ETHANOL

Is the veil finally being pulled back from the biofuel sham?

Today The Boston Globe has an article "Can't Eat Ethanol" that starts out with this:

CORN should be used for food, not motor fuel, and yet the United States is committed to a policy that encourages farmers to turn an increasing amount of their crop into ethanol. This may save the nation a bit of the cost of imported oil, but it increases global-warming gases and contributes to higher food prices.

They further report that:

Ethanol consumes almost a quarter of US corn production. The energy self-sufficiency that all the candidates seek should not come at the expense of the environment or the food supply.

Increased ethanol production isn't the only reason for the spike in food costs, but it's more controllable than drought in Australia, higher fertilizer prices, or increased meat consumption by the Chinese. Unlike those other cost-drivers, ethanol production is encouraged by federal subsidies.

And it's not as though ethanol improves the environment. When emissions inherent in the production process are included, ethanol consumption generates more carbon dioxide per gallon than gasoline, according to a recent report in Science magazine. Conversion of other cultivated biomass, such as sugarcane or soy, presents the same problem. The only biofuel that produces a net benefit is agricultural waste, an uncertain source. The best way for American motorists to use less gasoline is to drive fewer miles in lighter vehicles, rather than rely on the false promise of biofuels.

Now this might not be revelatory to some, perhaps even many, of you. But I do think it is significant that a member of the "old media" is reporting it.

I have seen it reported elsewhere that if we used all of our planted corn crops and all our soybean crops for the purposes of making ethanol, it would produce only 6% of our needs.

Let's hope more of the "old media" start doing some honest reporting on the ethanol sham.