Farm state politicians, entrepreneurs and venture capitalists have
sold biofuels to rest of us as a way to revive rural America, attack
the problem of global warming and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
In response, investors and taxpayers have poured many millions of dollars into corn ethanol. The returns have been skimpy.
That, at least, is the conclusion of a new report from the
Worldwatch Institute called
Red, White, and Green: Transforming U.S. Biofuels.
The unhappy news is that we don’t seem to have learned much from our
dismal experience with corn ethanol, and unless things change in
Washington, we’re going to burn a lot more of it.
“From an environmental perspective, corn ethanol has not delivered
in terms of climate benefits,” says Alice McKeown, an author of the
report.
Worse yet, we could repeat the problems all over again with so-called next-generation biofuels. That’s sorghum, below.
A sorghum field.
 |
Both the science and economics of biofuels are complex, McKeown told
me by phone earlier today after I read the 50-page report, which offers
a useful overview. It’s easy to find people who will argue about
precisely how much corn ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions, if at
all. (It depends on how and where the corn is grown, and how the
ethanol refinery is fueled, among other things.) There’s also lots of
debate about the impact of corn ethanol on food prices. (Recall the
2007 tortilla riots in
Mexico.) Currently there’s a raging debate going on in Washington about
whether the rising demand for corn generated by biofuels is is causing
farmers elsewhere to turn forests into land for food or biofuels
cultivation.
The study says:
Of particular concern is the link between biofuels
expansion and the global conversion of land for agriculture, as biofuel
crops compete with forests and food crops for limited land and other
resources.
The ethanol industry hates the idea that it might be held
accountable for the so-called indirect land use effects of corn
ethanol. You can read Tom Zeller’s
blog post and Kate Galbraith’s
blog post, both at The New York Times’ Green Inc., for more on this controversy, which will be fought out this fall in Congress.
Despite those uncertainties. there are some things we do know about
corn ethanol. For one thing, we know that the ethanol industry has been
built with massive government subsidies -- a $1 a gallon production
credit, along with a
Renewable Fuel Standard
(RFS) mandate that will require production of 36 billions of biofuels
by 2022, as well as import tariffs on imported sugar-cane ethanol from
Brazil. The tariffs persist despite the fact that Brazilian ethanol is
cheaper to produce and better for the environment. The fact that
presidential campaigns begin with caucuses in Iowa has been very, very
good for the corn ethanol industry.
Government support “is the only reason the industry is up and
running,” McKeown says. “Otherwise it wouldn’t be profitable.” Even so,
much of the industry has failed to survive the combination of rising
corn prices, declining oil prices and the credit crunch. Last October,
VeraSun, the nation’s second-largest producer of ethanol, went
bankrupt. So far in 2009, ten ethanol production plants have filed for
bankruptcy, including those operated by Aventine Renewable Energy and
Pacific Ethanol,
according to Zacks.
“When is this going to be considered a mature industry that doesn’t need support from the government?” McKeown asks.
What’s more, while about a third of the corn grown in the U.S. this
year will be used to make transportation fuels, ethanol will supply
only about 10 percent of those fuels–not enough to bring the U.S.
significantly closer to energy independence, according to the
Worldwatch Institute.
Nevertheless, corn ethanol isn’t going away anytime soon because the
government mandate ratchets up every year. Under the mandate, up to 15
billion gallons a year of biofuels don’t have to meet newly-imposed
sustainability standards if they are supplied from existing plants.
“That 15 billion mandate is probably going to be met by corn ethanol,”
McKeown says.
So as we move gradually to so-called next generation biofuels such
as cellulosic ethanol or fuels made from algae, what can we take away
from the experience with corn ethanol? The Worldwatch Institute has
three eminently sensible recommendations:
1. Base the tax credits for ethanol and biodiesel on
performance, with fuels that achieve deeper greenhouse gas emissions
reductions eligible for greater support.
2. Revisit the Renewable Fuel Standard mandate to ensure that it
will promote second-generation biofuels instead of propping up
first-generation biofuels.
3. Lower or eliminate the ethanol import tariff for fuels that meet sustainability criteria.
Put simply, we shouldn’t provide taxpayer-funded benefits without a demonstrable environmental payoff.
The trouble is, next-generation biofuels have been slow to arrive.
And while a big pile of government money is on the way to speed their
development -- the Department of Energy has committed $385 billion for six
cellulosic ethanol plants, according to Worldwatch -- there are no
guarantees that they won’t generate environmental problems of their
own, especially if adapted at a large scale.
My own take? For all the promise of biofuels (and, for that matter
electric cars), we should not overlook less glamorous actions that will
provide clear-cut environmental benefits right away. Supporting public
transportation, for one. (The Washington D.C. metro system, which I
ride, is literally breaking down before our eyes.) Driving smaller,
more efficient cars. Working from home. Riding bikes.
Strolling in Venice Beach.
 |
Or walking -- which costs you nothing, improves your fitness, reduces
your dependence on foreign oil, generates zero GHG emissions (other
than those from the food you need to fuel your body) and requires no
support from Congress.
Cornfield -- Image by pavaranda.
Venice Beach -- Image CC licensed by Flickr user vmiramontes.
