Full Forecaste

Past Month's Most Commented Stories

Home > Editorial

Rush to ethanol is doing more harm than good

Sunday, August 10, 2008 9:51 AM PDT

Font Size:
 
 

Aug. 10 Daily News editorial

It’s been apparent for some time that ethanol is no panacea for the nation’s energy problem. Now there is mounting evidence that a 2007 federal mandate aimed at speeding the development of ethanol may be doing more harm than good. Not surprisingly, the federal bureaucracy has been slow to act on that evidence, or even acknowledge it.

On Thursday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency flatly rejected Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s plea for some relief from the federal requirement that 9 billion gallons of ethanol and biodiesel be blended into gasoline between Sept. 1, 2008, and Aug. 31, 2009. Perry had asked in April that the EPA reduce the requirement to 4.5 billion gallons, claiming that the larger mandate was hurting Texas livestock producers and increasing food costs.

Perry offered a compelling case for the relief. The diversion of a third of the nation’s corn crop to ethanol production has nearly tripled feed prices for Texas livestock and poultry farmers, leading to layoffs in the Texas meat industry. As is the case nationwide, it’s driving up food prices, further straining family budgets and the general economy.

The EPA’s refusal to back off this ethanol mandate, even partially, might be understandable if it could be shown that it was contributing to the nation’s energy security or environmentally beneficial. But that’s not the case. Food-to-fuel mandates clearly have not held down fuel prices and have show little potential in regard to reducing the nation’s dependence on foreign oil. Environmentally, these mandates are likely counterproductive.

Indeed, several environmental groups had joined the Texas governor in asking the EPA to halve the federal mandate. They say the increase in corn production is hurting wildlife habitat. They cite studies suggesting that corn-based ethanol produces the same global warming pollution as fossil fuels when calculations include the impact of cleared land and the energy it takes to produce ethanol, according to Washington Post writer Juliet Eilperin.

Further, Richard Wiles of the Environmental Working Group said, “This year’s 9 billion gallon (federal mandate) will cause an estimated 100 million tons of soil erosion and put 300,000 tons of nitrogen fertilizer into Midwestern waters. Thanks largely to the ethanol mandate and an excessively wet spring,” he continued, “pollution levels in the Gulf of Mexico are expected to reach record levels, with a dead zone the size of Massachusetts.”

President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers and the Federal Trade Commission had doubts about ethanol mandates earlier on. According to 2002 Office of Management and Budget memo the council and commission believed a federal mandate would prove costly for consumers and provide little environmental benefit. Those concerns were well-placed. It’s unfortunate that they’ve yet to reach the EPA.

Previous Next

Diesel wrote on Aug 10, 2008 10:19 AM:

" Corn based ethanol is very harmful to the enviroment and if you think it hasn't had an impact on food corn look at the price of an ear of corn. It also takes more energy to produce corn based ethanol then what that same product puts out. Now that really makes sense. NOT! At a safeway in eastern oregon 1 ear of corn cost 99 cents. Remember when you could get six, eight or more ears for a dollar? Senator Osama is backed by the makers of corn based ethanol so see what happens in the future. And with the enron trained speculators jacking up the price of oil and lining their pockets with our hard earned money we're in a real pickle until our elected officials, both dems and republicans, get off of their collective arses and start working for us like they were elected to do. "

slanteyes wrote on Aug 10, 2008 10:33 AM:

" I wish you people would stop crying every time you loose a dollar in proffit. The problem at the pump is that there is NO CHOICE! This industry needs to get up and running before they can switch to other sources. "

X-Democrat wrote on Aug 10, 2008 11:15 AM:

" It's easy to see that we need more choices. But we can't just change overnight. We need better preparation. At first everyone thought corn-based ehtanol was great. Well it's not. We see the environmental and economic damage it does. We need an energy plan with more exploration and thought. We need to recognize when change can be harmful. And when it is, we need to move quickly in oher directions. Alga-based ethanol has proven to be better. It is easier to grow, a more powerful fuel and less harmful to the environment. And finally when are we going to get candidates that are not tied to special interests. Obama is totally in bed with the corn-based ethanol industry. I cannot vote for that. "

Atrucker wrote on Aug 10, 2008 11:40 AM:

" I say used cow crap .garbage waste, sewer heavy waste , saw mill waste ,paper mill waste , using a base line food source is just stupiddd.
Sure corn makes pretty good booze , so does potatoes, and plain old sugar.
The government does not care what you think. biofuel may be an answer ,but corn is the wrong crop. Hell some weeds have more energy value than corn. "

cloudmechanic wrote on Aug 10, 2008 6:32 PM:

" Ethanol or E85 is a fools pipe dream. It takes 2 gal of ethanol to do the work of one gal of gasoline. It would take 100million acres of corn to produce enough for one year and you think the price of corn, cereal etc etc is high now. Get real folks.
As far as Obama is concerned, have ANY of you read his comments lately. "America is a great country, come join me to change it". Now that scares the daylights out of me. CM "

DUH wrote on Aug 10, 2008 9:05 PM:

" The amount of corn it takes to make one tank full of fuel is enough to feed a man for an entire year. I would, without a doubt, give up driving my car for two weeks, (thats how long a tank full lasts me) in order to eat for a year. I don't see ethanol as the answer but, it is an alternative and we must explore all alternatives to break our dependency on oil. "

1209 wrote on Aug 10, 2008 10:23 PM:

" Hey, we got The Manchurian Candidate! It's catching on, and based in fact (check out "'Hanoi Hilton' jailer says he'd vote for McCain", USA Today, 6/27/2008). Shouldn't we be concerned about the Chinese communists being so supportive of a mccain Presidency? The Manchurian Candidate mccain has already admitted that he doesn't know anything about energy alternatives or the economy. Whereas Barack Obama has immersed himself in finding solutions to the energy crisis. "

randydutton wrote on Aug 11, 2008 11:15 AM:

" Ethanol also increases N2O pollution (296X worse than CO2), formaldehyde and acetyldehyde emissions, and corrodes legacy gas based motor fuel systems. China will benefit by replacing most of the equipment destroyed by ethanol. Think China will loan us another $$$ trillion to replace all that stuff? "

DW wrote on Aug 11, 2008 12:45 PM:

" Ethanol should be banned from the planet. Not only does it take more fossil fuels to produce ethanol than you get out, (1.3 barrels of oil to get 1 barrel of ethanol), it reduces the mpg that your vehicle will get. My gas miles has dropped 10% since they mandated the use of ethanol in our fuel a couple of months ago. That means I have to burn more fuel and pollute more than I would without ethanol. It is a rip off. We should be utilizing our own resources and drilling everywhere we can FOR OIL. The majority of Americans now believe we should drill. DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW, AND PAY LESS AT THE PUMP. And I don't want to here any crap that it will take ten years to realize any new oil... That's bull. We could have new oil on line with-in a year if we started now. And so what if it took ten years. If it takes ten years to get a doctorate, do people say that's to long a not do it. No, they get started on it and get it done. Unlike our government...Thank you Mr. Clinton for not getting it done ten ago..... "

1209 wrote on Aug 11, 2008 3:23 PM:

" We are now officially at a stage where republicans are beginning to admit that Barack Obama will defeat the Manchurian Candidate mccain for the Presidency. The next stage, over the next few years, is where they grudgingly admit that Barack Obama will solve our energy problems. The republican bigots spew these extended rants from the same place they pull their "facts". But as shown in the last seven years, they never solve our problems - they only make our country week. Ignorant, incompetent, white men refusing to take responsibility for the problems they've created. Graciously, Barack Obama is willing and able to take the responsibility in solving these problems of energy, economy, and security that are of no fault of his own. "

X-Democrat wrote on Aug 11, 2008 4:04 PM:

" Not exactly sure where 1209 is coming from. I am one X-Democrat who isn't admitting Obama has won anything. He talks about change, then admits he's in the hip pocket of the corn-based ethanol industry. He has no track record of proving or solving anything. His inexperience is an obstacle that cannot be overcome on the job. You don't get on-the-job training to be president. You need experience. Obama talks about how great a country this is, and then says its time for change. That is contradictory. We don't need change. We need a leader who will direct the other free leaders, not be one prone to follow. I will never vote Democrat again after 30 years of voting solely Democrat. I am now a firm believer that McCain is the only man in this election with the experience, strength, and dignity to be president of this country. "

TDN Bad Boy wrote on Aug 11, 2008 4:12 PM:

" How does 1209's campaign speech have anything to do with the content of this editorial? It appears that there has been some selective editing going on here. Legitimate posts on this editorial critical of Obama have been taken down. Would hate to think that the TDN is favoring one candidate, one view pointpoint. I have always thought the TDN was somewhat fair and balanced. Please don't change my mind. "

DW wrote on Aug 11, 2008 4:42 PM:

" Hey 1209 do you really believe Barack Hussein Obama is the Messiah. Kinda sounds like it. I personally believe McCain, with all his faults, is gonna wax the Messiah come election time. DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW, AND PAY LESS AT THE PUMP. I here McCain saying this. All I here from Obama is that we need to inflate our tires, get a tune up and problem solved. Oh, and get an order of flap jacks to go....hehe. "

DUH wrote on Aug 11, 2008 4:48 PM:

" I too believe that America is a great country but, changes can make it better. We've all seen what "staying the course" and that silly "thousand points of light" has done for us. Change is necessary to improve on greatness. At least Obama is willing, and trying to explore other alternative fuel sources to break our dependency on oil. McCains solution is to simply drill for more. If you have noticed, in the last 3 weeks, the price of oil has dropped considerably. Not because McCain says drill here, drill now. It has dropped in price because demand is down. Lower demand equates to lower prices. I agree that ethanol is not the answer but, new things have to be tried before you can dismiss them. "

TDN Bad Boy wrote on Aug 11, 2008 6:21 PM:

" RE: Duh -- Sen. McCain's solution is not to simply drill for more. Please educate yourself on the facts. McCain has an energy plan that encompasses all of the ideas except food-based alternative fuels. He believes we should expand nuclear energy and alternative fuels that are not food based. McCain is sensible in the fact that he knows we are still 20-30 years away from weaning ourselves off oil. Will it happen? Sure it will when the technology is developed. Obama simply rules out nuclear energy. That's ridiculous and America knows it. Heck the world knows it. I am surprised you aren't saying the price has dropped because Bush is taking oil from Iraq. Obama is so deep in the pocket of the corn-based ethanol industry that an oil drill couldn't reach him. That doesn't bother you? That he would sacrifice our econonmy and our environment for a side of the industry that hurts America. That's not change I want. He says put 1 million plug-in hybrids on the roads. That's less than 1 percent of the autos in America. The technology does not support this yet. Making and using batteries is harmful to our environment. His plan will increase the cost of an auto $7,000-$10,000 (Newsweek reported that today). So please come to the table with some legitimate plans. Not something from a big talker who has no history of action. "

Real American wrote on Aug 11, 2008 9:08 PM:

" Re-"DUH" You are being disingenuous by ignoring the supply side of your equation. Consider the law of supply and demand as a whole. If supply is lower than demand, increased price. If supply is higher than demand, decreased price. We are more than a one-trick-at-a-time kind of country. Alternatives are great to explore. But also drill and extract oil domestically. Build more refineries. The domestic economy will improve. "

DUH wrote on Aug 11, 2008 9:53 PM:

" Ignoring the supply side of my equation? Decrease in demand equates to increased supply. If we are using less and they are still pumping out the same amount, that means supply goes up. You all think that the answer is to drill, drill, drill. Do you not realize that oil is not a never ending thing? The more you drill now, the less there will be in the future. One day the wells will go dry. Then what? You're gonna hit yourself upside the head and say, "Wow, we should have explored the alternatives when we had the chance". And where is the money going to come from to build these refineries? The taxpayers thats where. Sounds like a real deal to me... NOT! "

DUH wrote on Aug 11, 2008 10:15 PM:

" Oh yes nuclear energy. Hmmmmm, tried that... Remember Trojan? And good luck there Bad Boy driving around in your nuclear powered car. With nuclear energy there comes nuclear waste. Nuclear waste has a half life of not less that 750 years. We don't have the technology to insure that no radiation leaks from waste sites for 200 years let alone 1500 years. You still think nuclear energy isn't a danger to the environment? Think again. Remember Chernobyl. You want more accidents like that one? What about 3 mile island? Depending on where your nuclear power plants are located, and accident could kill hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. Yep, sounds risk free to me... NOT! "

DUH wrote on Aug 12, 2008 11:07 AM:

" If I recall correctly there Bad Boy, this story was about ethanol as a fuel. It had nothing to do with nuclear energy. You are the one that threw that one into the mix. Ethanol as a fuel for vehicles. What does nuclear power have to do with ethanol as an alternative fuel source? You say, "One site was built directly next to a major fault area in California and has never had a problem." So what... The car that I own has never had a problem but, that doesn't guarantee that it won't break down tomorrow. "

TDN Bad Boy wrote on Aug 12, 2008 12:55 PM:

" OK, since you can't rationalize the big pictur, then let's look at your car issue. McCain is not simply for drilling. In fact he's opposed to Anwar. He also wants to explore alternative fuels and has stated so. He is not in favor of food-based ethanol. Obama is almost strictly fuel-based ethanol. He has voted almost religiously to continue farm subsidies. So tell me Duh, how long do you think it is going to change America from oil to ethanol -- which right now is not the proven product the Liberals believe it is. They refuse to see the problems it is doing to the economy or environment. If their messiah believes it is good, they will try to walk on water to support it. It is not good. Ethanol needs years more of development and study. So yes, drilling is part of the immediate solution. Not permanent, just immediate relief while we focus on the long-term big-picture energy plan. Oh that's right, the big picture is too difficult for Liberal minds to understand. "

DUH wrote on Aug 12, 2008 1:39 PM:

" I can't rationalize the big picture? If your tunnel vision hadn't kept you from reading my earlier comments, you would know that I am NOT for ethanol. But you like most other republicans see only what you WANT to see. Hear only what you WANT to hear. And your infinite wisdom shows when you resort to immature grade school name calling and your inability to think outside the box. This country needs to break itself of it's dependency on oil and that can't be done if other alternatives aren't explored. The way I see it, neither candidate is, or will be worth a damn as President. "

1209 wrote on Aug 12, 2008 2:18 PM:

" Enough!!! It's true that drilling won't bring any relief for around 10 years! Trust me. I'm an Engineer working on the ethanol conversion along the Olympic pipeline in the Seattle area! Nobody in the petroleum industry considers domestic/off shore drilling as alternative fuel! That's just a joke we leak to see who's dumb enough to believe it. Ethanol is projected as a more politically immediate source of relief because it only requires converted piping/hoses and valves with adjusted management of the primary resource. Now, stop making a mockery of my coffee breaks with these ignorant comments that have gone beyond the amusing to the absurd!... Or keep it up... I can't help it! Stupid will always be funny to me! "

Top Jobs
More Top Jobs
Top Garage Sales
More Top Garage Sales
Top Rentals
More Top Rentals