Corn growers rally to fend off ethanol critics
John Shimkus
WASHINGTON — If you’re getting millions in subsidies, tax breaks and federally guaranteed market share, you need to do a little work sometimes to keep the pump primed.
So it was today in Washington when members of the Corn Farmers Coalition from Missouri, Illinois and elsewhere gathered in the Capitol today to argue that the Environmental Protection Agency, among others, is misguided.
Across town, the ethanol industry was on hand at an EPA hearing on a newly proposed rule dealing with biofuels production in the future.
Of concern to corn growers is the EPA’s recent calculations of the global impact of crops used to grow biofuels. In a complicated set of modeling, the environmental agency last month projected far into the effects on climate change and faraway rainforests of crops grown in the U.S. for biofuels.
Bottom line? In order to keep the status as a ”renewable fuel” and the government-decreed market share that goes with it, farm-derived fuels have to leave an increasingly smaller environmental footprint.
Corn didn’t get hit as hard as soybeans in the proposed rules but corn-growers and their allies in the ethanol industry are nonetheless up in arms.
Corn growers argued today that they routinely increase their yields from the same acreage and have reduced their chemical dependence thanks to improved seeds.
Among those on hand in the gathering was Rep. John Shimkus, R-Collinsville, who argued that corn-made ethanol has being portrayed as an “evil” for its impact on food prices and the environment.
“Tell me what we have done to reduce our imports of foreign fuel. One thing is ethanol,” Shimkus said.
“Relying on (Venezuelan president Hugo) Chavez and the Middle East is stupid policy,” he added.
But even if we converted our entire corn crop into ethanol, it would only displace 12% of the gasoline we use. Taking into account the massive environmental damage the rush to ethanol production has produced — a growing Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico for one — does it make sense to keep lavishing billions in subsidies on an industry that has yet to prove its financially viable?
“But even if we converted our entire corn crop into ethanol, it would only displace 12% of the gasoline we use.”
That’s not true. We use less than 140 billion gallons of gasoline each year. Right now we’re using 10 billion gallons of ethanol (more than 7 percent of the gasoline supply). That will grow in future years and shoot through the roof with cellulosic ethanol.
Dead zone issues are related to farming and will be a problem with or without ethanol. Buffer strips, no till farming and other land management techniques are the answer to that problem, not cutting out ethanol.
And as for financial viability, in a true free market, where oil prices are set by supply and demand, not arbitrarily set by OPEC, a cartel of petro-dictators, ethanol would do just fine. But there is no free market for fuel.
We are currently displacing 7.3% of our gasoline with ethanol blends (March 2009 EIA). Seems like we could go to mandatory E10 (10% blend) nationwide fairly easily without converting our entire corn crop.
If ethanol is such a good idea, why must it be mandated by the politicians? Given the bi-partisan mess they’ve made of the economy, is there any reason to suppose they know anything about energy? Oh yeah, we got the corn growers word for it. Give me a break!
Biofuels have never been a viable alternative. They’re just a way to make some folks rich at the expense of others, and the environment.
Once upon a time, surplus crops used to feed the hungry–now they go into some idiot’s overpriced, under-efficient SUV.
We shouldn’t be wasting any federal money on biofuels, but instead use that money to bolster mass transit, and in the design of more fuel efficient machines.
Ethanol is so passe’. It’s all about windmills and putt-putt cars!
Shelly said, “Once upon a time, surplus crops used to feed the hungry–now they go into some idiot’s overpriced, under-efficient SUV.”
Actually, last year’s surplus of 1.8 billion bushels was the 5th highest in the last two decades (in a year when half of Iowa was underwater due to flooding). Ethanol hasn’t hurt our surplus at all.
Unless someone would like to offer an argument with better information, let’s put that myth to rest.
Thinking that there is enough corn in America or ever will be to make any difference in America’s foreign oil consumption is what is stupid policy and especially when the only ones benefiting are those farmers and others such as Shimkus who are all part of this greedy self serving scheme.
Corn ethanol is one of the biggest schemes being pulled upon the people robbing this country of government money and people are sitting in ignorance of what a scheme it is as most other things until the damage can no longer be ignored. These government subsidies amount to nothing less than legal fraud upon our government with the blessing of enough politicians.
Giggity said:
“Dead zone issues are related to farming and will be a problem with or without ethanol. Buffer strips, no till farming and other land management techniques are the answer to that problem, not cutting out ethanol.”
But the Dead Zone is a problem that can be directly attributed to ethanol. Corn is a nutrient intensive crop, and a recent UN study shows that only 18% of the nitrogen applied actually goes into the soil while the rest is lost to the environment. These massive amounts of fertilizers are slathered on corn to boost yields but the majority ends up in the Mississippi River Basin and then flows into the Gulf.
Citing no till and buffer strips and land management is good, but the crux of the problem is that most of those solutions are at best cost share programs and many are voluntary. Ethanol and corn production are heavily subsidized with billions of federal dollars, but the solutions you cite are chronically under funded. There needs to be a balance.
Don said: “But the Dead Zone is a problem that can be directly attributed to ethanol.”
No. The Dead Zone is a problem that can be INdirectly attributed to ethanol because ethanol mainly uses corn. The Dead Zone is directly attributed to farming.
What I’m saying is that even if we axe the ethanol industry altogether, it won’t stop the Dead Zone. Even if it slows it a little, we haven’t solved the core of the problem: fertilizers and farming techniques. The only way to deal with the Dead Zone is to go after those practices that are directly causing the problem. Maybe make them mandatory instead of voluntary; I don’t know for sure. The fact is, the Dead Zone was around long before ethanol made any dent in the corn market.