Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... | Newsweek.com
Full Post
Posted Monday, May 12, 2008 4:29 PM

In Defense of Ethanol

Sharon Begley

In the 12 years that I have speaking to him, Robert Zubrin has never disappointed. Whether he was devising a bargain-basement way to mount a manned mission to Mars (rather than taking along the fuel you need for the return trip, produce it from compounds in the Martian atmosphere once you get there, founding Pioneer Astronautics or serving as president of the Mars Society, Zubrin has never let conventional wisdom get in his way.

Amid the avalanche of new books on energy, Zubrin’s—Energy Victor: Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil—also goes its own way. Rather than focusing on energy sources that will reduce the world’s emissions of climate-changing greenhouse gases, he has one goal, and one goal only: breaking the stranglehold that despots from the Middle East to South America to Africa have on the world’s oil supply.

Zubrin was understandably not happy, therefore, when I disparaged the use of corn ethanol for fuel, pointing out that its greenhouse benefit is somewhere between small and nonexistent. Zubrin is an ethanol booster for one basic reason: it has the potential to wean the U.S. off imported oil. And he doesn’t buy the claim that diverting a large fraction of the corn harvest to ethanol plants is causing world grain prices—and U.S. food prices—to skyrocket. His arguments:

Advertisement

*Diverting corn for ethanol is not cutting in to food production, he says. “Here are the facts,” he told me in an email. “In 2002, the United States grew 9.0 billion bushels of corn, and turned 1.1 billion bushels into . . . 3 billion gallons of ethanol. In 2007, US farmers grew 13.1 billion bushels of corn, turned 3 billion bushels of it . . . into 8 billion gallons of ethanol,” leaving 10.1 billion bushels for food, more than the 7.9 billion bushels in 2002. Do the math: “despite the nearly three-fold growth of the corn ethanol industry,” Zubrin writes, “the net corn food and feed product of the USA increased 34% since 2002. Furthermore, contrary to claims in many articles, this has not been done at the expense of soy or wheat production. In fact, U.S. soy plantings this year are expected to be up 18% to a near record of 75 million acres, wheat plantings are up 6%, and overall, U.S. farm exports are up 23%.”

*The ethanol program pushed the price of a bushel of corn from $2.50 to about $4.50 or $5 in the last five years, or 9 cents per pound at the $5 price. This has induced farmers to plant more corn, from 78.9 million acres in 2002 to 93.6 million acres in 2007, putting “more corn on the market, helping to feed the world.”

*Those price increases? Blame OPEC, for causing fuel prices to rise 60% this year, plus increased demand from China and India. At $5 per bushel, the corn in a $3 box of cornflakes “cost 8 cents when bought from the farmer. So farm commodity prices have almost no effect on the retail consumers. But the effect of oil price hikes can be huge.”

*With oil above $120 per barrel, the U.S. will pay nearly $1 trillion for its oil supply, and the world as a whole will pay almost $4 trillion. “These petroleum costs are both up a factor of ten from what they were in 1999, and represent a huge highly-regressive tax on the world economy,” argues Zubrin, an astronautical engineer by training. “[The dollars going to OPEC are] “equivalent to a 45% increase in income taxes across the board, with 60% of the sum being paid over in tribute to foreign governments. Indeed, it is this massive tax increase – by far the largest in American history – that is now driving the United States into a recession.”

His conclusion: “rather than shut down the biofuel programs, we need to radically augment them, to the point where we can take down the oil cartel." He wants Congress to require that all new cars "be flex-fuel vehicles that can run on any combination of gasoline, ethanol or methanol. The technology is readily available and it only costs about $100 per vehicle. By making America a flex-fuel vehicle market, we will effectively make flex-fuel the international standard, as all significant foreign car makers would be impelled to convert their lines over as well.”

Zubrin doesn't pretend that corn ethanol will do much to avert the greenhouse crisis, but his focus on oil independence and energy prices is likely to resonate with more Americans (and politicians) than climate change does anyway. (As an aside, I have to mention a letter I got today from an angry reader, letting me know that "nobody [in his small town] even knows what a carbon footprint is. . . . Global warming and saving the planet is a bunch of crap. Everyone is concerned [instead] about maing enough money to pay for gasoline to drive to work.") And that will be the challenge for the next Administration, and the next Congress.

You must be a registered user to comment.  Click here to register.  Already a user?  Click here to login.

Member Comments

Posted By: keimica (June 15, 2008 at 5:17 PM)

I've been reading the comments down here and there is one thing that people seem to keep getting confused about and not just here: that is the agricultural part of Robert Zubrin's proposal.  It is not primarily an american initiative (and by the way, agricultural exports are at record highs, not at lows, including ethanol, meaning there is plenty of food).  He wants to drop trade barriers on third world countries all around the world and use their land--corresponding adjacent lands that have a proximity to eachother--because our farmers would have more business than they could handle, making them no longer obsolete to the rest of the developing world while we can go ahead and use some of that ethanol Brazil makes from sugar that we tax to keep out of the country (other countries could get their alcohol of choice from the nearby country as well as their own)and keep the price of oil contained because it can go to infinity right now because of the vertical monopoly OPEC has on the world having no competition to compete with their oil.

    And they arbitrarily set the price.  President Bush just recently went over to Saudi Arabia to get them to lower the price of oil!  That shows right there that they have that power to affect the price--its like watching a dog throw up on the floor and stares at his mess in fear, grabs a sock on the floor to cover it up just as the moment it senses you come  up to it because you know a mess has been made.  President Bush is that dog that knows he did something wrong and is trying to cover it up in the corner staring at the problem in the face in horror while we the public are watching and then come over for reparations because we know what he did (in this case, he and people in his adminstration did NOT do except give us this "hydrogen hoax) and he covers it up with a sock which does nothing to clean up the mess.  Uncle Mahmoud is that sock that does nothing ....who gives Bush a bicycle in response.  

   And methanol could be used for the longer term solutions to the problem such as nuclear, solar, wind, it can be be made from such....its just a matter of economical feasibility there, and it could be used from any kind of biomass for the shorter term, like urban trash, drain clogging swamp matter, and yes grass trimmings, leaves that fall from trees and the vast amounts of such that farmers would throw away that could lower the price of OPEC oil itself.  Agriculture is not the only way, or our only way even though we have record highs of production and exports using only about a 1/3 of our farmable land only about 1/9 of which is our corn for ethanol.  


Posted By: keimica (June 14, 2008 at 4:52 PM)

Gas was .99 cents (ninety-nine cents) a gallon when I was a 17 year old pizza delivery driver back in 1999.  When it jumped up to 1.30 practically in  a week or so, I could sense something was wrong back then!  It jumped up to 2.00 a gallon and 9/11 and the Iraq war happened and the nation's psychological wounds seemed to be opening up again and the infinite debates are still happening about why we are there in the first place--Oil, people said;to get their oil.  Well, we don't have the oil.  

    Finally, I knew why gas prices were going up after watching Robert Zubrin on Booktv (C-SPAN)discussing his book about breaking free of oil to win the war on terror.  I also actually started to understand the war in Iraq and terrorism-

    -Oh, and 9/11 and consequently the reaffirmation that the "war on terror" is NOT a military solution even though we seem to keep saying the surge is working however many non-terrorist become terrorists worldwide or terrorist sympathizers or terrorist hostages etc.

    ---when before it seemed the Iraq war was our way of taking over the world while the rest of the world wagged their finger at us and perhaps prepared for war in some cases.  Well, who needs an energy policy if we are taking over the world, right?  The only policy we need is to not start any war we can't win (like Russia or some East Asian country)---for a good start, let's grab all the oil we can and kick some cave dwelling butt.  Well.....

    Now, George W. Bush goes to Saudi Arabia asking for the oil prices to be lowered and they give him a bicycle.  Just "support the troops" I guess....right...because if not then that means we hate them, and if we hate them....then....no, yes, support full on...but wait, our oil...no--support...but gas prices, cant we shoot our way out of this one?

    Thanks to Energy Victory we have a strong argument that both sides can agree on without having a loaded gun in the room,


Posted By: smokey_joe (May 17, 2008 at 2:45 PM)

May 14 – GMA MISSION TO CRIPPLE CORN INDUSTRY EXPOSED:  It was bound to happen and today the whistle got blown on one of the key parties behind the well organized and well funded smear campaign against corn and biofuels, namely the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA). The exposure ended up being very public too, with the story breaking on the front page of Roll Call, the most widely read publication by Washington, DC decision makers.

The story delineates GMA’s rather tasteless, and dare I say immoral, role in blaming corn for higher food prices, world hunger and I think even athlete’s feet.  

Reporter Anna Palmer of Roll Call notes rising food and fuel prices have led the biofuel industry to take a beating on Capitol Hill the past few weeks. But the pummeling hasn’t been by chance — it is part of a concerted effort spearheaded by the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the Glover Park Group.

According to Roll Call GMA has been leading an “aggressive” public relations campaign for the past two months in an effort to roll back ethanol mandates that passed in last year’s energy bill. Taking primary responsibility for the campaign is a Washington DC-New York Public Relations and Public Affairs company, known as the Glover Park Group.

The six month campaign is based on the assumption that the timing was right to go after biofuels and deliver a blow that could permanently cripple the industry by cementing public opinion against ethanol. Needless to say the world rice and wheat crop failures, a weak U.S. dollar, and an investment community seeking shelter in Ag commodities make their strategy look pretty sound, albeit slimy and based on misinformation.

GMA, which believes the current ethanol policy has caused a major rise in food prices, sent out its request for Proposal in early March looking for a public relations shop to “build a groundswell in support of freezing or reversing some provisions of the 2007 Energy Bill and for the elimination/reform of ethanol subsidies and import restrictions,” according to Roll Call.

The energy bill, which passed in December, includes a renewable fuel standard that mandates 36 billion gallons of ethanol be produced yearly by 2022, up from about 7 billion gallons last year.

Ethanol is reducing gasoline prices up to 40 cents a gallon right now. So you think an industry that ships its products on average of 1,500 miles to consumers would see the benefits, but apparently the idea of returning to their golden days of $2 corn was too enticing.

Regardless, it is one thing to frame a debate and argue your points aggressively but it is something entirely different to frame a whole industry based on emotion, not fact. To use a hockey analogy it is ok to legally check someone and put your shoulder into them, but it is another matter to high stick someone in the face with malice, forethought and the intent of doing damage.

Generally, high sticking results in a trip to the penalty box and getting taken from play. What GMA has done here constitutes high sticking of the worst kind. They have given farmers, one of the most respected people in our society, a black eye that will be hard to repair. A trip to the penalty box seems in order. I will leave the nature of that penalty up to you to ponder.


 
The Peek
 
 
SPORTS

Speedo's new and controversial high-tech LZR suit is helping swimmers smash dozens of records. How the company plans to capitalize on Olympic gold.

Sponsored by
 
 
 
 
AFRICA

These are among the ruling party's weapons against opposition voters. Still, the population clearly didn't cooperate in Friday's vote.

Sponsored by
 
 
 
loadingLoading Menu