They Finally Noticed

Once again, the Los Angeles Times is a little late and a little weak on an issue, but at least they noticed that issue's existence. An editorial published in today's edition notes that over-reliance on ethanol is perhaps not such a good idea after all.

Something is very wrong with this picture: The United Nations' World Food Program has been hit so hard by skyrocketing grain prices that it may be forced to cut off some food aid to the world's poorest countries, while the United States is planning to turn record quantities of corn into automotive fuel.

The astonishing callousness of burning millions of bushels of grain in gas tanks even as global starvation worsens has apparently never occurred to Congress, the Bush administration or the remaining presidential candidates, all of whom are big boosters of ethanol. ...

It also didn't occur to very many major news outlets, including the Los Angeles Times. If the LAT had stopped at this point in the editorial, or at least had connected the dots between "burning millions of bushels of grain in gas tanks" and the prevailing attitude that driving a car for even the shortest and most trivial of trips is an acceptable one, the editorial would have offset the paper's lack of real analysis on the issue. But the editorialist chose neither direction.

It needn't come down to a choice between conserving oil or feeding the poor. The U.N. has developed a tool for assessing the impacts of biofuel production on food security, something Congress never bothered to study before passing its extravagant mandate. Until the environmental and economic effects of biofuels have been thoroughly examined, the government should stop trying to squeeze more energy out of corn cobs. Meanwhile, the U.S. is obliged to contribute more to world food aid in order to undo some of the damage it has wrought.

Contributing money to buy over-priced and increasingly scarce food is at best a bandaid, at worst, a germ-infested one.

A more realistic approach might have been to urge the state and federal governments to increase funding for public transportation and to urge citizens to get out of their cars and on to buses, commuter trains, and ride-share vans that are efficient enough to take away the excuses that most use in justifying single occupancy vehicles for picking up the dry-cleaning or driving 120 miles a day to and from work.

Apparently that would be too nuanced for a major newspaper.

Morons.

No Surprise Here

Two new studies published in the current edition of the respected journal Science confirms what many of us suspected: biofuels as a replacement for fossil fuels are not going to help reduce greenhouse gases. From an article in today's NY Times:

Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these “green” fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded.

These studies for the first time take a detailed, comprehensive look at the emissions effects of the huge amount of natural land that is being converted to cropland globally to support biofuels development.

The destruction of natural ecosystems — whether rain forest in the tropics or grasslands in South America — not only releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere when they are burned and plowed, but also deprives the planet of natural sponges to absorb carbon emissions. Cropland also absorbs far less carbon than the rain forests or even scrubland that it replaces.

The studies make it clear that land use, something that had pretty much been ignored, is a significant part of the equation. While it's not hard to see how clearing a rain forest would have an impact, most people, especially those in government, have always just assumed that grassland was useless unless plowed under. The scientists have made it clear that even "scrubland" plays an important role in absorbing the carbon-based greenhouse gases.

The costs of production and transportation of the fuels are two more factors that are conveniently ignored by governments, especially those in the hip-pockets of multinational agricorporations. The emphasis on a single crop (for example, corn) will cause further deterioration of land already in agricultural use, which means that artificial soil correctives (fertilizers) will be required. The funneling of corn into the new "market" means that less corn will be available for direct human consumption and for animal feed, raising the costs for food.

Although it is tempting to think that we will find the single "silver bullet" that will solve the climate change problems, that doesn't seem forseeable. Yet governments, especially the US, make it sound like a simple answer is, well, just around the corner. What is needed is a strategy that starts with the idea of decreasing the use of energy generated in any manner.

Increasing CAFE standards is important, but getting people out of cars and into public transportation as much as possible is even more important. Buying locally produced food and goods would reduce all of the transportation costs, including the environmental. While eating fresh strawberries in December is a luxury, it's also one that degrades the environment, something that should not be tolerated.

At least for the present, investment in multiple non-carbon-based fuel sources is still necessary. Solar, wind, wave, and, yes, even biofuels produced by agricultural waste products, will all have a role to play. However, the side effects also have to be considered in the same fashion as the studies on corn-based biofuels.

But then, you all knew that. So, I suspect, do governments and even the multinational corporations like Archer Daniel Midlands and Cargill. It's just that it's hard for those entities to think beyond the current bottom line. I guess it's up to us to educate them, even if it means that harsh tactics such as elections and boycotts have to be used.

Big Business Loves Them Some Ethanol

A push from Congress and the White House for huge increases in biofuels such as ethanol, is prompting the oil industry to scale back its plans for refinery expansions - which could keep gasoline prices high, possibly for years to come.

With President Bush calling for a 20 percent drop in gasoline use and the Senate now debating legislation for huge increases in ethanol production, oil companies see growing uncertainty about future gasoline demand and little need to expand refineries or build new ones.

Oil industry executives no longer believe there will be the demand for gasoline over the next decade to warrant the billions of dollars in refinery expansions - as much as 10 percent increase in new refining capacity - they anticipated as recently as a year ago.

Biofuels such as ethanol and efforts to get automakers to build more fuel-efficient cars and SUVs have been portrayed as key to countering high gasoline prices, but it is likely to do little to curb costs at the pump today, or in the years ahead as refiners reduce gasoline production.

When I saw that Jeb Bush had become involved in ethanol development, it was the clincher to several hints I've seen that ethanol is being taken over by big business as its next source of abusing the public...to use biofuels as an excuse to keep oil prices high comes as no surprise.

It's time to walk when you can, bicycle when you can't walk, and generally find alternatives to the private vehicle use that has gotten us into this mess. While I am proud of the Honda Civic that gets me around, I now leave it parked whenever I can.

While 'shower with a friend' is my favorite motto, this morning rather than showering then putting up a huge umbrella to go out to feed the cat and get the paper, I just wore a shower cap and carried a bar of soap. Envigorating. I recommend it.

The One Basket Answer

Finding a source of energy that is not based solely on oil is a complicated problem, but one that has to be solved if a host of other problems are to be addressed. Unfortunately, and as usual, US politicians have settled on a simple answer without considering the cost and the consequences: corn-based ethanol. Today's Los Angeles Times has an op-ed piece written by Colin A. Carter and Henry I. Miller which points out some of the unintended consequences of using such a single track approach.

POLICYMAKERS and legislators often fail to consider the law of unintended consequences. The latest example is their attempt to reduce the United States' dependence on imported oil by shifting a big share of the nation's largest crop, corn, to the production of ethanol for fueling automobiles.

Good goal, bad policy. In fact, ethanol will do little to reduce the large percentage of our fuel that is imported (more than 60%), and the ethanol policy will have widespread and profound ripple effects on other markets. Corn farmers and ethanol refiners are ecstatic about the ethanol boom and are enjoying the windfall of artificially enhanced demand. But it will be an expensive and dangerous experiment for the rest of us. ...

President Bush has set a target of replacing 15% of domestic gasoline use with biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel) over the next 10 years, which would require almost a fivefold increase in mandatory biofuel use, to about 35 billion gallons. With current technology, almost all of this biofuel would have to come from corn because there is no feasible alternative. However, achieving the 15% goal would require the entire current U.S. corn crop, which represents a whopping 40% of the world's corn supply. This would do more than create mere market distortions; the irresistible pressure to divert corn from food to fuel would create unprecedented turmoil.

Thus, it is no surprise that the price of corn has doubled in the last year — from $2 to $4 a bushel. We are already seeing upward pressure on food prices as the demand for ethanol boosts the demand for corn. Until the recent ethanol boom, more than 60% of the annual U.S. corn harvest was fed domestically to cattle, hogs and chickens or used in food or beverages. Thousands of food items contain corn or corn byproducts. In Mexico, where corn is a staple food, the price of tortillas has skyrocketed because U.S. corn has been diverted to ethanol production.

...Although corn is a renewable resource, it has a far lower yield relative to the energy used to produce it than either biodiesel (such as soybean oil) or ethanol from other plants. Moreover, ethanol yields about 30% less energy per gallon than gasoline, so mileage drops off significantly. Finally, adding ethanol raises the price of blended fuel because it is more expensive to transport and handle.

Lower-cost biomass ethanol — for example, from rice straw (a byproduct of harvesting rice) or switchgrass — would make far more economic sense, but large volumes of ethanol from biomass will not be commercially viable for many years. (And production will be delayed by government policies that specifically encourage corn-based ethanol by employing subsidies.)

I don't agree with some of the assumptions underlying the arguments used by the writers. For example, they suggest it's better to import the cane-based ethanol from Brazil because that country has more land for growing sugar cane for the ethanol and have the distilleries close at hand. However, for Brazil to produce the ethanol for US consumption, it will have to take more of its land from food production, grazing, and forest land. Why is it ok for Brazil to do, but not the US?

Still, the authors have provided a pretty sound analysis of what's wrong with relying on the single and simple fix of corn-based ethanol for our complicated energy needs. What the article implies is that a multi-faceted and long term plan is needed, one that does not depend on a one-size fits all approach and which takes into consideration what the effects of decisions are likely to be.

Sadly, such an approach doesn't appear to be on the horizon. We're too interested in simple fixes that look to be painless.

Robbing Peter To Pay Paul

The current administration has finally decided that we need to find another source of energy, especially since Middle East oil has gotten such bad press of late. Bush's answer is ethanol, the kind produced from corn. While it's hard to argue against considering ethanol as one of many pieces to the puzzle, especially in the short term, this administration is rather heavy-handedly pushing it as the answer, even though this approach will undoubtedly cause many more problems than the one it purports to solve. An article in today's Los Angeles Times showcases just one of those problems.

Over the last two decades, the federal government has built the nation's largest conservation program for private lands by spending billions of dollars to encourage farmers to protect land that is prone to erosion and important to wildlife.

Now the Conservation Reserve Program is about to shrink by millions of acres as part of the Bush administration's plans for stimulating corn production for ethanol to reduce dependence on foreign oil. ...

The $2-billion-per-year federal program pays owners not to cultivate land that is prone to erosion, marginal for farming or significant for wildlife habitat.

Since its inception in 1985, the voluntary program has protected 2 million acres of wetlands, planted 1.7 million acres of grass and trees along streams and other waterways, reduced soil erosion by 450 million tons per year and increased the duck population by millions through improved habitat. ...

Conservation groups say the administration's strategy is counterproductive. "Most of this land was enrolled because it is highly erodible or very environmentally sensitive," said Terry Riley, vice president of policy at the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. "So why on Earth would we be encouraging people to get out of the program and put it into production, which encourages more runoff, fertilizer and pesticides?"

Moreover, conservationists argue that opening protected lands for corn production does not make sense because much of it is not suited for that crop. "What are we trying to accomplish here?" asked Jennifer Mock Schaeffer, farm bill coordinator for the Assn. of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. [Emphasis added]

The Bush administration has from the start made it clear that when it comes to the environment, big business interests take precedence. The decision to force corn production on the farmers is no exception to that rule. This government thinks only in the short term: monthly and quarterly bottom lines. Taking highly erodable land out of the program for a crop that requires plenty of water during the growing season is just begging for more, well, soil erosion.

This is bad enough, but pushing corn for the sole purpose of providing another fuel source for the nation causes other problems, as an article in yesterday's Sacramento Bee makes clear.

Matching a national trend, California farmers plan to sow nearly 20 percent more corn this year than last, an increase of 100,000 acres and a state record. But unlike in the rest of the country, most of the new plantings here are driven by the need to feed cattle, not ethanol refineries.

In the past year, demand for corn to feed refineries as well as a robust export outlook have pushed corn prices to their highest levels since the late 1990s. Industry experts say the prices aren't high enough for most farmers to plant corn for ethanol. But they are high enough that planting corn is one way for livestock producers to cut their feed costs.

Corn has never been a big crop in California for many reasons, not the least of which is the water requirement. Water is a precious commodity in this state, and after an unusually dry winter, it is even more precious this year. The problem the state's farmers face is that the emphasis on ethanol production has pushed the price of corn up, which means the price of corn used for silage has gone up. When that higher price is coupled with increased shipping costs, livestock producers find themselves in a bind. Growing their own feed looks to be the only answer, which means that thousands of acres normally used for other California crops are being used for corn.

None of that apparently concerns the White House, which comes as no surprise.

Another Distraction

In a week of tumultuous revelations about White House involvement in the firings of eight US Attorneys for political reasons, the "true confessions" of Khalid Sheik Muhammad for all crimes committed against the United States and the world at large in the last thirty years, and the continuing bloody mess that is the Iraq War, not as much attention has been paid to the President's excellent adventures in Latin America. We do know from various sound bites that the intrepid executive had some pretty nice dining experiences and we learned that apparently Mr. Bush has a fondness for blueberries.

The press in Latin America, however, has had plenty to say about the tour. Angel Guerra Cabrera, in an op-ed piece in Mexico's La Jornada, has a pretty scathing analysis of the President's "promises" to a continent his administration has rather pointedly ignored the past six years. One section of the column presents a rather interesting take on what is surely going to be the centerpiece of the President's energy initiatives.

As was to be expected, the insincere promotion of ethanol production as way to generate jobs and remedy global warming has not been accompanied by a reduction in the massive taxes on Brazilian energy. If the project were to be put into practice on the scale that Bush proposes, it would mean a death certificate for the tropical forests of Brazil, the devastation of rural agriculture in Brazil as well as vast regions of Central America and the Caribbean, the deepening of monoculture and the liquidation of biodiversity on hundreds of thousands of hectares.

This would be a true hecatomb [mass animal sacrifice] , raising the price of food to the heavens, adding hundreds of millions to the legions of hungry, greatly increase the emission of polluting gases and bringing a dramatic increase in the use of agrochemicals highly detrimental to living things.

This strategy, destined to fatten a handful of transnational corporations, maintain the environmentally lethal and wasteful energy consumption in the United States and sabotage Latin American integration, is already being met with considerable social rejection. This can be deduced by the stance taken by the leader of the Movement of Landless Field Workers in Brazil, Joao Pedro Stédile. The most this [U.S.] strategy can achieve in Latin America is an intensification of the already energetic activity against imperial policy. [Emphasis added]

At this point, ethanol is a problematic source of energy for this nation and for the world. It isn't terribly energy efficient in its production, and, just as important, it requires taking millions of acres out of food production. It also requires taking land out of such important biosystems as the rain forest. Monoculture just isn't a very sound approach to anything, but that won't stop this president and his buddies at ADM.

Touting ethanol as the answer to all of our energy problems is an easy response to a complicated and difficult situation. The fact that the meme is useless in the real world won't stop this administration from trying to impose it on the Midwestern farmer and the Brazilian peasant. Should Mr. Bush succeed in this, we're in for some real trouble.

Hope For A Good Way to Honor MLK

First, in celebration of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Birthday, I would like to recall his 1997 speech at Riverside Church , taking a stand against our nation's war in Vietnam.

Forty years ago at Riverside Church, people of conscience declared that "a time comes when silence is betrayal." This was said Saturday by Colbert I. King in an editorial honoring MLK and is ringingly true in many ways.

We are viewing an increasingly vocal opposition to the escalation of war in Iraq that the cretin in chief is proposing. Even the administration's staunch supporters over the past six years, in light of their increasingly irrational belligerence, are beginning to round on the irresponsible wasting of this nation's resources.

In the field of energy this White House has begun to show the effect of rational voices' condemnation of its refusal of accumulating evidence of global warming, and rejection of all rational elements.

The world at large is turning its attention to preservation of the earth, and dependence on the fossil fuels that have been at the core of much of the international thievery by the major powers.

CEBU, Philippines -- Asian and Pacific leaders signed an agreement Monday to help reduce their dependence on conventional sources of energy and promote the use of biofuels.

The Cebu Declaration on East Asian Energy Security was signed by leaders from Southeast Asia, Australia, New Zealand, India, Japan, China and South Korea after a three-hour summit in the central Philippine city of Cebu.

ASEAN Leaders and their six Dialogue Partners prepare to sign documents during ceremony for the Cebu Declaration on Energy Security at the 2nd East Asia Summit in the ongoing 12th ASEAN Summit of Leaders with their six counterparts Monday, Jan. 15, 2007 in Cebu, central Philippines. The leaders are from left, President Roh Moo-hyun of South Korea, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, Prime Ministers John Howard of Australia, Manmohan Singh of India, Helen Clark of New Zealand, and Lee Hsien Loong of Singapore (AP Photo/Pat Roque) (Pat Roque - AP)

The agreement lists a set of goals for "reliable, adequate and affordable" energy supplies essential for sustaining economic growth and competitiveness.
*************************************************************************
ASEAN's members are the Philippines, Thailand, Myanmar, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam.

In South America, we have countries devoting their energy development to those biofuels, and in Brazil, increasingly in neighboring countries, ethanol is a major industry and hope for future resource development. Farmers raise the fuels, not international cartels.

There are signs that even the developmentally incapacitated administration here is beginning to realize that necessity is upon us. We have to establish a rational plan for energy sustenance, and we can do that by taking seriously a burgeoning new industry that supports our own people.

On Saturday I put the case for a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system to James Connaughton, the head of the Council on Environmental Quality at the White House. Far from denouncing these policies as eco-socialist nonsense, Connaughton sounded open to them. "In concept I can agree with you," he said. Something must be done to stem demand for climate-warming energy, and although there are several ways of getting there, a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system would be the most "elegant."

Whoa! This may be spin, but it's certainly new spin. Only a few months ago, Al Hubbard, director of Bush's National Economic Council, brushed aside the idea of a carbon tax: "The American people are not interested in paying more for gasoline," he told me, sounding like a frog in the path of a herd of elephants who says he's not interested in jumping.

Next week we'll see whether Connaughton's reasonable-sounding views are reflected in Bush's State of the Union speech. The key thing to watch is whether Bush talks only about energy security or whether he emphasizes climate. Energy security is mostly a dumb objective, but climate policy is crucial.

It's true that the United States imports 60 percent of its petroleum, about double the share of two decades ago. But cutting U.S. oil imports won't insulate the nation from instability in petro-states. There is a global price for oil, and Americans will feel the hit from a terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia or a rebellion in Nigeria whether they fill their trucks with gas that's foreign or domestic. Equally, cutting U.S. oil imports won't really punish the bad guys in Iran or Venezuela. The United States has shut out Iranian oil imports since 1979, but Iran gets the global price for its crude, no matter whom it sells to.

A mistaken focus on energy security can undermine good policy on climate.

This is a hopeful development, although of course the source being this White House, there is bound to be the usual corruption and misapplication of our resources. At least, though, it is more promising than repeating past mistakes while expecting different results.

C to Shining C (for Corn)

Having just been on a road trip to the great Midwest, I would like anyone who has never been on one to picture the map of the United States with all that acreage, planted in waving cornstalks. It really is like that.

In Missouri, I was particularly impressed by the billboards featuring fields of corn, with the motto "These Are Missouri Oilfields", with a farmer standing in front of the waving corn. It's a concept that has a great deal of resonance for the American tradition of farming. It's also a concept that offers a whole new view of the sources of conflict in the Middle East. We can outgrow our fixation on other countries' treasures. Literally, we can outgrow it.

Ethically, ethanol makes a lot of sense.

Technology has produced the hybrid car, and GM among others is manufacturing dual use systems that can begin now to use ethanol where it is found. For the auto industry which has been in the dumps, a new utilization of our homegrown fuels is full of promise. Go look at the Chevy Equinox Fuel Cell, if you think the auto industry is hidebound. The surging price of fossil fuels has had the impressive effect of galvanizing what had been a neglected and underestimated use of our own resources.

Of course, the resurgence of the responsible party, the Democratic forces, in this country, is one of the best signs that nature is re-asserting itself as the oil industry takes a fall. No longer devoted to failing wars to keep it in the ascendancy, the oil industry is in the disarray the press was so recently trying to impose on the Democratic party. It is scrambling to stay relevant.

Even Forbes Magazine, while keeping to its pro-business bias, has to admit that thanks to the Republican rout on Election Day, two Midwestern Democrats from the Corn Belt, Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, will tackle the legislation as the new chairmen of the respective House and Senate agriculture committees.

The switch more or less guarantees a huge boost to an ethanol industry that is already roaring ahead at full throttle.

"The consensus is that this makes it even more likely that we'll have some aggressive biofuels policies adopted," says Nathanael Green, a biofuels expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council. [emphasis added]

Already, ethanol producers benefit from a constellation of government supports, including a tariff on imported ethanol, subsidies for growing corn and blending the fuel, crop insurance and a guaranteed market: The Energy Act of 2005 required refiners to ramp up ethanol use from 2.5 billion gallons last year to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012.

Now, the farm bill may lavish even more on the industry.

"You're going to have Harkin, who is as good of an advocate for the corn industry as anyone could get," says Bill Kovacs, a lobbyist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

With the progressive use of our own resources, which incidentally are totally renewable, the scene has been set in our country for a return to American innovative growth, and an end to the pollution which carbon based fuels have inflicted on our world.

It's time for this country to resume its eminence by use of its own resources, physical and mental - and time for a halt to the oil industry and its militarization of the world in service to its moral and economic wasteland.

Corn is a beautiful sight . It has deeply valuable connotations (another good 'C'-word) for our emergence into a renewed, responsible society. The American natives had corn festivals, it's good to celebrate some of the healthy, natural roots of our country's values, and good to return to them.