Also see:     
AOL/Microsoft-Hotmail Preventing Delivery of Truthout Communications    [

Also see below:     
Corn Boom May Expand "Dead Zone"    [

    Corn Ethanol and Its Consequences
    By Juliette Anthony, M.A., M.S.
    t r u t h o u t | Perspective

    Thursday 20 December 2007

    The Federal Energy Bill, with its fivefold mandate to increase ethanol production, is headed for the president's desk without threat of veto, now that all requirements to support tax credits for solar and wind systems have been removed. The impact of the ethanol mandate promises to be particularly severe on California.

    Growth of the corn ethanol industry in California is fraught with unintended consequences, none of them beneficial to the state's economy or environment. They include deleterious effects on our overcommitted water resources, on our air quality, on the price of food, and on the financial burden to our citizens while private investors profit.

    Those of us in California now need to be more active in fighting serious impacts by preventing ethanol entrepreneurs from getting permits from local cities and counties to use our already limited water supplies to build and operate their plants. Water is key in California.

    All of the water systems upon which the state depends, to serve both agriculture and the urban sector, are oversubscribed. Ethanol requires large amounts of water, both to grow corn and to process it, putting corn into direct competition with our agricultural industry, which feeds half the nation with all of its fruits, vegetables and nuts. Corn ethanol requires 3.7 to 5 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol just in the manufacturing process. Corn ethanol is the only current market-ready product, as cellulosic ethanol from other plant materials is an indeterminate number of years in the future.

    "The Rush to Ethanol," by Food & Water Watch, which should be required reading for those legislators swayed by ethanol lobbyists, illustrates that even the highly touted switchgrass is not without its soil and water use problems. Cellulosic ethanol requires six gallons of water for each gallon of ethanol in the manufacturing process, though the energy output is four to five times greater than for corn ethanol. For a state with such severe water difficulties, at a time when citizens are being asked to conserve, any additional intensive manufacturing water use is highly questionable.

    States such as water-rich Minnesota and Iowa complain that the ethanol industry is mining their groundwater, causing some plants to be closed because the groundwater supply has been depleted. In many places in California, especially in the San Joaquin Valley, the ground has already subsided many feet because of groundwater mining. Approximately 14 percent of the US corn crop is irrigated. This irrigated acreage consumes almost 18 million acre-feet per year of water - much of which is overdrafted from the Ogallala aquifer in the Great Plains. To put this water requirement in perspective, the average annual flow of the Colorado River at Lee's Ferry is only about 14 million acre-feet per year.

    Almost all of California's agriculture is dependent on irrigation. Diverting millions of gallons of water from California farms to produce ethanol will disrupt the nation's food supply. Corn is a very water-intensive crop, and it will also add to pesticide and fossil fuel fertilizer run-off, polluting our waterways. Shifting our valuable farmland from vegetables to mono-cropping corn is already happening in Kern County.

    If all vehicles in California operated on E85 (the policy of the governor and legislature), the ethanol required would consume 70 percent of the entire US corn crop, but only 13.6 percent of the energy in the fuel would be renewable. Corn ethanol requires fossil fuel to fertilize, grow and harvest the crop, fossil fuel to manufacture the ethanol, and fossil fuel to ship by truck or rail, as ethanol cannot be shipped by pipeline because of corrosion.

    Biofuels are not as clean as supporters would have us believe. In Iowa and Indiana, the Sierra Club has sued because ethanol plants have made neighbors ill from toxics in the air and water. Ethanol molecules are microscopic and can escape from gas tanks and hoses. Its use increases NOX by five percent, and for every 18 degrees Fahrenheit increase in temperature, evaporative emissions double.

    Ozone is also increased. While the California Air Review Board is required by state law to ensure that emissions do not increase, plans for mitigation are years away from being implemented.

    Corn is also a lousy raw material for fuel. It takes 10 gallons of ethanol to produce the energy equivalent of about seven gallons of gasoline, and greenhouse gas reductions are minuscule. This will not free us from dependence on foreign oil as its proponents claim.

    Very much like the original backers of MTBE, who adamantly ignored the warnings regarding MTBE's ability to contaminate drinking water, these same people are avoiding the unintended consequences of diverting millions of gallons of water into ethanol plants. They fought to preserve the oxygenate mandate so that ethanol could replace MTBE. Only after many wells in California were contaminated did they support MTBE's removal.

    Already, there are 235 ethanol plants under construction or in planning stages across the country, in addition to 111 operating plants. And there just isn't enough corn to go around. If all the scores of factories under construction or planned go into operation, they will gobble up no less than half of the entire corn harvest by 2008.

    Even though last year's corn harvest was the third-largest ever, food prices are rising in supermarkets. Hog and cattle farmers are already bringing their animals to market early in an effort to save money on feed, because the cost of a bushel of corn has doubled since September 2006. As the price of grain goes up, some people will starve. There were riots in Mexico in June because people were not able to afford corn for tortillas.

    State Senator Tom McClintock, a Republican, summed it up as follows: "The CARB regulations [to enforce the low carbon fuel standard] will undoubtedly hit Californians hard - but they will hit starving third world populations even harder. Basic foodstuffs are a small portion of the family incomes in affluent nations, but they consume more than half of family earnings in third world countries."

    The federal government subsidizes major agribusinesses such as ADM, ConAgra and Cargill to grow corn, and the new Energy Bill mandates more such subsidies. The federal government and some states also provide funds to build plants. California granted Pacific Ethanol a $14 million tax advantage for its plants on December 13, 2007. Then the oil refiners are given 51 cents a gallon for blending ethanol into our gasoline. After all these subsidies, these same agribusinesses and oil companies want consumers to pay more at the pump and supermarket.

    A gallon of ethanol is less expensive than gasoline, but we pay exactly the same amount for it at the pump. The oil companies profit by selling us a gallon of less-expensive fuel for the same amount per gallon that we now pay for gasoline. And we get less gas mileage from that gallon of ethanol, so we have to purchase more gasoline to drive the same number of miles. This is in direct contradiction to the raising of CAF standards, which at 35 mpg are already outmoded by the 40 mpg standard achieved today in Great Britain.

    Alternatives to biofuels do not have to be liquid fuel. Plug-in hybrid vehicles powered by PV solar panels will supply energy for twenty-five or more years with very little maintenance. Any crop that is grown for ethanol requires energy inputs annually for growing, processing and distribution, with its detrimental effects on greenhouse gas emissions. Support for solar and wind systems makes sense. That our representatives in Washington could not manage to include them in this Energy Bill is another sad commentary on our current government.

---

    Juliette Anthony is an environmental research consultant, former twelve-year board member of The Coalition for Clean Air, and research consultant on MTBE for Communities for a Better Environment. For the past six years, she has worked on implementing the California Solar Initiative.

 

---

    Go to Original

    Corn Boom May Expand "Dead Zone"
    The Associated Press

    Monday 17 December 2007

Farmers say crop too profitable to stop, despite problems downstream.

    Jefferson, Iowa - Because of rising demand for ethanol, American farmers are growing more corn than at any time since World War II. And sea life in the Gulf of Mexico is paying the price.

    The nation's corn crop is fertilized with millions of pounds of nitrogen-based fertilizer. And when that nitrogen runs off fields in Corn Belt states, it makes its way to the Mississippi River and eventually pours into the Gulf, where it contributes to a growing "dead zone" - a 7,900-square-mile patch so depleted of oxygen that fish, crabs and shrimp suffocate.

    The dead zone was discovered in 1985 and has grown fairly steadily since then, forcing fishermen to venture farther and farther out to sea to find their catch. For decades, fertilizer has been considered the prime cause of the lifeless spot.

    With demand for corn booming, some researchers fear the dead zone will expand rapidly, with devastating consequences.

    "We might be coming close to a tipping point," said Matt Rota, director of the water resources program for the New Orleans-based Gulf Restoration Network, an environmental group. "The ecosystem might change or collapse as opposed to being just impacted."

    Environmentalists had hoped to cut nitrogen runoff by encouraging farmers to apply less fertilizer and establish buffers along waterways. But the demand for the corn-based fuel additive ethanol has driven up the price for the crop, which is selling for about $4 per bushel, up from a little more than $2 in 2002.

    That enticed American farmers - mostly in Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota - to plant more than 93 million acres of corn in 2007, the most since 1944. They substituted corn for other crops, or made use of land not previously in cultivation.

    Farmer: "Try to Be a Good Steward"

    Corn is more "leaky" than crops such as soybean and alfalfa - that is, it absorbs less nitrogen per acre. The prime reasons are the drainage systems used in corn fields and the timing of when the fertilizer is applied.

    The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that up to 210 million pounds of nitrogen fertilizer enter the Gulf of Mexico each year. Scientists had no immediate estimate for 2007, but said they expect the amount of fertilizer going into streams to increase with more acres of corn planted.

    "Corn agriculture practices release a lot of nitrogen," said Donald Scavia, a University of Michigan professor who has studied corn fertilizer's effect on the dead zone. "More corn equals more nitrogen pollution."

    Farmers realize the connection between their crop and problems downstream, but with the price of corn soaring, it doesn't make sense to grow anything else. And growing corn isn't profitable without nitrogen-based fertilizer.

    "I think you have to try to be a good steward of the land," said Jerry Peckumn, who farms corn and soybeans on about 2,000 acres he owns or leases near the Iowa community of Jefferson. "But on the other hand, you can't ignore the price of corn."

    Peckumn grows alfalfa and natural grass on the 220 or so acres he owns, but said he cannot afford to experiment on the land he rents.

    The dead zone typically begins in the spring and persists into the summer. Its size and location vary each year because of currents, weather and other factors, but it is generally near the mouth of the Mississippi.

    This year, it is the third-biggest on record. It was larger in 2002 and 2001, when it covered 8,500 and 8,006 square miles respectively.

    Soil erosion, sewage and industrial pollution also contribute to the dead zone, but fertilizer is believed to be the chief factor.

    Fertilizer causes explosive growth of algae, which then dies and sinks to the bottom, where it sucks up oxygen as it decays. This creates a deep layer of oxygen-depleted ocean where creatures either escape or die.

    Marine Life Struggles to Survive

    Bottom-dwelling species such as crabs and oysters are most at risk, said Michelle Perez, an analyst with the Washington-based Environmental Working Group. "They struggle to survive," Perez said. "They can't swim away."

    Crabbers complained at a meeting in Louisiana earlier this year that they pulled up bucket upon bucket of dead crabs.

    Rota warned that if the corn boom continues, the Gulf of Mexico could see an "ecological regime change." The fear is that the zone will grow so big that most sea life won't be able to escape it, leading to an even bigger die-off.

    "People's livelihood depends on the shrimp, fish and crabs in these waters," he said. "Already, some of these shrimpers are traveling longer and longer distances to catch anything."

    Given the market pressure to grow corn, the Natural Resources Defense Council and others argue that the nation needs a comprehensive, federal approach to the problem.

    Among the ideas floated: rules to force farmers to use fertilizers with more care, and the establishment of buffer zones to contain runoff.