Image: istockphoto.com/james steidl
RFS under siege
Texas called for a reduction in the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) to 4.5 billion gallons citing growing evidence that that biofuels are driving up the price of food, rising the price of corn and hurting the economy.
"Denying Texas’ request is a mistake that will only increase the already heavy financial burden on families while doing even more harm to the livestock industry," said Texas Gov. Rick Perry in a statement issued on his website. “Good intentions and laudable goals are small compensation to the families, farmers and ranchers who are being hurt by the federal government’s efforts to trade food for fuel. Any government mandate that artificially props-up a single industry to the detriment of millions of Americans is bad public policy.”
Promise is fading
The RFS calls for the addition of 9 billion gallons of ethanol this year, and 11.1 billion gallons in 2009. But ethanol has been met with sharp criticism as its real costs becomes evident. It was hailed as a solution to the energy crisis and the answer to weaning North America off oil.
But as studies and reports come to light, it looks like the benefits promised may not be delivered and that the production of ethanol results in far greater emissions from deforestation, burning, peat drainage, cultivation, and soil carbon losses.
According to Doug Parr, chief UK scientist at Greenpeace states flatly, “If even five percent of biofuels are sourced from wiping out existing ancient forests, you’ve lost all your carbon gain.”
Paul Krugman, Professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University has warned that "even on optimistic estimates, producing a gallon of ethanol from corn uses most of the energy the gallon contains. But it turns out that even seemingly “good” biofuel policies, like Brazil’s use of ethanol from sugar cane, accelerate the pace of climate change by promoting deforestation."
Faulty logic
The EPA made its decision based on analysis that shows the current rate of production would not cause economic harm. But the agency did not consider the environmental factors such as water and energy consumption.
“America should be focusing on viable clean energy solutions like conservation, solar and wind. Instead, the misguided corn ethanol mandate is forcing farmers to plow up marginal land and wildlife habitat, while increasing global warming and dumping toxic fertilizers and pesticides into our precious water sources,” said Environmental Working Group Director of Government Affairs Sandra Schubert.
Debate continues
In Canada, the biofuels sector is lashing back at a commentary written by University of Guelph economics professor Douglas Auld and published by the C.D. Howe Institute.
In this study entitled The Ethanol Trap:Why Policies to Promote Ethanol as Fuel Need Rethinking, Auld argues there is no scientific evidence that ethanol fuel is beneficial to the environment. He also calculated that because ethanol yields less per liter than gasoline manes more fill-ups and burning more fuel thereby not reducing carbon emissions. He also cited the problem of diverting agricultural land to ethanol production.
Better biofuels not more
Meanwhile cellulosic biofuels are being overlooked. Unlike ethanol derived from the sugar in corn starch, these biofuels use cellulose -- the woody part of common plants. While most plants don't contain sugar every plant does have cellulose. Theoretically common plants like grass, corn stalks, tree limbs, leaves or straw can be turned into ethanol. Tons of agricultural waste destined for landfills could be used to make biofuels. The drawback is that it's more difficult to produce and more research needs to be done. As companies around the world begin to invest in cellulosic ethanol, it may well replace the current sugar based biofuels.
Shelagh McNally is the editor of Green Living online.
Green Living Network
