Why ethanol is so corny

by Ari LeVaux

While recent Supreme Court rulings on same-sex marriage have held the nation’s attention, another decision slipped quietly under radar. In June, the court refused to hear a challenge to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to raise the ethanol content of gasoline from 10 to 15 percent. The new draft Farm Bill, meanwhile, includes more than a billion dollars of support for all things ethanol. While this action at the federal level is bullish for ethanol, many states are calling bullshit.

The fact that most ethanol is made from corn means that an increase in the ethanol content of gas could create, or exacerbate, a variety of problems, like higher food prices and elevated CO2 emissions of carbon dioxide. It has also been linked to a dangerous form of E. Coli.

But while federal support for ethanol appears to be as unstoppable as it is misguided, some states have shown horsepower that could turn around this dead-end policy. In June, Florida repealed its Renewable Fuel Standard, which mandated that gasoline contain 10 percent ethanol. And in May, Maine passed a bill banning ethanol in gas.

Maine House Republicans posted the following on Maine.gov: “Evidence is mounting that ethanol is a failure in virtually every way. It takes more energy to produce it than the fuel provides. Food supplies around the world have been disrupted because so much of the corn crop now goes to ethanol. It costs taxpayers billions of dollars in subsidies at a time when our nation is already $12 trillion in debt. Even environmentalists have turned against it.”
Maine’s Democrats have voted and spoken against ethanol as well. Indeed, ethanol fuel’s many problems have drawn together an orgy of strange bedfellows, including the petroleum lobby, environmentalists, foodies, food processors, auto enthusiasts (cars don’t like ethanol, either) – basically everyone outside the corn belt and D.C.’s beltway. Only corn growers or the politicians they support stand to gain from ethanol.

Currently, 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop is used to make ethanol. Raising the allowable amount of ethanol in gasoline will likely increase demand for corn, drive up its price, and collaterally make food more expensive.

Already, increased corn demand has led to more land being cleared for agriculture. This, and the intensive monoculture-style farming that produces most corn, has resulted in widespread loss of topsoil: 80 to 100 billion tons annually by some estimates. The vast seas of corn that blanket the Midwest are part of this problem.

Topsoil sequesters carbon dioxide. The more topsoil that’s lost, the less carbon dioxide is sequestered, essentially adding more carbon to the atmosphere. Allan Savory, a renowned rangeland and desertification specialist, considers agriculture one of global warming’s worst culprits, comparing it to coal mining. Thick, healthy soils absorb and hold water, while thin soil is less able to retain it, thus increasing the water used and washing away even more topsoil.

When energy costs of production, processing and transport are added up, ethanol is a net loss, according to T.J. Rogers, CEO of solar panel maker SunPower Corp. “It takes between 1 and 1.3 gallons of gasoline-equivalent energy to produce 1 gallon of ethanol,” he told Watchdog.org.

Meanwhile, a byproduct of ethanol fuel called distillers grains, widely used in cattle feed, turns out to be a rich source of E. coli 0157, the pathogen behind several recent recalls of tainted beef. Though links between distillers grains and specific cases of food-borne illness have yet to be established, it has been demonstrated that the higher the percentage of distillers grains in cows’ diets, the higher the level of E. coli 0157 in those cows.
It’s frustrating to see ethanol policy being pushed for such transparent reasons. One has to wonder if the level of support for ethanol would be different if, instead of the Iowa caucus in the heart of corn country, the New Hampshire primary was the first event of the presidential election season. But the recent rebuffs to ethanol in Florida and Maine are hopeful signs.

Again, the Maine House Republicans: “Congress should repeal the ethanol laws because they are doing more harm than good. Our objectives are more modest but will still encounter opposition; the Midwest ethanol lobby has powerful advocates on Capitol Hill and billions of subsidy dollars are at stake. But if Maine sparks other states to act, we could coerce Congress to stand up to special interests.”

As the Farm Bill bobs and weaves its way through Congress, it’s probably too much to hope that ethanol support will dry up. But given the broad opposition , I like the states’ chances to defeat it, step by step. As we’ve just witnessed with same-sex marriage, sometimes when the states lead, the federal government follows.