Notes from Iowa: The Downside to Biofuels
The following is an excerpt from a letter to the editor published in the Fairfield (Iowa) Daily Register, April 14, 2011. The letter writer is Francis Thicke, Ph.D., an expert in soil science and an organic dairy farmer who, along with his wife, Susan, won the prestigious Spencer Award for Sustainable Agriculture in 2009. Thicke waged a popular — but ultimately unsuccessful — grassroots campaign for Iowa Secretary of Agriculture in 2010. The issues he raised have galvanized proponents of sustainable agriculture across the nation. We’re pleased to have Dr. Thicke’s permission to reprint his letter. — Julia Wasson, Publisher
Fully 58 percent of Iowa’s 2010 corn crop was used to make ethanol. So, it is not just “surplus” corn that is going into ethanol, as is claimed by the ethanol industry. Even the livestock industry does not believe the ethanol industry’s claim that this much corn going for ethanol does not affect prices. That is why the livestock commodity groups for hogs, cattle and poultry are all lobbying against ethanol subsidies in Washington, D.C.
A recent Iowa State University analysis indicated that ethanol subsidies are no longer needed to keep the ethanol industry profitable. It’s time to end the $0.45 per gallon ethanol subsidy, which cost taxpayers nearly $6 billion in 2010. The real cost per gallon of that subsidy is actually much higher: If you account for the fact that ethanol contains just two-thirds the energy of gasoline, and that two-thirds of ethanol’s energy consists of embedded fossil-fuel energy that was required to grow the corn and make the ethanol, the real cost of the $0.45 per gallon ethanol subsidy comes to over $2 per gallon of gasoline net energy equivalence. That is $2 per gallon that we taxpayers pay for ethanol even before we buy it at the gas pump.
Crops worldwide — canola, cassava, palm oil, corn, soybeans, sugarcane and others — are increasingly being used to make biofuels. That might not make a lot of difference in the price you pay for corn flakes, but it does make a big difference to the half of the world’s population that lives on just $2 per day or less. They spend about 80 percent of their income on food, and the worldwide shift from food to biofuel crops causes them hardship, or worse. When the price of corn doubles in the U.S., it causes a ripple effect that increases food grain prices worldwide and pushes more people into starvation.
Our huge investment in ethanol wouldn’t seem so bad if we used that ethanol efficiently. But we are using it in passenger vehicles that average just 20.4 mpg (compared to 45 to 50 mpg in Europe and Japan). It would take only about 1 mpg increase in our passenger vehicle mileage to save the equivalent amount of energy we get from all the ethanol we produce in the U.S.
Aside from the disastrous economic investment the ethanol industry has been, we should consider the environmental problems ethanol brings with it. For example, for every gallon of ethanol made from corn, two gallons of soil are lost to erosion. Clearly, this is not a sustainable system. Corn production in Iowa averages 5.7 tons/acre of soil eroded each year, but the soil naturally regenerates at an average rate of just 0.5 tons/acre per year.
Nutrient loading to water resources from corn production is another problem. According to data from the U.S. Geological Survey, corn production is a major contributor of nutrients that cause the Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico, which grows to about the size of New Jersey every summer.
It is important that we look critically at the talking points of the biofuels industry, and not let them play us for biofools.
Francis Thicke, Fairfield, Iowa
Blue Planet Green Living (Home Page)