heavily subsidized corn production, tariffs against foreign ethanol, and tax breaks for domestic ethanol.  The government and other advocates cite a study published by the USDA in 2004 which states that corn ethanol yields 67% more energy than takes to produce it.  They all celebrated the great ethanol boom of late 2006.

Criticism

Not everyone is counting on that boom lasting however (and as we saw in the surpluses and dropping prices in late 2007). 

Net Energy Balance

Critics will counter the USDA studies with statistics from anti-ethanolers like David Pimentel, professor emeritus at Cornell University.  His studies show that, in fact, it takes more energy to produce corn ethanol than the fuel gives off.  When it comes down to it, it depends on how you define the energy inputs.  In order to make the biofuel, you need energy to grow the corn, energy to power farm machinery, energy to make the machinery (which is coincidentally excluded from USDA studies), energy to make fertilizers and pesticides, energy to get the corn to the distilleries….The list goes on.  So in the end, it’s unclear whether or not corn ethanol conserves fossil fuel at all. 

Global Warming Impact

A study by Tim Searchinger, a visiting scholar at Princeton University concluded that "Right now there's little doubt that ethanol is making global warming worse."  The reason for this large global warming impact is that although the carbon dioxide emitted by burning corn-based ethanol was previously absorbed from the atmosphere by the plants, there are also land use changes associated with increasing agricultural land.  If we use food crops like corn and soybeans for fuel, it requires more land to be devoted to agriculture, which results in forests and grasslands being converted to farmland and absorbing less CO2.  As a result, corn-based ethanol appears to contribute more to global warming than even fossil fuels.

Fertilizer Runoff

Another huge drawback is the simple fact that policy-driven, inflated demand for corn has encouraged more farmers to devote more land and more fertilizer to grow the crop.  This in turn increases fertilizer runoff into streams and rivers which wreaks havoc on marine life. 

Increased Food Costs

Inflated demand for corn has also increased food prices (beef, chicken, pork, eggs, milk, and cereal are bigger ticket items now), which has hit low-income folks hard (and not only low-income Americans are feeling it; ethanol has caused food price increases in developing countries as well).  The ethanol boom not only caused corn and food prices to increase but has done the same for land in the Midwest, squeezing small farmers off the land or preventing them from ever getting any. 

And on top of all of that, according to Charles Washburn, professor emeritus at California State University in Flagstaff, Arizona, even if all United States-grown corn (as well as rice, wheat, and soybeans) were devoted to making ethanol, only 4% of the country’s energy needs would be met on a net basis.

Other Biofuels

• Algae Biofuel