In his interview yesterday morning on NPR on prospective USDA chief Tom Vilsack, Michael Pollan touches on the former Iowa governor’s virulent support for ethanol (which fits well with the etha-mania of the former Illinois senator who nominated him).
Pollan expresses hope that that Vilsack will steer U.S. policy away from corn-based ethanol, which most folks consider an environmental disaster, toward cellulosic ethanol, which evidently retains luster in some greenie circles. Pollan then adds that Obama’s department of energy pick, Steven Chu, is a "fierce critic of corn ethanol."
Really?
Actually, Chu is a relatively mild critic of corn-based ethanol. In fact, he generally hews to the industry party line: that corn ethanol is a "bridge" to a bright ethanol future.
Back in March, Chu said that "corn is not the right crop for biofuels." But he added: "We should look at corn as a transitional crop." A transition to what? To cellulosic ethanol—which, according to Chu himself, remains "five to 10 years" from viability.
So that means at least five more years—all of Obama’s first term—of relying on corn. And as I’ve written before, cellulosic ethanol has been five to 10 years from viability for decades now. And serious doubts have been raised—including by ethanol boosters—about whether it will ever get there.
At any rate, I see little reason for hope that this "fierce critic of corn ethanol" will, any time soon, steer U.S. policy away from its quite-mad policy of maximizing production of our most environmentally destructive crop.
Do diesel-based farmers dream of electric tractors?
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Comments
View as Flat
tlaskawy Posted 2:17 am
19 Dec 2008
We'll know soon enough, but I think that Vilsack does have the potential (working with Sen. Tom Harkin) to start to turn this battleship. But this is a longterm project. I think the history of health reform in this country provides a good guide. The institutional barriers are just as high and we're 15 years on from the first attempt to reform it. Only now are we facing the possibility of success - it took that long to move the institutions in the right direction.
As for the food system, you can argue we may not have that long. In my opinion, if indeed climate science takes the lead in the Obama administration, the potential for change is there. I think the debate on ethanol has just begun - the problem is that unlike most other "movements," the food movement doesn't have an institutional presence in Congress. Labor, environment, reproductive rights, health reform - they all have organized groups within congress (not to mention lobbies) pushing the debate. The food movement is in its infancy there - and it shows.
Now, excuse me, but I think I'm going to turn this into a blog post.
Tom Laskawy
Beyond Green
Beyond Green
http://weaversway.coop/blog/
Permalink
bioneer Posted 2:19 am
19 Dec 2008
Permalink
biodiversivist Posted 8:49 am
21 Dec 2008
Corn ethanol does not reduce GHG. Environmentally, it is worse than oil.
An even better way to stop sending money to oil producing countries is to stop using so much of it via high mileage cars. Filling your SUV with corn ethanol is playing Robin Hood--robbing fellow taxpayers to buy votes for politicians from the farm belt.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink