IF CARS eat all the corn, what will
Ethanol is not the long-term answer to America's energy problems. It has only about two-thirds the energy per gallon of gasoline, which means the more ethanol in your tank, the fewer miles per gallon you're going to get. Producing it takes fossil fuel energy, as does getting it to market: Ethanol must be transported in tanker trucks because it is corrosive and would erode inexpensive pipelines. Growing the corn to produce ethanol requires excessive amounts of of nitrogen fertilizer, which washes into our rivers and streams and causes pollution. In fact, scientists attribute a major "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico to corn production in the Midwest.
Despite these drawbacks, agricultural interests are tripping over themselves to produce corn for the ethanol market. This year they planted 15.5 percent more of the "yellow gold" than last year--a record of over 90 million acres. Soybean and cotton farmers in particular are making the switch to corn, encouraged by both skyrocketing market prices and federal incentives. In 2006, the feds paid ethanol corn farmers $.9 billion.
That windfall is in addition to the $2.5 billion Uncle Sam paid to ethanol "blenders" and the $3.6 billion consumers paid for the privilege of pumping ethanol-laced gas. With all that money floating around, it's no wonder the U.S. Department of Agriculture's chief economist calls the current atmosphere "ethanol euphoria."
Like all euphorias, this one won't last. Burning a food product for fuel will hurt us in the long run. Already the output of beef, pork, and chicken due to rising feed prices is expected to decline by 1 billion pounds this year, and lowered supplies will mean higher prices in grocery stores. Meat producers are hurting: The National Cattlemen's Beef Association told Business Week that the "ethanol binge is insane." Prices for other food products like milk, cereal, and bread are expected to rise. And drought--such as the one we're in now which has left corn in some places only knee-high--could create scarcities which would effect both food and fuel.
Still, the ethanol bandwagon, unleashed by federal incentives and driven by politicians hungry for the votes in farm states like Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Minnesota, rolls on. Despite the serious environmental implications for the already beleaguered Chesapeake Bay, International Bio Energy Virginia LLC proposes to build an ethanol plant in Chesapeake which will consume twice as much corn as Virginia produced last year. Local residents and environmentalists are, wisely, already raising objections.
There are other alternatives to ethanol (cellulose ethanol, for example, made from non-edible plant products). Taking corn from the mouths of cows? That's not the answer to our dependence on foreign oil. Let's keep looking.