XPost: ba.politics, dc.media, soc.penpals   
   XPost: alt.burningman   
   From: barry-the-illegal-alien@democrats.com   
      
   In 2013 the U.S. used 4.7 billion bushels of corn (40% of the   
   harvest) to produce over 13 billion gallons of ethanol fuel.   
   Source: YES! Magazine   
      
   OK, can we please stop pretending biofuel made from corn is   
   helping the planet and the environment? The United Nations   
   Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released two of its   
   Working Group reports at the end of last month (WGI and WGIII),   
   and their short discussion of biofuels has ignited a fierce   
   debate as to whether they’re of any environmental benefit at all.   
      
   The IPCC was quite diplomatic in its discussion, saying   
   “Biofuels have direct, fuel-cycle GHG emissions that are   
   typically 30–90% lower than those for gasoline or diesel fuels.   
   However, since for some biofuels indirect emissions—including   
   from land use change—can lead to greater total emissions than   
   when using petroleum products, policy support needs to be   
   considered on a case by case basis” (IPCC 2014 Chapter 8).   
      
   The summary in the new report also states, “Increasing bioenergy   
   crop cultivation poses risks to ecosystems and biodiversity”   
   (WGIII).   
      
   The report lists many potential negative risks of development,   
   such as direct conflicts between land for fuels and land for   
   food, other land-use changes, water scarcity, loss of   
   biodiversity and nitrogen pollution through the excessive use of   
   fertilizers (Scientific American).   
      
   The International Institute for Sustainable Development was not   
   so diplomatic, and estimates that the CO2 and climate benefits   
   from replacing petroleum fuels with biofuels like ethanol are   
   basically zero (IISD). They claim that it would be almost 100   
   times more effective, and much less costly, to significantly   
   reduce vehicle emissions through more stringent standards, and   
   to increase CAFE standards on all cars and light trucks to over   
   40 miles per gallon as was done in Japan just a few years ago.   
      
   With more than 60 nations having biofuel mandates, the   
   competition between ethanol and food has become a moral issue.   
   Groups like Oxfam and the Environmental Working Group oppose   
   biofuels because they push up food prices and disproportionately   
   affect the poor.   
      
   Most importantly, the new IPCC report is a complete about-face   
   for the UN’s Panel. Its 2007 report was broadly condemned by   
   some environmentalists for giving the green light to large-scale   
   biofuel production, resulting in environmental and food supply   
   problems.   
      
   The general discussion on biofuels has changed over the last few   
   years. In December, Senators Feinstein (D-CA) and Coburn (R-OK)   
   introduced a bill that would eliminate the corn ethanol mandate   
   within the Federal Renewable Fuel Standard (Oil&Gas Journal)   
   that requires blending ethanol into gasoline at increasing   
   levels over the next decade. It was met with stiff opposition   
   from heavily agricultural states, but had strong support from   
   the petroleum industry. However, now that the tax credit and   
   import tariffs have expired and ethanol is holding its own   
   economically, it remains to be seen if the industry can stand up   
   to this pressure.   
      
   So where is the U.S. today in corn ethanol space?   
      
   In 2000, over 90% of the U.S. corn crop went to feed people and   
   livestock, many in undeveloped countries, with less than 5% used   
   to produce ethanol. In 2013, however, 40% went to produce   
   ethanol, 45% was used to feed livestock, and only 15% was used   
   for food and beverage (AgMRC).   
      
   The United States will use over 130 billion gallons of gasoline   
   this year, and over 50 billion gallons of diesel. On average,   
   one bushel of corn can be used to produce just under three   
   gallons of ethanol. If all of the present production of corn in   
   the U.S. were converted into ethanol, it would only displace 25%   
   of that 130 billion.   
      
   But it would completely disrupt food supplies, livestock feed,   
   and many poor economies in the Western Hemisphere because the   
   U.S. produces 40% of the world’s corn. Seventy percent of all   
   corn imports worldwide come from the U.S. Simply implementing   
   mandatory vehicle fuel efficiencies of 40 mpg would accomplish   
   much more, much faster, with no collateral damage.   
      
   In 2014, the U.S. will use almost 5 billion bushels of corn to   
   produce over 13 billion gallons of ethanol fuel. The grain   
   required to fill a 25-gallon gas tank with ethanol can feed one   
   person for a year, so the amount of corn used to make that 13   
   billion gallons of ethanol will not feed the almost 500 million   
   people it was feeding in 2000. This is the entire population of   
   the Western Hemisphere outside of the United States.   
      
   In 2007, the global price of corn doubled as a result of an   
   explosion in ethanol production in the U.S. Because corn is the   
   most common animal feed and has many other uses in the food   
   industry, the price of milk, cheese, eggs, meat, corn-based   
   sweeteners and cereals increased as well.  World grain reserves   
   dwindled to less than two months, the lowest level in over 30   
   years.   
      
   Additional unintended effects from the increase in ethanol   
   production include the dramatic rise in land rents, the increase   
   in natural gas and chemicals used for fertilizers, over-pumping   
   of aquifers like the Ogallala that serve many mid-western   
   states, clear-cutting forests to plant fuel crops, and the   
   revival of destructive practices such as edge tillage. Edge   
   tillage is planting right up to the edge of the field thereby   
   removing protective bordering lands and increasing soil erosion,   
   chemical runoff and other problems. It took us 40 years to end   
   edge tillage in this country, and overnight ethanol brought it   
   back with a vengeance.   
      
   Most fuel crops, such as sugar cane, have problems similar to   
   corn. Because Brazil relied heavily on imported oil for   
   transportation, but can attain high yields from crops in their   
   tropical climate, the government developed the largest fuel   
   ethanol program in the world in the 1990s based on sugar cane   
   and soybeans.   
      
   Unfortunately, Brazil is clear-cutting almost a million acres of   
   tropical forest per year to produce biofuel from these crops,   
   and shipping much of the fuel all the way to Europe. The net   
   effect is about 50% more carbon emitted by using these biofuels   
   than using petroleum fuels (Eric Holt-Giménez, The Politics of   
   Food). These unintended effects are why energy policy and   
   development must proceed holistically, considering all effects   
   on global environments and economies.   
      
   So why have we pushed corn ethanol so heavily here in the U.S.?   
   Primarily because it was the only crop that had the existing   
   infrastructure to easily modify for this purpose, especially   
   when initially incentivized with tax credits, subsidies and   
   import tariffs. Production, transportation and fermentation   
   could be adapted quickly by the corn industry, unlike any other   
   crop.   
      
   We should remember that humans originally switched from biomass   
   to fossil fuels because biomass was so inefficient, and took so   
   much energy and space to produce.  So far technology has not   
   reversed these problems sufficiently to make widespread use   
   beneficial.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)