Sign in or 
Share this
Ethanol Discussion
--contributed by katie.dorman
Wisconsin has been implementing incentives for corn-based ethanol’s use and promotion, from proposing tax incentives for purchasing ethanol vehicles to increasing the number of ethanol vehicles in the state fleet, hoping to thus increase the amount of ethanol produced and consumed in the state in order to make Wisconsin a national leader. While the goal of using renewable fuels to decrease the anthropogenic component of global climate change is admirable, ethanol is the wrong choice both environmentally and economically that could ultimately serve to put Wisconsin at a disadvantage in the long-term.
Ethanol sounds great – why not purchase a product that reduces greenhouse gas emissions, creates jobs, and supports the state’s agricultural economy? Because these benefits are slight and outweighed by the drawbacks of producing and using ethanol. Ethanol is not effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions -- by the numbers, ethanol does release less greenhouse gasses than gasoline by 12-19% according to the Wisconsin Ethanol Coalition. So technically ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions when it comes out the tail end of a car, but that’s far from the whole story. If one steps outside the rhetoric of one set of numbers, it is realized that ethanol’s inputs require more energy than gasoline’s (planting and harvesting crops; the refinery & delivery processes). Some research, like the Pimental/Patzak study, estimates that ethanol requires 29% more energy to produce than gasoline. Because of this, any emissions savings in burning the fuel are negated because of the excess amount of energy the process of creating ethanol requires, resulting a net loss or balance at best.
Ethanol is further inefficient when burned, as a 2006 Popular Mechanics report illustrated it would take about 1.56 gallons of ethanol to go as far as 1 gallon of traditional fuel would. In dollar terms, General Motors mid-size ethanol vehicles will cost on average $0.59 more to drive for every 25 miles than gasoline. For someone who drives the average 12,000-15,000 miles a year, that translates into paying roughly $235-$350 more per year for the privilege of supporting an inefficient fuel practice that actually creates more greenhouse gas in its production than it saves in its use. When ethanol vehicles are mandated in the state fleet, that’s $235-$350 more per vehicle, per year taxpayers must pick up.
On top of the economics, the major environmental drawback to ethanol is its negative effects on water. The National Research Council released a study about ethanol’s impacts on water, in which it was found that heavy amounts of fertilizer used on ethanol crops were ending up as runoff in major waterways, resulting in fish hypoxia as far away as the Gulf of Mexico. Corn crops intended for ethanol (read: not for human or animal consumption) can be fertilized in excess to further the end of rapid crop production. This excessive fertilization has major impacts on water quality and is an interconnected, environmental nightmare that Wisconsin should not want to be a part of. How bad does it sound that in trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, states that over-encourage ethanol end up decimating fish populations and aquaculture thousands of miles away?
These are only a few of the problems associated with ethanol that illustrate the complexity of the issue and also raise the question of why are governments so crazy about supporting the use of ethanol? The federal government is so crazy about ethanol that, at the least, it gives ethanol a tax-credit subsidy of $0.51 per gallon, costing the government in 2005 at least $2 billion. Any state incentives only add to this and mean that the government (state and or federal) must make up the difference elsewhere.
Much of ethanol’s enthusiasm is attributed to the massive power of farm lobbyists, since farmers stand to benefit greatly from increased demand for corn crops. Farmers make up 0.7% of U.S. payroll, according the U.S. Census Bureau and yet wield enough power for the federal government to seemingly be okay with losing out on $2+ billion a year in revenue, not to mention lost revenues at the state level for supporting a fuel that is more-than questionable, especially in the absence of any governmental cost-benefit analysis.
While supporting Wisconsin’s agricultural economy is important, it is not so important to lose further tax revenues, increasing the already high tax burden on residents, or to encourage consumers to buy into a questionable fuel. Corn-based ethanol is not the answer to alternative fuel success. Overall, it does not save on carbon emissions and costs owners of ethanol-capable vehicles more to own and operate over the long term. These owners end up being the taxpayers of Wisconsin when it is ordered that the state’s vehicle fleet be comprised of more and more ethanol vehicles. It is not fair to residents of Wisconsin to have to pick up the bill, both economically and environmentally, for something that is not properly researched and assessed at the governmental level and is found to be questionable in most independent research.
Wisconsin has been implementing incentives for corn-based ethanol’s use and promotion, from proposing tax incentives for purchasing ethanol vehicles to increasing the number of ethanol vehicles in the state fleet, hoping to thus increase the amount of ethanol produced and consumed in the state in order to make Wisconsin a national leader. While the goal of using renewable fuels to decrease the anthropogenic component of global climate change is admirable, ethanol is the wrong choice both environmentally and economically that could ultimately serve to put Wisconsin at a disadvantage in the long-term.
Ethanol sounds great – why not purchase a product that reduces greenhouse gas emissions, creates jobs, and supports the state’s agricultural economy? Because these benefits are slight and outweighed by the drawbacks of producing and using ethanol. Ethanol is not effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions -- by the numbers, ethanol does release less greenhouse gasses than gasoline by 12-19% according to the Wisconsin Ethanol Coalition. So technically ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions when it comes out the tail end of a car, but that’s far from the whole story. If one steps outside the rhetoric of one set of numbers, it is realized that ethanol’s inputs require more energy than gasoline’s (planting and harvesting crops; the refinery & delivery processes). Some research, like the Pimental/Patzak study, estimates that ethanol requires 29% more energy to produce than gasoline. Because of this, any emissions savings in burning the fuel are negated because of the excess amount of energy the process of creating ethanol requires, resulting a net loss or balance at best.
Ethanol is further inefficient when burned, as a 2006 Popular Mechanics report illustrated it would take about 1.56 gallons of ethanol to go as far as 1 gallon of traditional fuel would. In dollar terms, General Motors mid-size ethanol vehicles will cost on average $0.59 more to drive for every 25 miles than gasoline. For someone who drives the average 12,000-15,000 miles a year, that translates into paying roughly $235-$350 more per year for the privilege of supporting an inefficient fuel practice that actually creates more greenhouse gas in its production than it saves in its use. When ethanol vehicles are mandated in the state fleet, that’s $235-$350 more per vehicle, per year taxpayers must pick up.
On top of the economics, the major environmental drawback to ethanol is its negative effects on water. The National Research Council released a study about ethanol’s impacts on water, in which it was found that heavy amounts of fertilizer used on ethanol crops were ending up as runoff in major waterways, resulting in fish hypoxia as far away as the Gulf of Mexico. Corn crops intended for ethanol (read: not for human or animal consumption) can be fertilized in excess to further the end of rapid crop production. This excessive fertilization has major impacts on water quality and is an interconnected, environmental nightmare that Wisconsin should not want to be a part of. How bad does it sound that in trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, states that over-encourage ethanol end up decimating fish populations and aquaculture thousands of miles away?
These are only a few of the problems associated with ethanol that illustrate the complexity of the issue and also raise the question of why are governments so crazy about supporting the use of ethanol? The federal government is so crazy about ethanol that, at the least, it gives ethanol a tax-credit subsidy of $0.51 per gallon, costing the government in 2005 at least $2 billion. Any state incentives only add to this and mean that the government (state and or federal) must make up the difference elsewhere.
Much of ethanol’s enthusiasm is attributed to the massive power of farm lobbyists, since farmers stand to benefit greatly from increased demand for corn crops. Farmers make up 0.7% of U.S. payroll, according the U.S. Census Bureau and yet wield enough power for the federal government to seemingly be okay with losing out on $2+ billion a year in revenue, not to mention lost revenues at the state level for supporting a fuel that is more-than questionable, especially in the absence of any governmental cost-benefit analysis.
While supporting Wisconsin’s agricultural economy is important, it is not so important to lose further tax revenues, increasing the already high tax burden on residents, or to encourage consumers to buy into a questionable fuel. Corn-based ethanol is not the answer to alternative fuel success. Overall, it does not save on carbon emissions and costs owners of ethanol-capable vehicles more to own and operate over the long term. These owners end up being the taxpayers of Wisconsin when it is ordered that the state’s vehicle fleet be comprised of more and more ethanol vehicles. It is not fair to residents of Wisconsin to have to pick up the bill, both economically and environmentally, for something that is not properly researched and assessed at the governmental level and is found to be questionable in most independent research.
greenvoting |
Latest page update: made by greenvoting
, Apr 8 2008, 11:38 PM EDT
(about this update
About This Update
Edited by greenvoting
3 words added view changes - complete history) |
|
More Info: links to this page
|
| Started By | Thread Subject | Replies | Last Post | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| fdeveau | ethanol vs. investment in foreign economies | 1 | Apr 16 2008, 12:36 PM EDT by katie.dorman | ||
|
Thread started: Apr 8 2008, 8:04 PM EDT
Watch
The discussion on ethanol makes some good points. However, it ignores the huge investment in foreign economies that our country is currently making by its reliance on petroleum. We all know what's happening at the gas pumps. Those dollars are going to foreign countries; some of which are bent on the destruction of this country. Others are purchasing our domestic companies. It may well be worth an increase in taxes to become energy independent. Brazil made the investment in alcohol years ago and is now virtually energy independent. The cost to Brazil was significant at first, but it has paid off.
I am not advocating taking a blind eye to the environmental problems that ethanol can create. Those problems can be dealt with, in part, by government restrictions on the use of fertilizer. Also, new technology will further reduce emissions as emission controls are enhanced. In summation, many of our country's current political and economic problems are due to our dependence on foreign oil. Ethanol can go a long way towards eliminating that dependence. We need to keep our eye on the big picture while evaluating alternative energy sources such as ethanol. |
|||||
Showing 1 of 1 threads for this page
