<DrumBeat: September 4, 2007The Oil DrumA TOD Community Update>

51 comments on Ethanol and the Environment

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Jack on September 5, 2007 - 4:10am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Nate,

I broadly agree with your analysis. When one considers the resource inputs, especially water, corn-based ethanol does seem like an environmental war crime.

But I wonder why you don't take it to the next level. Why don't we ban high fructose corn syrup? Given that this foolish corn-based ethanol quest is recent and may well be short lived, the syrup seems like a greater offender.

It seems the the best solution here would be better pricing of water resources. If your figures are correct, which I assume they are, I would assume that subsidized water supply to corn farmers is as much the problem as anything else.

The problem is that it is very difficult to separate uses of corn. In an ideal world, maybe water used for nutricious foods (corn, flour, etc) would have a low tax. Corn dogs and popcorn a bit higher, corn syrup and ethanol the highest. Removing subsidies for ethanol is obviously the right first step, but if the goal is to better use our natural resources, there are other culprits.

Anyone who rants about how destructive our vehicle based lifestyle is, but eats more than a few ounces of beef per day, or drinks soda, would appear a tad hypocritical.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
VIN Biodiesel on September 5, 2007 - 2:40pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Precisely!
Anyone on this list who hasn't should read Omnivore’s Dilemma. Polan barely talks about ethanol but spends several chapters on corn and how absurd our big agribusiness system is. Adding fuel to the mix only makes it a little more absurd because very little of the cultivated acreage of the U.S. is devoted to directly feeding people, much less to fueling vehicles. The majority of corn goes into cow-feed and soda pop, neither of which is smart or necessary. Seems to me that long before we have to choose between growing food or fuel, we will have to choose between fuel and Pepsi, call it the “New Pepsi Challenge” if you like. Already, due to “peak soil” we are in reality faced with a choice between soda and food, and healthful food and marbled beef. The fuel or food dichotomy, at least in North America, is a red herring.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Aniya on September 5, 2007 - 8:43pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Hi Jack,

I really like your points here. I wonder if there is any way (time?) to do some analysis and quantify...I suppose it might not be too difficult, if one were to look at money flows of the corn syrup industry, and then look at percent water use of total ag use this represents. (Still would be some work, though.)

Also, do you have any idea about numbers - annual production numbers: HF corn syrup v. ethanol?

re: "subsidized water supply to corn farmers" and "...corn syrup and ethanol the highest..."

The thing is, it seems like one could make the exact same argument for, say, packaging of all kinds. In this case, it would be oil and/or wood products (?), as opposed to water. They use more resources - (?)- than say, bulk grains from bins at the co-op, - though, too, might be a wash, if people use plastic bags to weigh out unpackaged items.

Addressing this in a positive way...how complicated. If you don't tax the corn farmer, but you then tax the "value-added" food products corp. - what's to say? People might end up still going for fast food.

Still, it's a good idea.

re: "there are other culprits."

So, what do you think? A plastic bottle tax? Ban? Ration fast food?

Edit: The graph w. "Dry weight, pounds per capita per year" is interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup

It looks like the Avg. American consumes right around his/her weight in sweeteners each year. (?)

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Jack on September 6, 2007 - 12:23am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Also, do you have any idea about numbers - annual production numbers: HF corn syrup v. ethanol?

I don't have figures, but will try to look them up and make a rough approximation. The problem may be getting all the conversion figures (corn the corn syrup versus corn to ethanol). As I mentioned, I did a rough calculation, which I posted some months ago, showing that 5% of global fuel use and current sugar production are roughly similar is scale.

I am not a huge supporter of ethanol, but can't for the life of me see why poor small scale farmers in Thailand (where I live) growing sugar cane for ethanol makes people irate while growing the same sugar for Pepsi seems to be fine.

The thing is, it seems like one could make the exact same argument for, say, packaging of all kinds. In this case, it would be oil and/or wood products (?), as opposed to water. They use more resources - (?)- than say, bulk grains from bins at the co-op, - though, too, might be a wash, if people use plastic bags to weigh out unpackaged items.

I think this is right too. I sense that the big difference is that reducing waste allows us to continue "life as it is now". Since for some "life as it is now" seems to be the problem they are fighting against, reducing waste is a low priority - or in fact could be negative.

In this regard, ethanol, as a tiny part of a bridge to a new way of continuing with our lives, is the target of much more venom than piles of useless plastic bags.

I am not unsympathetic to either argument. I would love to see mankind transition to a completely different and better way of life, but I don't belive in throwing out what we have and just hoping too many people don't die on the way to an imagined salvation.

I do think we need to look in a quantitative and analytical way at the various waste with our system and find ways to reduce it. Improving the energy efficiency of civilization is one way to cope with the shrinking efficiency in energy production.

I do believe we are near peak oil and that there are no easy answers. However, I also believe that hard answers are still answers. I do think that trying different solutions and seeing which work is what is going to get us through this problem.

I have never seen a convincing argument that proves mankind couldn't, in theory, live just as happily on half the energy we use now. I expect the reality will be much more painful, but I don't thinkit is futile.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.