Recently, a bipartisan group of 32 members of Congress led by John Thune (R-S.D.) sent a letter (PDF) to U.S. EPA administrator Stephen Johnson asking him to loosen clean-air regulations on coal-fired ethanol plants -- the recommended change would increase allowable emissions from 100 tons to 250 tons annually.
The purported rationale is to "bolster ethanol production across the country," and it would no doubt do so. After all, it's much easier to built a coal-fired plant when you don't have to spend extra money on the best available pollution-control technologies.
But of course, this makes sense only if ethanol production is an end in itself. If the point of increasing ethanol use is to reduce pollution and GHG emissions, then this regulatory change makes no sense.
This, in a nutshell, is my concern about ethanol: The impetus has shifted seamlessly from finding solutions to our energy problems to subsidizing big ethanol-related industries. Those two goals overlap a little, but only a little.
Local and state air-pollution officials express their dismay here.
Oh, and on a related note: Check out this completely daffy statement from Grassley and Thune on why tariffs on ethanol imports should remain in place. Brazil doesn't have enough to export to us anyway! The oil companies would benefit! Etc. The real reason, obviously, is that the domestic ethanol industry would suffer. Again, we seem to have lost sight of the larger goal ... if we ever had sight of it.
(via dKos)
Comments
View as Flat
Tom Philpott Posted 5:11 am
11 May 2006
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 5:19 am
11 May 2006
It is hard to argue that corn, which uses billions of tons of fertilizer, pesticides and water can be called a renewable resource (is being produced sustainably), and finally, the last paper in Science magazine supporting corn based ethanol admits that it doesn't reduce CO2 emissions in its lifecycle because of all of the fossil fuels used to grow and process it.
I also can't imagine politicians from states with a multibillion dollar infrastructure built to make ethanol from corn are going to vote for anything that will dismantle it (like funding for cellulosic technology).
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
bryankwalton Posted 5:20 am
11 May 2006
However, regarding removing the tariff on ethanol imports, I don't know how I feel about that. On the one hand, I don't really care about protecting large corn interests here. If ethanol can be maid more efficiently with other crops like sugarcane, I'm all for it.
However, on the other hand, I agree with what I've read on the Cut Oil Imports blog:
So for 2 or 3 cents, these geniuses would critically wound the US ethanol industry and leave us dependent on Brazil for ethanol. Is this any different than being dependent on the Middle East for oil? We need to be able to create our own energy sources in order to avoid being dependent on any outside source.
So I don't know where I stand on this second issue.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:51 am
11 May 2006
Sunlight and wind are, as far as I understand, equally cheap here and in Brazil.
www.grist.org
Permalink
bryankwalton Posted 6:29 am
11 May 2006
Permalink
miz cha Posted 6:36 am
11 May 2006
(the science article said ethanol only yielded about 18 percent greenhouse gas savings compared to fossil fuel, a number easily pushed in one direction or by considering other factors).
Permalink
bookerly Posted 8:08 am
11 May 2006
Discouraging other countries from destroying their forests so we can drive our SUVS to yet one more mall seems to me a good idea.
Corn based ethanol is a prime example of a "distractor", an idea that corporate America will sell to try to convince people that something is happening to make progress dealing with global warming, while in fact, nothing is.
patrick
Permalink