[dish]
Ethanol is corny by Ari LeVaux
Buy any meal, get your second meal at
1
⁄2 price!
(of lesser or equal value. excludes daily specials. dine-in only.) expires 7/31/13
SATURDAYS 4PM-9PM
MONDAYS & THURSDAYS ALL DAY
$1
SUSHI Not available for To-Go orders
[24] Missoula Independent • July 18 – July 25, 2013
While recent Supreme Court rulings on voting rights and same-sex marriage have held the nation’s attention, another decision slipped quietly under the radar. In late June, the Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s program to raise the ethanol content of gasoline from 10 to 15 percent, thus clearing the way for more ethanol in gasoline. The new draft Farm Bill, meanwhile, includes more than a billion dollars worth of support for all things ethanol. While this action at the federal level is bullish for ethanol, many states are calling bullshit. The fact that most ethanol is made from corn means that an increase in the ethanol content of gas could create, or exacerbate, a variety of problems, like higher food prices and elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Ethanol production has also been linked to the spread of a dangerous form of E. coli. But while federal support for ethanol appears to be as unstoppable as it is misguided, some individual states have shown the kind of horsepower that could turn around this dead-end policy. In June, Florida repealed its Renewable Fuel Standard that gasoline contain 10 percent ethanol. And in May, Maine lawmakers approved a bill banning ethanol in gas, and asked the federal government to do the same. The Maine House Republicans posted the following on Maine.gov: “Evidence is mounting that ethanol is a failure in virtually every way. It takes more energy to produce it than the fuel provides. Food supplies around the world have been disrupted because so much of the corn crop now goes to ethanol. It costs taxpayers billions of dollars in subsidies at a time when our nation is already $12 trillion in debt. Even environmentalists have turned against it; research shows that ethanol production increases the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.” Maine’s Democrats have voted and spoken against ethanol as well. Ethanol fuel’s many problems have drawn together an opposing orgy of strange bedfellows, including the petroleum lobby, environmentalists, foodies, food processors, auto enthusiasts (cars don’t like ethanol, either) and citizens of all political bents—basically everyone outside of the corn belt and D.C.’s beltway. Only corn growers or the politicians they support stand to gain from ethanol, while all the rest of us get are the consequences. Currently, 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop is used to make ethanol. Raising the allowable amount of ethanol in gasoline, as the Supreme Court’s recent decision greenlights, will likely increase demand for corn, drive up its price and collaterally make food more expensive. Already, increased corn demand created by ethanol policy in recent years has led to more land being cleared for agriculture. This activity, and the intensive tillage and monoculture-style farming system
FLASH IN THE PAN
that produces most corn, has resulted in widespread loss of topsoil: 80 to 100 billion tons lost annually by some estimates. Topsoil sequesters carbon dioxide. Because of agriculture’s impact on soil loss, Allan Savory, a renowned rangeland and desertification specialist, considers agriculture one of global warming’s worst culprits, and has compared its effects to those of coal mining. Thick, healthy soils also absorb and hold water, while thin soil is less able to retain rainfall and irrigation, which increases the amount of water used in agriculture, which washes away even more topsoil. When the energy costs of production, processing and transport are added up, ethanol is a net loss, according to T.J. Rogers, CEO of solar panel maker SunPower Corp. “Ethanol is a total waste,” Rogers told Watchdog.org, echoing the words of the Maine Republicans. “The bottom line is that it takes between one and 1.3 gallons of gasoline-equivalent energy to produce one gallon of ethanol.” Meanwhile, on the food-safety front, a byproduct of ethanol production called distillers grains, widely used in cattle feed, turns out to be a rich source of E. coli 0157, the pathogen behind several recent recalls of E. coli-tainted beef. Though links between distillers grains and specific cases of food-borne illness have yet to be established, it has been demonstrated that the higher the percentage of distillers grains in cows’ diets, the higher the level of E. coli 0157 in those cows. It's frustrating to see ethanol policy, which is clearly destructive and unproductive on so many fronts, being pushed for such transparent reasons. And one has to wonder if the level of federal support for ethanol would be any different if, instead of the Iowa caucus in the heart of corn country, the New Hampshire primary was the first event of the presidential election season. But the recent rebuffs to ethanol in Florida and Maine are hopeful signs that fighting it out at the state level can be an effective means of change. Again, the Maine House Republicans: “We’re not so naïve as to think a resolution from the Maine Legislature will light a fire under Congress…Our objectives are more modest but will still encounter opposition; the Midwest ethanol lobby has powerful advocates on Capitol Hill and billions of subsidy dollars are at stake. But if Maine sparks other states to act, we could coerce Congress to stand up to the special interests.” As the Farm Bill bobs and weaves its way through the halls of Congress, it’s probably too much to hope that the billion-plus dollars allocated to ethanol support will suddenly dry up. But given the broad opposition to ethanol policy—owing to the fact that it’s basically insane—I like the states’ chances to defeat it, step by step. As we’ve just witnessed with same-sex marriage, sometimes when the states lead, the federal government follows.