Posted on 10/16/2011 6:20:15 AM PDT by KeyLargo
News Release - National Academies: Ethanol Worsens Greenhouse Gases
Published October 4, 2011
Washington, D.C. -- A new report by the National Academy of Sciences has found that corn ethanol production increases greenhouse gas emissions and damages soil, air, water and wildlife habitat. As well it says advanced biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol are unlikely to prove practical substitutes for either corn ethanol or fossil fuels.
“This report highlights the severe damage to the environment from corn-based ethanol,” said Sheila Karpf, EWG’s legislative and policy analyst. “It underscores just how misguided U.S. biofuels policy has become. It catalogs the environmentally damaging aspects of corn-based ethanol and also casts serious doubt on the future viability of so-called ‘advanced’ biofuels made from other sources.”
During the Congressional debate over the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, the Environmental Working Group argued for provisions to roll back biofuels mandates of production of these renewable fuels that were found to be harmful to the environment. But the Renewable Fuel Standard finally enacted did not include such language.
The report from the National Research Council, a branch of the National Academies of Sciences, concludes that achieving the renewable fuel standard mandate is likely to increase federal spending while further damaging the economy and environment, particularly soil and water.
The report, requested by Congress, concludes that ethanol increases greenhouse gas emissions, pollutes water and uses more water in its production than gasoline. It says that cellulosic ethanol is very unlikely to meet its Renewable Fuel Standard mandates by 2022. Indirect land use changes due to biofuels production will zero out any potential benefits of lower greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels and may actually increase them in both the short- and long-term.
To date taxpayers have spent $23 billion between 2005 and 2010, or $6 billion a year, subsidizing corn-based ethanol without significantly reducing reduction in America’s use of fossil fuels. The report is yet another reminder that significant reforms to the renewable fuel standard are critical, including the addition of strict and enforceable environmental safeguards.
“The Renewable Fuel Standard has always been about corn, corn and more corn,” Karpf said. “The fact is, it won’t bring energy independence, protect our air or combat global warming. As our country faces record national debt, it is time to put American taxpayers and our soil and water ahead of entrenched special interests.”
American farmers have diverted 40 percent of corn production from food and feed to fuel. Land once used for soybean production has been converted to corn to meet the demand for biofuels set out in the RFS. The new report provides more evidence that corn ethanol production continues to raise food prices around the world and harms the planet by releasing more greenhouse gases than regular gasoline.
Link to report:
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=13105 [1]
**Hear more from EWG’s Sheila Karpf on the biofuels mandate and the ethanol lobby's dwindling support in Congress at 11am (EST) today on The Diane Rehm Show.
Published on Environmental Working Group (http://www.ewg.org)
Ethanol is money in the bank for farmers and their Senators and Congress critters know it.
It keeps them in office, while we pay the price.
If you wish to know the reason behind anything the Congress and the President of the United States does always follow the money and the votes.
Patriotism died years ago, Money and votes runs this country.
Ethanol was used to increase thier stockpile, waterdown the gas, charge the same price, and reap the rewards. Much like solyndra and the solar scam today which is in your face and right out in front for all to see. This has nothing to do with your health or the enviroment just another “look how we are taking care of the American people” moment while thier turning your pockets inside out.
I told my neighboring farmers when this crap first started under Bush that it wouldn’t do squat for fuel availability or fuel prices and would drive up the cost of chicken, pork and beef prices in addition to cereals, etc. Hay fields were also converted to corn, driving up the cost of hay as availability declined, which in turn forced me to raise my rates ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
My neighboring farmers agreed with my assessment. It ain’t rocket surgery.
Met a farmer last year....Said all he grows NOW is one crop....corn for the ethanol plant. At the same time, he plays the market and with the subsidies, he can retire in two years instead of 15.
Not true. American farmers and agribusinesses have increased average yields by a quarter or more in the past 15 years or so thanks to massive investment in seed and precision production technologies. Yields are expected to continue to increase and may double within the next 20 years. This investment would not have happened without the demand pull of the ethanol buildout. You cannot look at the current production base, take it as a given, and forget how and why it was built.
Also remember that, in terms of nutritional value, a third of the corn that goes to ethanol returns to the feed market as DDGS.
Everyone needs learn about this report. There have been hints of this for quite sometime.
October 16, 2011
The Department of Food Subsidies
By Victor Davis Hanson
6/23/2011
The Department of Agriculture no longer serves as a lifeline to millions of struggling homestead farmers. Instead, it is a vast, self-perpetuating postmodern bureaucracy with an amorphous budget of some $130 billion — a sum far greater than the nation’s net farm income this year. In fact, the more the Agriculture Department has pontificated about family farmers, the more they have vanished — comprising now only about 1 percent of the American population.
Net farm income is expected in 2011 to reach its highest levels in more than three decades, as a rapidly growing and food-short world increasingly looks to the United States to provide it everything from soybeans and wheat to beef and fruit. Somebody should explain that good news to the Department of Agriculture: This year it will give a record $20 billion in various crop “supports” to the nation’s wealthiest farmers — with the richest 10 percent receiving over 70 percent of all the redistributive payouts. If farmers on their own are making handsome profits, why, with a $1.6 trillion annual federal deficit, is the Department of Agriculture borrowing unprecedented amounts to subsidize them? ....
Read:
http://townhall.com/columnists/victordavishanson/2011/06/23/the_department_of_food_subsidies/print
The only viable green fuel source is growing rapeseed, and making bio diesel, but then you do not need a subsidy when doing that.
The EPA will ban whiskey? Maybe then the Congress will wake up!
We need a much better reference.
Scientists’ Report Stresses Urgency of Limiting Greenhouse Gas Emissions
“...The report, by the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences...”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/13/science/earth/13climate.html
United States National Research Council
“...In 2001, the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions. This report explicitly endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s findings as representing the view of the scientific community...”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Research_Council
There isn’t one, it’s just the same anti-carbon nonsense that the left regurgitates.
Who could have imagined this??
It's OK. What counts is the lefty nutcases' intent. They meant to do good. We have to keep doing this even if it kills everyone. We can't hurt their feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings -- that would be bigotry; and now that there's a black liberal advocating for ethanol, racist.
Biodiesel is much more dependent on government subsidies than corn ethanol. Rapeseed is called ‘canola’ and while it’s a good biodiesel feedstock, it’s no closer to profitability.
Biodiesel is much more dependent on government subsidies than corn ethanol. Rapeseed is called ‘canola’ and while it’s a good biodiesel feedstock, it’s no closer to profitability.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.