corn

Does the ethanol mandate increase CO2 emissions?

by Marlo Lewis on May 27, 2009

in Ethanol, Global Warming, Odds & Ends

That may seem counter-intuitive, because burning ethanol merely puts back into the air the carbon dioxide (CO2) that corn crops recently pulled out of it, whereas burning gasoline liberates carbon that had been stored in geologic deposits for millions of years.

But other factors come into play, such as the fossil energy inputs required to produce the corn, turn it into ethanol, and deliver the ethanol to market. 

In addition, as EPA argues in its proposed rule to implement the renewable fuel standard program established by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), expanding corn production into forest and grass lands can release substantial amounts of carbon stored in soils and trees.

Similarly, when U.S. farmers grow corn in areas previously used to produce soy beans, for example, farmers in Brazil have an incentive to convert forest land into soy plantations.

As you might expect, EPA’s use of life-cycle analysis, although required by EISA, drives the ethanol lobby and its congressional allies up the wall. They claim it is ridiculous to link increased corn production here to increased CO2 emissions in developing countries.

But, as my colleague, agricultural commodity analyst Dave Juday, demonstrates, the numbers paint a very clear picture. With Dave’s permission, I reproduce below an email he sent around earlier today.

*  *  *

With regard to GHG and the EPA’s RFS [renewable fuel standard] 2 rule, … the concept of “indirect land use changes” (ILUC) get criticized for being faulty, but it actually is pretty sound.  

Consider, if ethanol drives up US corn  plantings (which it did) and drives down US soybean plantings and production (which it did, because the US – the largest producer and exporter – has only so much farm land and not much tillable acreage to expand) and thereby raises the world price of soybeans, it raises the incentives to grow soybeans elsewhere in the world.  It just so happens Brazil – which is the world’s second largest producer and exporter – is the most likely place where additional soybeans will be grown on virgin land because that is where the virgin land is. 

The real weak link in this GHG lifecycle emissions concept is the ability to measure and value the carbon emissions and sequestration and the process by which “value” gets assigned to practices and manufacturing processes.  Yet, as might be expected from ethanol advocates, it is the simple, fundamental, and rational economic concept that is argued against.    Consider the perspectives shared by a lobbyist and a US Senator on the issue of “indirect land use changes” driven by US biofuel policy:

  •  Basically, the EPA has determined that the production of ethanol in America is forcing land use changes in Brazil and other foreign countries to destroy their valuable rain forests to produce farm commodities to make up for reduced exports of these commodities from the United States. Mr. Chairman, I have been in Washington for a long time, but I have never heard of a more bizarre concept. – Tom Buis, CEO, Growth Energy
  •  Every chance I get, I’m going to bring this issue up. It’s so obvious that the EPA’s rationale doesn’t meet the common sense test.  It’s ridiculous to think that Brazilian farmers are looking to see what Iowa farmers are doing to determine how they run their own business, and quite frankly it’s plain unfair to farmers. –  Honorable Charles Grassley, US Senator (R-IA)

Addressing these comments above is one of those cases where a picture is indeed worth 1,000 words:

corn-and-soy-us-and-brazil

SOURCE: USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service: Production, Supply, and Distribution Online

Added: May 29, 2009

Lisa Lerer delves into the ”life cycle analysis” controversy in the May 26 issue of Politico.  Farm state Democrats are threatening to oppose the Waxman-Markey bill if, as required by EISA, EPA considers the indirect impacts on land-use changes abroad when determining the life-cycle CO2 emissions of domestic ethanol production. 

The same lawmakers enthusiastically supported the EISA renewable fuel program as a global warming policy when they thought it would rig the market in favor of corn farmers. Now they’re threatening to derail Obama’s cap-and-trade initiative if EPA follows the law they helped enact. 

Obama campaigned on a platform of CHANGE, but he may find that in Washington still, Pork Rules and Corn Is King.

Just How Much is $13 Trillion?

by Cord Blomquist on February 12, 2009 · 7 comments

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Features, Stimulus to Nowhere, Zeitgeist

Regardless of your political party or ideological leanings, the notion of the federal government spending $2 trillion, adding to the national debt of nearly $11 trillion already, should make you stop and consider the staggering size of our national tab.

If the irony of using debt-based spending to solve a problem caused by debt-based spending has escaped you, perhaps these fun facts will put things into perspective:

  • If you spent $1 every second, you’d have to keep spending for 412,000 years to get to $13 trillion.  That means you’d have to start shortly after the time human beings first starting using stone tools and fire to get to $13 trillion today.
  • $13 trillion in one dollar bills weighs 28 million pounds.  That’s as much as 87 blue whales or 462 Statues of Liberty.
  • If you laid 13 trillion one-dollar bills end-to-end they’d reach from the earth to the sun and back…five times over.  That’s 946 million miles of greenbacks.

The amount we’re looking at now—roughly $2 trillion between the Secretary Geithner’s new bank bailout plan  and President Obama’s stimulus package—isn’t small potatoes either.  So what is $2 trillion?

  • $2 trillion is bigger than the entire Gross Domestic Product of our neighbor to the north, Canada.  In fact, according to the IMF, only Japan, Germany, China, the United Kingdom, France, and Italy have bigger total economies than the combined bailout/stimulus plan—all other countries on Earth have economies smaller than $2 trillion per year.

Then there’s the interest on this staggering debt, which isn’t exactly small.  Paying the interest on the current $10.7 trillion debt cost Americans $451.1 billion last year alone.  How big is that?

  • That’s $1478 dollars in interest for every man, woman, and child in the United States.
  • That’s bigger than the annual budgets of  New York ($121.1 billion), California ($111.1 billion) and Texas ($83.8 billion) combined.

If you’re scared, upset, or disgusted by this, you can do something.  Visit BeyondBailouts.org and tell your Congressman and the President what you think of the bank bailout and stimulus.

You can also click on the “ShareThis” button at the top of this post to forward these fun facts to your friends or share them on your favorite social network.

Correction: I originally listed the state budget of Texas as $167 billion, but that figure was not annual.  Texas budgets for two years at a time, so the figure has been cut in half.

Stimulus to Hunger

by Iain Murray on January 27, 2009 · 4 comments

in Agriculture, Economy, Energy, Environment, International, Sanctimony, Stimulus to Nowhere

Great. Now USDA head Tom Vilsack is saying the US ethanol industry needs to be protected in the borrow-and-spend bill, and beyond:

“The ethanol industry is under particular strain,” Vilsack said in a
conference call with reporters.

Loan guarantees for the industry, distributed by the USDA as part of the
2008 Farm Bill, “can help more of these companies stay in business,” Vilsack
said, though he warned that “there will be a premium on ethanol producers who
can stay efficient,” a clear warning that there is overcapacity in the US
industry.

Vilsack expected more aid to the industry would be forthcoming in a later
energy package, though he said that aid from the Farm Bill provisions for the
ethanol industry “would be the first step in stimulating the economy.” The
grant program guarantees loans up to $250 million, the USDA said.

Hang on, if there’s overcapacity, doesn’t that mean that some firms need to go under or all firms need to cut back? So there should be less spending, not more, on ethanol. It’s not as if they haven’t got a bundle of mandates subsidies already.

But the stark fact is that every bit of public money that goes into supporting the ethanol industry artificially raises the price of corn, which in turn artificially raises the price of food around the world, which in turn artificially raises the level of hunger in the world. This isn’t stimulus, it is close to murder.

UPDATE: Note also Jonathan Tolman’s post below about taking farmland out of production, and his noting that the bill also includes relief to the elderly on account of rising food prices. There is plainly no “joined-up thinking” going on in the drafting of this pathetic bill.