WHEN ALTERNATIVES CAN'T REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS

     Environmentalists believe that ethanol, biodiesel and other bio fuels are the viable answer to the global problem of green house gas effect, caused by carbon offset. According to them, it is a completely renewable energy source, since fuel producing crops can be grown all the time. They assert growing crops and building ethanol plants creates jobs and improves the economy. It can reduce the import of the foreign oil and provides energy independence.

     In a global picture, ethanol supporters state the successful example of Brazil, which significantly reduced its reliance on oil by launching the program of fuel independence in 1970. Currently, Brazilian automobiles consume more ethanol than gasoline and more than 90 percent of the vehicles manufactured in Brazil run on bio fuel. (Regalado, 46).

     What they fail to recognize is that the successful Brazilian ethanol model is sustainable only in Brazil due to its advanced agri-industrial technology and its enormous amount of arable land available. American climate provides completely different conditions for biofuel growth, and to replace imported oil with ethanol would require covering more than half the land area of the United States in corn or other biomass fields, which will result in shortage of agriculturally suitable lands for growing food crops and will lead to skyrocketing food prices.

ETHANOL AND CLIMATE CHANGE

     Another claim of biofuel supporters is that ethanol reduces carbon dioxide emissions, and therefore helps to combat climate change. According to Michael Wang, researcher from the Argonne National Institute, corn ethanol achieves positive fossil energy balance; and currently it provides the up to 15% reduction in carbon emissions, and with the increased low carbon standard in blending of gasoline with ethanol it has more potential in offsetting the greenhouse gas emissions (Wang, 18).

     It is true that during the growing cycle crops absorb vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and therefore can reduce global warming.  But in reality, with growing amounts of emission into atmosphere, not 15%, but 80% reduction in emission is needed to effectively combat global warming. This demonstrates the inability of biofuels alone to provide this change. Moreover, according to C. Ford Runge “if land is converted from rainforests, peat lands, savannas, or grasslands to produce biofuels, it causes a large net increase in greenhouse gas emissions for decades”.

     Besides, when ethanol is added to gasoline, the blend burns cleaner than pure gasoline, but it also has “evaporative emissions” from fuel tanks and dispensing equipment in vehicles. These evaporative emissions significantly contribute to ozone layer depletion and create smog. And even blended with ethanol gas burns cleaner, it still produces carbon dioxide.

BIOFUELS AND ECONOMY

     It is the fact - ethanol is a substantial part of American economy that provides people with jobs and means of living. For every billion gallons of ethanol produced, 10,000 - 20,000 jobs are created in all sectors of the economy from production workers, to truck drivers to servers and cooks in rural restaurants (Growth Energy).      However, it heavily depends on government subsidies and it has not been tested for its economical sustainability.  Main condition for the ethanol industry to be profitable is to have corn prices high enough to allow reasonable margins in the corn ethanol business. The image to the right shows how corn prices are responsive to the crude oil and gasoline increase, as crude oil prices go up, so does corn price. Therefore, for the ethanol industry to be profitable, oil prices have to remain high, and it is dragging America into further exchange for petroleum.

     According to the Department of Energy, Without biofuels the US  would have to use 7.2 billion more gallons of gasoline in 2008 in order to maintain same levels of travel (a 5 percent increase). This increased demand for gasoline would drive up the price Americans pay at the pump due to basic supply and demand.

     Raising fuel-efficiency standards can more effectively reduce gasoline usage than increasing supplies of biofuels. Even if the entire U.S. corn crop were used to make ethanol, it would displace less gasoline usage than raising fuel economy five miles per gallon, readily achievable with existing technologies. 

     Also, fossil fuels provide much of the energy in biofuels production, so biofuels may not replace as much oil as they use. According to Pimentel, Professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell University, who conducted extensive research and analysis of biofuels, "Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, economy or the environment.  Since ethanol requires large input of fossil fuels for the production, it therefore is contributing to oil and natural gas imports and US deficits.

     Supporters of biofuels assert that government stimulus is crucial to ensure the stable growth of the industry and secure the market. Government assistance to ethanol through subsidies, tariffs and legislation requiring a minimum of 10% ethanol to be added to gasoline helps increase the production of ethanol. However, it raises the question about viability of biofuels, and ethanol in particular as an energy source.

     Provided the tremendous growth in the corn-based ethanol market, it should no longer be considered an infant industry deserving of tax breaks and tariff protection. Currently, federal ethanol tax allowance entitles a company that blends gasoline with ethanol for 51 cents per gallon of gas. Additionally, many states subsidize the corn farmers and ethanol producers. This altogether puts a burden on American taxpayer.

     Another example of government assistance to the ethanol industry is 54 cents a gallon tariff that the United States impose on imported from Brasil ethanol produced at much lower cost, in order to artificially shield the market for expensive domestic ethanol (Johnson, 27).  Use of legislation to secure the production is against free market principals and if this energy source is sustainable, it shouldn’t require government support to successfully position itself in the energy market.

     When arguing about ethanol, its energy efficiency and environmental benefits, people assume different boundaries. It also takes energy to grow corn, produce ethanol and transport it. Besides, more input needs to be considered: how much soil erosion it creates, what is the amount of pathogens that get adjusted to pesticides used during growth cycle, what are the effects of used fertilizer, how much more pollution ethanol will cause and how much water is required to irrigate corn and produce ethanol by mixing corn with water for further fermenting. And this is not being considered by the government.

FOOD VERSUS FUEL

     The greatest public concern about growing crops for fuel is that it takes away the agricultural lands which could be used for growing food crops and therefore contributes to food shortage and high food prices.

     Both biofuels and higher prices for oil raise food prices and they do that synergetically, as oil price goes up it creates more incentive for biofuels, which puts pressure on food prices. Domestic and international consumers of cattle fed with grains face with steadily rising prices. In July 2007, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development issued an outlook for 2007-2016, saying that biofuels had introduced global structural shifts in food markets that would raise food costs during the next 10 years. Rising feed prices are also hitting the livestock and poultry industries. Some agricultural economists predict that Iowa's pork producers will be driven out of business as they are forced to compete with ethanol producers for corn.