Deposing King Corn?

Corn ethanol approaches a moment of truth 33

cornCourtesy Randy Wick via Flickr

[UPDATED 4/24] As expected, California’s Air Resources Board passed the LCFS with the indirect land use component intact. That’s the good news. The bad news is that the actual model to be used in the calculation (including to what extent gasoline will incur an indirect land use penalty) won’t be finalized until 2011, a year before the rule actually goes into effect. The badder news is that Reuters reported that CARB’s chair, Mary Nichols, sent a to letter for Fmr. Gen. Wesley Clark, CEO of Growth Energy, the main ethanol lobbying group, declaring “that corn ethanol will play an important role in helping California achieve the goals of the [LCFS].” Make of that what you will.

———————————-

Corn ethanol (not to mention soy biodiesel) may have reached a turning point. But it is regulators, not legislators, who are in the driver’s seat. A series of regulatory rulings, one expected as early as today, may help to determine whether corn ethanol or soy biodiesel will play any meaningful role in our future biofuel mix.

Today, the California Air Resources Board plans to rule on its proposed definition of a Low Carbon Fuel Standard. As the LA Times explains:

The goal of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard is to lower the “carbon intensity” of fuels sold in California 10% by 2020. It does this by using complexformulas to score each type of fuel based on its life-cycle emissions; carbon intensity is calculated by comparing the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by a fuel over its life cycle with the amount of energy it produces. Starting in 2011, companies that sell fuel in California will have to lower the overall carbon intensity of their various fuels at a rate that will increase every year until 2020, or else buy credits from companies that sell cleaner fuels.

At issue for ethanol (and other biofuels) is the inclusion in the LCFS of indirect land use effects in calculating a fuel’s total GHG contributions. If the proposed rule is approved, California will utilize a computer model that incorporates the effects on GHG emissions of growing fuel on existing farmland, as well as the effect of deforestation caused by the need to bring additional land under cultivation as fuel crops displace food crops worldwide. Growing food-for-fuel will display a signficant indirect land use effect (while cellulosic ethanol, produced from non-food crops like switchgrass and jatropha, will get a pass).

Corn ethanol is thus unlikely to survive the analysis and qualify for California’s LCFS. Corn ethanol would be, for lack of a better word, banned from the Golden State. Amplifying the significance of the ruling is the expectation that a large group of Northeastern states will adopt California’s standard. As you might imagine, the ethanol industry (which is still 100% corn-based) is not amused. Apoplectic might be a better description. But when you put aside the fury, their objections boil down to the fact that indirect land use effects are a new field that’s hard to model. So there. Most analysts don’t expect the CARB to be swayed by such devastating flights of logical prowess.  We’ll find out soon enough.

This ruling couldn’t come at a worse time for the ethanol industry, already reeling from the economic downturn. Following on the heels of California’s upcoming ruling, the EPA will be updating the 2007 Energy Bill’s Renewable Fuel Standard sometime this year. And according to this report in AgricultureOnline (via FarmPolicy.com), the EPA will also begin incorporating indirect land use effects in its assesment of ethanol and other biofules. To qualify for the RFS, a fuel must demonstrate a 50% improvement over fossil fuels in terms of its GHG contributions. Once indirect land use effects are included, food-based fuels will no longer make the cut. Of course, the EPA may not have the final word. In an interesting development, AgOnline also reports that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s staff indicated that “it was not the intent of Congress to have soy biodiesel excluded from the RFS.” In other words, there’s always the possibility of Congressional action to undo any EPA ruling.

In the midst of all this bad news for corn ethanol, the industry is pinning its hopes on its petition to the EPA to increase the so-called “blend wall”—the maximum amount of ethanol that can be added to gasoline. I’ve explained at length the saga of the blend wall—the ethanol industry, USDA chief Tom Vilsack, even Nancy Pelosi have called for an increase. And the now the EPA has agreed to consider it. Despite the apparent “victory” of starting a rulemaking process, I’m skeptical that, in light of all these other developments—not least of which is the EPA’s recent “endangerment” finding regarding carbon dioxide—the agency is inclined to do the corn ethanol folks any favors. Even so, everyone should be encouraged to submit a comment urging the EPA to maintain the current blend wall given the enormous pressures on land use and food prices the current practice of using food for fuel represents. You can email comments to a-and-r-docket@epa.gov and be sure to put Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0211 in the subject line. The deadline for comments is May 21 with a ruling not expected until late this year.

As an interesting coda, I was gratified to note that President Obama, in his Earth Day speech in corn-drenched Iowa, didn’t mention anything about “growing our fuel” (something that has been a staple in his “green” speeches of late). I hope it was a conscious decision. Corn ethanol has powerful backers among industry, Congress and the Executive Branch who may yet find ways to continue this food-for-fuel boondoggle. But it does seem like the science behind corn ethanol’s real-world effects may soon have the upper hand.

Tom is a media and technology professional who thinks that wrecking the planet is a bad idea. He twitters madly and blogs here and at Beyond Green about food policy, alternative energy, climate science and politics as well as the multiple and various effects of living on a warming planet.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. sindark's avatar

    sindark Posted 12:42 pm
    23 Apr 2009

    A mechanism to economically encourage lower carbon fuels is an important part of an overall climate strategy. By all means, if someone can come up with biofuels that are genuinely less carbon-intensive than other fuels, while remaining economically viable, they should be able to market and sell them.That being said, the evidence so far suggests that corn ethanol, and perhaps other biofuels, have caused more environmental harm than they have prevented so far.

    Permalink

  2. catmandew Posted 2:38 pm
    23 Apr 2009

     Are we making the same mistake with trees which we made with corn ethanol - unintended consequences if messing with mother nature?? I once wrote that to college age greenie “Trees Are Bad!!!!”.He of course responded with something like “you efin idiot, trees take CO2 out of the atmosphere!”. Of course he is right... about the CO2 and atmosphere stuff the jury is still out about the “efin idiot” stuff. I absolutely agree, trees do remove CO2 from the atmosphere while they are alive. When trees die of course, that CO2 is released back into the atmosphere. So, in order for trees to actually reduce CO2 over significant time periods (hundreds of years) the actual amount of forest, as in bio mass, must continually increase. That has in fact occurred in North American in a very dramatic fashion. Since 1950, the bio mass of forests in North America has increased by 40%. Great for CO2! However, for the full life of a tree, that tree will pull water out of the ground into its leaves. Most of that water ultimately evaporates into the atmosphere. If a tree lives to be several hundred years old, every year that tree will pump thousands of gallons of water into the atmosphere. And, when that tree dies, it will release both its resident CO2 and all of its resident water.A few readers may not be aware that water molecules have the ability to absorb energy from roughly 70% more of of the infra red spectrum than that of CO2. Water vapour is a very important issue according to the IPCC. In fact, the IPCC 4th report references the potential for an increase in water vapour to increase global warming on thirty separate occasions in the 4th report.What are you talking about you nutter? I heard that.Well, if it was just one tree, or 100 trees or even 1000 trees, this would not be an issue at all. However, forests cover 1.75 Billion acres of North America. The following was written in a recent UN report “Today, the United States has about the same amount of land covered by trees as it did 100 years ago”. That's a heck of a come back since 1950.  Forests have also increased in bio-density since 1950.  As a result of mandated forest management practices which no long allow forest fires to burn themselves out so undergrowth has dramatically decreased.  As a result, forests in north America are now producing a lot more water than they were in 1950.  Some scientists have speculated that this is the explanation for the fact that Greenland is warming faster than Antarctica. Forests in the southern atmosphere have decreased since 1950 do to the clearing of land in developing nations. One thing about water vapour which makes its behavior unique compared to most other greenhouse gases, is that water does not migrate globally. The cooling of rising water causes it to transform quickly from water vapour to rain or snow which falls back to earth. Its a science thing.  So, water vapour produced in North America, stays in the atmosphere for only about 2 weeks before it falls back to earth. However, while it is in the atmosphere for that portion of the world, water vapour does create a warming effect. The air currents coming off of North America, will carry water vapour and its resident heat over Greenland. So, if we are worrying about Greenland ice melting, and the oceans rising, perhaps we should, instead of plant a tree, harvest some trees? Its not nice to mess with mother nature! Just Grist for thought.

    Permalink

  3. Orng Crush Posted 2:41 pm
    23 Apr 2009

    Actually, ethano's argument is that they haven't factored in indirect effects for any fuel but ethanol.  You can't tell me that oil use doesn't affect anything (how much carbon did "shock and awe" release?).Plus, the argument is that if corn prices are allowed to rise, other countries will start growing it.  It's an economic argument, and it really has nothing to do with land.  By that account, anything that improves the market for corn or other grains is bad for the environment, our high-fructose corn syrup consumption, for instance.  So don't increase your Coke consumption, by all means.  You'll be tearing down the Amazon.

    Permalink

  4. Tom Laskawy's avatar

    Tom Laskawy Posted 4:02 pm
    23 Apr 2009

    Firstly, it's not clear that CARB will leave out indirect effects of other fuels. But even so, they're likely to pale in comparison to the land use effects of corn ethanol. As to your point about the effect of rising corn prices -- that's not the effect we've seen. But even so, if other countries start growing corn for fuel that will only make matters worse. After all, where will they grow it? Not on existing land -- that's pretty much all in use. They either displace food crops or, more likely, burn down rainforest which has a devastating greenhouse effect. What has happened to date is that other countries have responded to the corn-for-fuel phenomenon by growing the food we're no longer growing (since we're using so much land to grow fuel). Woods Hole has done research that demonstrated exactly this. Plus, research out of Duke University has shown that if you account for the fuel and fertizlier needed to grow the corn, corn ethanol has no GHG advantage over gasoline at all. It's not clear to what extent CARB will include those effects (or the GHG impact of nitrous oxide emitted by corn fields when the nitrogen not taken in by the plant is converted to a gas 300x more potent than carbon dioxide). It's all bad.I'm not even convinced that non-food based cellulosic ethanol is any better if cropland is used to grow it -- a cash crop is a cash crop. If it out-earns a food crop, who's to say farmers won't switch over to the fuel crop.

    Permalink

  5. alexstack Posted 4:23 pm
    23 Apr 2009

    Actually, ethano's argument is that they haven't factored in indirect
    effects for any fuel but ethanol.  You can't tell me that oil use
    doesn't affect anything (how much carbon did "shock and awe" release?). That is great point.

    Permalink

  6. PompeyRoad Posted 5:11 pm
    23 Apr 2009

    Why subsidize an inefficient fuel that happens to be a food stock when more efficient biofuel sources are available. Sugar Cane, Sugar Beets, Hybrid Sorghum several times more efficient and you can use the waste products for a fuel source to make the biofuel.

    Permalink

  7. Clifford Wells's avatar

    Clifford Wells Posted 8:32 pm
    23 Apr 2009

    Well you have three things here.  First, ethanol is required to be blended into gasoline about 10% by volume weight as an oxygenate instead of nasty old MTBE.  Second, it is the market that will drive things ethanol and currently corn ethanol stinks as a commodity, no profit.  Third, people want to get rid of both gasoline and ethanol oxygenate, and aren't too darn happy about bio-diesel formulations either. There is a whole bunch of hyprocrisy to hand out in all directions here, including the ARB and EPA who have no substitutes that can capture a low-carbon power source, especially for motor vehicle fuels.  The idea of "command and control" regulations to force new technologies is a sham and a farce, since there is nothing there but a few very expensive hybrid or electric commuter cars, and not many of them either. If you want things to continue on the present course, just keeping going at it like you are today - conventional crude oil transportation gasoline and diesel will be here forever and corn ethanol will be toast!  Hah, regulate it so there is no motor fuel and we'll all be sitting behind electron-gobbling computers until the money runs out because we can't work any more.  I would expect less from idiots, I guess.

    Permalink

  8. Biodiversivist's avatar

    Biodiversivist Posted 11:09 pm
    23 Apr 2009

    "...Actually, ethano's argument is that they haven't factored in indirect
    effects for any fuel but ethanol..."
    Only about 1-2% of global liquid fuel supply is presently biofuel. Trust me, on a per gallon basis, nothing beats scraping the biosphere into our fuel tanks for pure destructive power on a per gallon basis.
    Reality check. There is no way California will find corn ethanol unacceptable:"...California's Air Resources Board "believes that corn
    ethanol will play an important role in helping California
    achieve the goals of the (low carbon fuel standard)," the
    state's top air quality regulator, Mary Nichols, said in a
    letter to General Wesley Clark, co-chair of biofuels
    association, Growth Energy and a former U.S. presidential
    candidate...."    http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN2227317720090423Our stupid politicians are not going to save us. I saw a very interesting headline somewhere that suggested that a ruling against corn ethanol would be a boon for other biofuels and they are right. Corn ethanol is getting in the way of better things and it will never go down without a fight.The UCS is chipping in:http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/scientists-urge-california-to-0223.htmlI recenlty stumbled upon some evidence of land displacement effects in an old Oil Drum post that I adapted:http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/Graphics/img29.gif
    You can't base political decisions on science when the majority of your citizens don't believe in the theory of evolution.  

    Permalink

  9. Orng Crush Posted 7:24 am
    24 Apr 2009

    Laskawy,Right, they claim, but are under no obligation to now, that they are going to look at indirect effects of other fuels in 2011, but they haven’t yet.  So let’s say in 2011, they find that gasoline should get an additional penalty for its indirect effects, and consequentially ethanol from the Midwest is indeed better than gasoline.  Great, but in the meantime, investment in ethanol has dried up, infrastructure development has completely stalled, and the oil industry has sucked up the ethanol production facilities at pennies on the dollar.  Great.  Thanks CARB.  They need to figure out every fuel's carbon footprint before setting the rules.And this statement, “After all, where will they grow it? Not on existing land -- that's pretty much all in use,” is based on what?  This Stanford University study found a billion acres of idled crop land worldwide.  Who’s to say the rainforest is the best place to grow crops?  Doesn’t it make more sense to bring previous ag land back into production? 

    Permalink

  10. Orng Crush Posted 7:51 am
    24 Apr 2009

    And you're wrong about the money.  ILUC theory is an economic argument.  These aren’t altruistic farmers trying to meet a global need for food.  They’re people who, according to the theory, see that the price of grains is above the cost of production for the first time in years (U.S. crop supports had previously held down the price of grains worldwide), so it is profitable for them to get into agriculture.  Makes sense on the surface, but it hasn't materialized.  Greenpeace just showed their own results on Amazon deforestation.  .88 percent is due to soybean farmers.  Vast majority is due to cattle grazing.  Much of the land is simply unused.

    Permalink

  11. Tom Laskawy's avatar

    Tom Laskawy Posted 8:03 am
    24 Apr 2009

    Boy, you sure do like your corn ethanol. As to that Stanford study, they just looked at former ag land -- and didn't seem to care why it was abandoned (eroded soils) or what was on it now.  Look at this winning graph from the study:"The abandoned crop areas from HYDE and SAGE data had the highest concentrations over the Eastern United States, as a result of the relocation of cropland from the Eastern to the Midwestern region of North America.The most extensive area of abandoned pasture was over the Midwestern region of North America, where HYDE data indicate that cropland has replaced pasture land. Australia, where pasture areas peaked in the mid-1970s and have since steadily declined, also had high levels of pasture abandonment in the data. We found that 99% of the land abandonment occurred during the past 100 years."So your idea (and the idea of the ethanol industry presumably) is to bulldoze houses and shopping malls in the Eastern and Midwestern US and return that "abandoned agricultural land" to cultivation? That and farm more in Austrialia. The Australia that's currently seeing massive crop failures due to persistent drought and high temps (you know, from global warming)? Now that's a realistic policy proposal. As I said in my post, if you look at WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING in the world (which is what the Woods Hole researchers did) rather than what a Stanford computer model says, you will see that in the last few years Brazilian rainforest was destroyed as a result of pressure from increased corn production for ethanol in the US.And the idea that gasoline will suddenly be outlawed or something in California in 2011 is just silly. The total reduction in carbon required by the LCFS is only 10% by 2020 -- in 2011 car engines still won't be able to handle more than 10% ethanol in the gas anyway. I should point out, O friend of corn ethanol, that even President Obama and USDA chief Tom Vilsack want to get us to second-gen (i.e. non-food based) biofuels ASAP. Besides, in 2011 our best engine option will likely be hybrid or ideally plug-in hybrids. The fuel effeciency gains will far outweigh any effect of the LCFS by then. Nice try, though.

    Permalink

    1. Orng Crush Posted 8:22 am
      24 Apr 2009

      Absolutely I like ethanol, and I make a big effort to stay on top of energy issues.  Sorry for disagreeing with you about how to get our nation to quit funding terrorism.The research claims, but does not prove that corn ethanol was the cause of any of that deforestation.  Plenty of independent and respected scientists are on both sides of this issue.  175 recently sent a letter to CARB in support of their efforts.  111 sent a letter just before that against their ILUC efforts.  And they weren’t hacks, they were from UC-Berkely, UC-Davis, MIT, Amherst, etc.At best, you can say the science community is divided, which is pretty poor for setting public policy.And I never said gas would be outlawed.  I said it would be found to be worse than ethanol, so ethanol could then contribute to the 10 percent reduction.I love cellulosic ethanol, but this regulation will kill the ethanol infrastructure improvements (such as installation of E85 pumps).  The vast majority of the cellulosic companies (those not currently in the corn ethanol business) came out AGAINST the land use theory because of that fact and the fact that “ethanol” is becoming a bad word and no one will invest any more.This was from 12 cellulosic companies in written comments to CARB:“The successful development, commercialization, and sustained production of second-generation biofuels is largely contingent upon continued market opportunities for the first generation of biofuels. Securing financing for second-generation biofuels projects in today’s economy is challenging enough; but the negative signal sent to potential investors by the enforcement of selective and questionable penalties against biofuels may be insurmountable.” 

      Permalink

  12. Tom Laskawy's avatar

    Tom Laskawy Posted 8:30 am
    24 Apr 2009

    Frankly, I wouldn't shed a tear. I don't want car companies making E85 engines. I want plug-in hybrids and ultimately full electric -- that's where investment and infrastructure dollars should be flowing. To paraphrase the Graduate, "Batteries, Benjamin, batteries." Electrification is the future of transportation. It simply isn't possible to grow feedstocks for fuel on a scale similar to gasoline production -- heck, we didn't even talk about what's going on with palm oil (another biofuel feedstock) in Asia and the effect it's having on deforestation. The interesting stuff in biofuel is with trash, wood waste or algal biofuels. And frankly, if those breakthroughs comes, investment will flood into the sector.

    Permalink

  13. Orng Crush Posted 8:30 am
    24 Apr 2009

    So your idea (and the idea of the ethanol industry presumably) is to bulldoze houses and shopping malls in the Eastern and Midwestern US and return that "abandoned agricultural land" to cultivation?You forgot to add this sentence to your critique of the study:“However, the abandoned agriculture areas were reduced by only 3% when using the MODIS data to exclude urban areas.”

    Permalink

  14. Tom Laskawy's avatar

    Tom Laskawy Posted 8:37 am
    24 Apr 2009

    "Urban" isn't the same as "settled." There's not way around the fact that a lot of that abandoned land has been built on. And that doesn't account for Australia...  :)

    Permalink

  15. Orng Crush Posted 9:03 am
    24 Apr 2009

    This is what their study covered: “We considered abandoned agriculture as land that was previously used for crop or pasture but has since been abandoned (and has not been converted to forest or urban areas).”  The Stanford researchers never say they’re considering settled land.  Just because you say it’s so doesn’t make it so.  Quote the part of the study for me please that indicates you’re basing that on anything other than speculation. Clearly your statement about "bulldozing shopping malls" was over the top and inaccurate, even by your own followup comment about how you weren't really talking about urban areas.And this isn't just a model, it's actual land use.And claiming that grains are permanently out of production in Australia is an incredible leap to justify your shaky position.  Finally, since you called me on not addressing all of your comments, tell me how you justify your previous statement that ILUC theory isn't about economics.  You said "that's not the effect we've seen."  I say, "exactly!"  We haven't seen this theory hold true.  Amazon deforestation rates have been cut in half since biofuels production ramped up.  Farming has been proven to represent .88 percent of the deforestation.  It's logging and cattle. 

    Permalink

  16. Biodiversivist's avatar

    Biodiversivist Posted 12:37 pm
    24 Apr 2009

    "…Who’s to say the rainforest is the best place to grow crops? …”

    That sentence is nonsensical--the farmers growing crops there, obviously.

    "…Doesn’t it make more sense to bring previous ag land back into production? …”

    Again, apparently not or farmers would not be plowing up new land.

    "...Greenpeace just showed their own results on Amazon deforestation. …Vast majority is due to cattle grazing …”

    No one denies that cattle grazing causes most deforestation but that does not mean it's a good idea to exacerbate that with biofuels, which are in their infancy and have tremendous potential to greatly increase deforestation, which accounts for a fifth of global warming, because cars can eat food a lot faster than people do.

    "…Absolutely I like ethanol, and I make a big effort to stay on top of energy issues …Sorry for disagreeing with you about how to get our nation to quit funding terrorism …”

    If your reason for "liking" ethanol is because you think its use will stop funding for terrorism, let me relieve you of that burden. Oil is fungible. Somebody else will buy it if we don't. Your terrorists will get funded anyway.

    "…The research claims, but does not prove that corn ethanol was the cause of any of that deforestation. …”

    This is one of those rare situations where common sense is backed up by plenty of proof:

    "…Gibbs' data [satellite images] show that between 1980 and 2000, more than half of new cropland came from intact rainforests and another 30 percent from disturbed forests, "This is contrary to what some biofuel proponents have suggested is occurring today…'"

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-02/su-bbc021309.php

    and

    http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/Indirect-Land-Use-Factsheet.pdf

    and

    http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/Graphics/img29.gif

    "…Plenty of independent and respected scientists are on both sides of this Issue …175 recently sent a letter to CARB in support of their efforts.  111 sent a letter just before that against their ILUC efforts.  And they weren’t hacks, they were from UC-Berkely, UC-Davis, MIT, Amherst, etc. …”

    Good thing science isn't a majority rule thing or our kids would be learning all about creationism in their science classes right now. On the other hand, looks like my side is winning. According to the UCS The 170 pro-land use inclusion guys include "…two Nobel Laureates and nine members of the National Academies of …." It would be a hoot to compare that list from the Union of Concerned Scientists to your list assembled by the corn growers and ethanol refiners.

    Reminds me of the time the global warming deniers circulated a list of hundreds of "scientists" who agreed with them a few years back.

    "…I love cellulosic ethanol, but this regulation will kill the ethanol infrastructure improvements (such as installation of E85 pumps). …”

    And I love magical ponies but you don't see the government buying them for me with your money. Why should I pay for your e85 pump or a flex fuel car? Who is to say that biodiesel from algae or palm won't win this contest? Palm biodiesel dwarfs cellulosic ethanol when it comes to productivity. Maybe we should be installing more diesel pumps?

    Gallons per acre:

    http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/Graphics/img10.gif


    "…We haven't seen this the story hold true.  Amazon deforestation rates have been cut in half since biofuels production ramped up. …”

    Riiiight, biofuels are actually reducing deforestation…up is down, black is white ....

    Permalink

  17. Orng Crush Posted 1:30 pm
    24 Apr 2009

    Way to use data with a time span starting in 1980, waaaaaaay before the ethanol production ramp up.  60% of production was installed in the last 5 years.  Look at deforestation rates during that time.  They’re down.I apologize if I wasn’t clear.  When I say it makes more sense to put ag land back into production than convert rainforest land to crops, what I’m saying is that since no one has proven that ethanol has caused any land to be converted in the rainforest and this is simply a model predicting those effects, I contend that it is idled ag land brought back into production, not torn down trees.And when you say “Somebody else will buy it if we don't. Your terrorists will get funded anyway.”  I disagree wholeheartedly.  America is by far the largest consumer of oil.  Corn and cellulosic ethanol could completely eliminate imports, plus provide the means for others to produce their own fuel.  We could render the Middle East obsolete.We can't just keep importing oil because we think it's inevitable.And you’re right that biofuels are in their infancy, which is why the efficiency gains in the last five years have been phenomenal, not that anyone gives the industry any credit.

    Permalink

    1. Biodiversivist's avatar

      Biodiversivist Posted 9:34 am
      25 Apr 2009

      "…Way to use data with a time span starting in 1980, waaaaaaay before the ethanol production ramp up.  60% of production was installed in the last 5 years…."

      The FAO releases a new global assessment every 10 years. She studied 600 satellite images compiled by the FAO in 1980, 1990, and 2000. The 2010 assessment wasn't included in the study for obvious reasons. The paper was presented at the American Academy for the Advancement of Science in February.

      "…Look at deforestation rates during that time. They’re down …what I’m saying is that since no one has proven that ethanol has caused any land to be converted in the rainforest and this is simply a model predicting those effects, I contend that it is idled ag land brought back into production, not torn down trees…."

      It has been proven that ethanol has caused land to be converted (because we grew more corn we grew less soy so they grow more soy) and unlike global warming, the proof does not rely on complex models. Deforestation rates dropped after the record highs 2002-2004 thanks to efforts by environmental groups like Greenpeace.

      What is missing is evidence that farmers are trying to grow crops on land that has been stripped of topsoil and nutrients. It is more likely that the lower deforestation rates since 2004 are the result of pasture being shifted to the Cerrado (another carbon sink) and/or a decrease in illegal logging.

      "…It's not known how much of new farmland is being used for biofuels, but Gibbs estimates it could be anywhere from a third to two-thirds. Unless biofuels are planted in pastures or degraded lands, she said, "'we're going to be burning rainforest in our gas tanks…'"

      Growing crops on degraded land will be expensive. It's a hard sell to get farmers to try to grow crops on bad land. Several studies have also found that letting that land grow back into forest would do more to reduce global warming than growing biofuels there for decades to several centuries depending on biofuel and type of habitat.

      "… However, in some cases, allowing the degraded land to be returned to its natural, forested state might be the wisest use of the land, absorbing more carbon and providing ecological services such as flood mitigation, rainwater recycling and habitat for endangered species…"

      Look at the destruction of the Amazon as a fire. Pouring biofuel on that fire is not going to help and speaking of fires:

      "…The area of rainforest in the process of being deforested — razed but not yet cleared — surged in the Brazilian Amazon during 2008..."

      "…24,932 square kilometers of Amazon forest was damaged between August 2007 and July 2008, an increase of 10,017 square kilometers -- 67 percent -- over the prior year. The figure is in addition to the 11,968 square kilometers of forest that were completely cleared, indicating that at least 36,900 square kilometers of forest were damaged or destroyed during the year.

      "…The surge in activity is attributed to the sharp rise in commodity prices over the past two years. While grain and meat prices have plunged since March, higher prices have provided an impetus for converting land for agriculture and pasture. Accordingly, the burning season of 2007 (July-September) saw record numbers of fires in some parts of the Amazon as farmers, speculators, and ranchers set vast areas ablaze to prepare for the 2008 growing season

      "…U.S. consumption of corn to supply domestic ethanol production created a global corn frenzy which drove up prices and spurred expansion of croplands around the planet. Two examples are Brazil and Laos. Brazil increased production of soy to essentially make up for soy acreage lost to corn in America. In Laos (pictured), returns from corn were so high that Vietnamese traders pressured national park officials to open up protected areas in parts of the country to corn fields. They refused..."

      "…falling grain prices early in the year coincided with a sharp slowing in deforestation. As food and fuel prices peaked through late 2007 and early 2008, it appeared that Amazon deforestation would climb to levels not seen since 2005 — more than 15,000 square kilometers were expected to be lost. The sudden downturn changed all that. When the final numbers came in for 2008, they showed that deforestation only increased a modest 3.8% to 11,968 square kilometers..."

      "...And when you say “Somebody else will buy it if we don't. Your terrorists will get funded anyway.”  I disagree wholeheartedly.  America is by far the largest consumer of oil...."

      I suppose the argument boils down to what a terrorist is and who is funding them. We only get 10% of our oil from Saudi Arabia, where the 9/11 terrorists hailed from. We could buy it elsewhere if we wanted to pay more.

      "...Corn and cellulosic ethanol could completely eliminate imports, plus provide the means for others to produce their own fuel...."

      No. It took over a quarter of our corn crop to replace about 4% of our gasoline supply and cellulosic is perpetually just five years away from commercial viability. Even if cellulosic actually escapes the lab it will eventually be crushed economically by cane ethanol imports, making us dependent on foreign sources all over again.

      "...We could render the Middle East obsolete...".

      No. The oil would simply be sold to other countries.

      "...We can't just keep importing oil because we think it's inevitable...."

      We do agree on that point. What we disagree on is how to do it. I want to do it with efficiency gains. You want to do it by replacing the fuel in your SUV or pickup with biomass scraped off the face of the planet.

      We throw 80% of the energy in every gas tank away using today's internal combustion engines. My family reduced oil for transport use by 80% without cost or hardship. We move just as many miles just as fast, save money doing it, and we did it without converting a single acre of the biosphere into fuel. We swapped a 24-mpg Outback for a 48-mpg hybrid and a 15-mpg Cherokee for a Hybrid Electric bike with trailer for around town single occupant trips.

      "...And you’re right that biofuels are in their infancy, which is why the efficiency gains in the last five years have been phenomenal, not that anyone gives the industry any credit..."

      "…Biofuels have caused alarm because of how quickly production has been growing: Global ethanol production increased by four times and biodiesel by 10 times between 2000 and 2007…"

      Sources:

      http://news.mongabay.com/2008/1220-amazon.html
      http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/releases2/amazon-soy-moratorium-holds
      http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-02/su-bbc021309.php
      http://blogs.sciencemag.org/newsblog/2009/02/fill-er-up-with-rainforest.html
      http://news.mongabay.com/2008/1008-brazil.html

      Permalink

      1. Orng Crush Posted 12:59 pm
        27 Apr 2009

        Re: deforestation rates: OK, so you’re saying you don’t have the data from the last 5-10 years. Then quit making assumptions based on a time frame that’s irrelevant to the discussion.


        Re: your statement that “it has been proven that ethanol caused land to be converted …”: It has not at all been proven. The scientists that actually came up with the Indirect Land Use Change theory wrote a policy analysis to CARB stating “Indirect land use changes associated with biofuel production in the LCFS would be difficult to estimate because it is uncertain how increased biofuel production in one location (for instance California or Iowa) would affect the use of land in another location (for instance prairie land in the Great Plains or rain forests in Malaysia or Brazil). Few economists believe the international computable general equilibrium model could reliably predict such land use changes.”


        They then go on to basically say, well any number is better than zero, so approve it.


        Don’t pretend this is established fact. It’s far from it, even in the words of the theory’s proponents.


        Re: “We only get 10% of our oil from Saudi Arabia …” : I’m talking about more than just Saudi Arabia. I’m talking about Venezuela, Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, specifically. Countries we might not always see eye-to-eye with.


        Re: We can’t replace gas with ethanol: DOE says there is accessible and available biomass to replace about 100 billion gallons of gasoline, plus whatever we can do with corn. At the least, that would blow our imports of about 85 billion gallons per year out of the water.


        Re: Ethanol has grown quickly: Yes, and its efficiency gains have been just as rapid.

        Permalink

  18. Orng Crush Posted 1:33 pm
    24 Apr 2009

    Think about this one:If you really think this is happening, then why shouldn’t the actual polluter pay?Last month, China suggested that America should have to pay for any carbon or pollution penalties attributed to Chinese manufacturing practices because America imports the goods.  There was universal outrage from Americans to this proposal.  Yet we now say ethanol producers should pay for carbon emissions from farmers growing FOOD worldwide. The polluter should pay!  God forbid Brazil actually go in and arrest people for deforestation.  No, instead, we institute a policy that nullifies American ethanol and incentivizes Brazilian ethanol (which qualifies as low-carbon under California rules that include indirect land use change).So if Brazil actually succeeds in stopping people from tearing down the rainforest, it will destroy the incentives for America using Brazilian ethanol (Brazil is the world’s largest ethanol exporter), since American ethanol will now be used to offset carbon.  We’ve just created an incentive for the Brazilian government to encourage deforestation by soybean farmers.

    Permalink

    1. Biodiversivist's avatar

      Biodiversivist Posted 9:41 am
      25 Apr 2009

      I think you just set a record for he most strawmen in a single post ; )

      Permalink

      1. Orng Crush Posted 11:59 am
        27 Apr 2009

        So ... why shouldn't the polluter pay?

        Permalink

      2. GreyFlcn Posted 1:44 pm
        27 Apr 2009

        Orng,
        So wouldn't that basically amount to a carbon tariff on imported goods?

        Permalink

      3. Orng Crush Posted 2:11 pm
        27 Apr 2009

        Yeah, but if you're going to make someone pay, it should be the polluter.

        Permalink

  19. human power Posted 8:01 pm
    24 Apr 2009

    Wow. Thanks for the great posts and links. That said, I think I'll keep using corn (chips) for my transportation  fuel needs, at least until this is all sorted out. Just think, no funding of terrorists, no deforestation, no coal burning, no IQ-dropping particulates, no 9/11-sized carnage on our streets every month and all from nineteenth century technology (bikes).

    Permalink

  20. caseatthebat Posted 1:52 pm
    27 Apr 2009

    A few points worth noting:First off, the CARB has released as part of its Low Carbon Fuel Standard program detailed lifecycle emissions profiles for every transportation fuel used in California . For gasoline and gasoline blendstocks, the CARB uses a 'well-to-wheel' footprint -- a well-established and encompassing calculation of gasoline's GHG emissions profile (although there's no line item for Shock and Awe...a bit too indirect for useful comparison). So I'm not exactly sure why the ethanol industry somehow feels like they've been singled out. Most likely, they're just unhappy that a more accurate -- and emissions heavy -- figure is being used at a time when the industry can't make money to save its life. I understand that the US only sees corn ethanol as a 'first-generation' biofuel, but the use of corn as motor fuel is flawed for so many reasons. And even as second-generation (cellulosic and non-corn-based) biofuels make their way into the system, the US biofuels production mandate still has corn providing 15 billion gallons of ethanol each year moving forward (For background: the mandate this year is 11 billion gallons -- essentially all corn--  and this ramps up annually until we hit 15 billion gallons. Then that stays flat and second gen pick up the difference as we make our way to 36 billion gallons by 2022).Let's consider the economics. A recent study by the Congressional Budget Office looks at, among other things, the economic viability of corn-based ethanol. The CBO calculates that corn ethanol producers break even when the price of a gallon of gasoline is more than 90% a bushel of corn (for example, if gasoline costs $3.00 per gallon, then a bushel of corn must cost around $3.33 for producers to break even). If you take into account the $0.45 per gallon subsidy the US government gives to producers, the break-even ratio falls to 70%. Guess where that ratio sits now...around 38%!With economics like that, ethanol producers like VeraSun and Aventine have gone bankrupt in the last six months and more are on their way. Now I have no qualms with government subsidizing a new fuel/technology in order to help industry get off the ground, but we really need to ask ourselves if it makes sense to dump those funds into a fuel sitting at the crossroads of two extremely volatile commodities (corn and gasoline). Ask yourself if we would really be using corn ethanol even as a first-gen biofuel if Iowa didn't hold the first primary.But say you're cool with the economics not making sense and you're a fan of Iowa primaries. What about the environmental side of the coin? Surely corn ethanol is better than conventional gasoline?The studies out there are too many to count, but here's a couple I've found particularly interesting:The first I'll point to ran in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and came out of a joint study on the health costs (from fine particulate matter) of biofuels and conventional gasoline.You know what it found? Corn-based ethanol is more harmful to public health than cellulosic ethanol and gasoline! The study also found that these detrimental health effects from corn ethanol are concentrated in the US Midwest where the bulk of our corn is grown.And what about water needs? A study in Environmental Science and Technology looked at the water footprint of ethanol and found considerable regional variation in water needs due to differences in climate and irrigation practices. Corn ethanol produced in Ohio needed the least water - 5 liters of water for every liter of ethanol produced.Guess who had the highest footprint? That's right, California. For every liter of ethanol produced in the Golden State, 2,138 liters of water are needed! California should keep that in mind given that they anticipate over 25 new biofuels facilities will need to be built as part of their low-carbon fuel initiative.

    Permalink

    1. Orng Crush Posted 2:18 pm
      27 Apr 2009

      And under CARB's system, California ethanol is favored over Ohio ethanol. Ohio ethanol is basically out.

      Permalink

    2. Orng Crush Posted 2:25 pm
      27 Apr 2009

      There are indeed too many to count; here's one that piques my interest:

      Yale's Journal of Industrial Ecology, Jan. 2009: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00105.x

      Ethanol production has improved to the point where it's now produced at an average 51 percent greenhouse gas reduction over gasoline.

      Permalink

  21. Orng Crush Posted 2:17 pm
    27 Apr 2009

    Oil’s emission calculation is “well to wheel,” meaning from the pump to the car.

    Ethanol’s emission calculation should be “field to wheel,” meaning from planting the corn to the car.

    Those comparisons would be equal and just.

    ILUC theory attributes carbon emissions from FOOD production worldwide. It has nothing to do with ethanol production, and the researchers proposing the theory acknowledge that they can’t reasonably measure it. The CARB penalty was a number that they decided was a compromise, it’s not a calculation based on empirical data.

    If you’re going to start doing Rube Goldberg calculations for ethanol, you need to do it for gas. To say that it’s too abstract to measure is as true for gas as it is for ethanol.

    Permalink

    1. Biodiversivist's avatar

      Biodiversivist Posted 7:13 pm
      27 Apr 2009

      The Grist site reminds me of a Star Trek episode where the ships computers caught a virus and nothing worked right. People kept running into doors that wouldn't open.
      I read that study when it came out. Here is the full PDF:http://www.growthenergy.org/2009/reports/2009 JIE Improvements in corn ethanol-Liska et al.pdf"...the larger GHG reductions estimated in this study allow a greater
      buffer for inclusion of indirect-effect land-use change emissions while
      still meeting regulatory GHG reduction targets."      I am unaware of any critiques yet. They built a big spreadsheet than anyone can download to check their methodology or play with inputs. We need to see more of that.It uses data from surveys given to refineries. If the refineries were sugar coating those surveys (putting their best foot forward so to speak) then the study is only as good as its input. I don't know how you can force a refinery to give you its actual gas, coal and electric bills. That would be tricky. 

      Permalink

  22. Biodiversivist's avatar

    Biodiversivist Posted 7:41 pm
    27 Apr 2009

    Orng,
    Take a look at this chart I adapted:http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/Graphics/img29.gifHow would you predict the five variables that make the curves will change to keep them from crossing?Something has to give. Improved crop yields are barely keeping up with population growth. Population growth is pretty much set. If cellulosic or algae never make it to commercial viability then the mix of crops won't change, unless we drop soy and corn fuels and start importing palm and cane. Doing that would short circuit most of the excuses for subsidizing biofuels. Assuming governments stick with their mandates, the thing most likely to give is land under cultivation. And as my post above showed, Brazilian farmers were torching the Amazon in anticipation of the big gold rush before the economic crissis slammed home:"…24,932 square kilometers of Amazon forest was damaged between
    August 2007 and July 2008, an increase of 10,017 square kilometers --
    67 percent -- over the prior year. The figure is in addition to the
    11,968 square kilometers of forest that were completely cleared,
    indicating that at least 36,900 square kilometers of forest were
    damaged or destroyed during the year..."

    "…The surge in activity is
    attributed to the sharp rise in commodity prices over the past two
    years. While grain and meat prices have plunged since March, higher
    prices have provided an impetus for converting land for agriculture and
    pasture. Accordingly, the burning season of 2007 (July-September) saw
    record numbers of fires in some parts of the Amazon as farmers,
    speculators, and ranchers set vast areas ablaze to prepare for the 2008
    growing season..."    "…falling grain prices early in the year coincided with a sharp
    slowing in deforestation. As food and fuel prices peaked through late
    2007 and early 2008, it appeared that Amazon deforestation would climb
    to levels not seen since 2005 — more than 15,000 square kilometers were
    expected to be lost. The sudden downturn changed all that. When the
    final numbers came in for 2008, they showed that deforestation only
    increased a modest 3.8% to 11,968 square kilometers.    .."  

    Permalink

  23. Missouri Mama Posted 7:00 am
    29 Apr 2009

    I'm concerned about the type of corn that would be used for ethanol...Genetically Modified Monsanto made...hmmmm....

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement