How Ethanol Has Hurt The Environment

Political Realities ^ | 11/14/13 | LD Jackson

[LD Jackson]

I am not a fan of ethanol. Because I work in the automotive industry, I have firsthand experience with the effects it has on engines, both small and large. You can read about those effects at this link. The effects I have written about before are all associated with the engines themselves. What I have not focused on before is the effect ethanol has on the environment. I was surprised to see an investigative report from the Associated Press earlier in the week that did just that. I just haven't had the time to write about it until now.

When I was growing up, corn was something you ate or fed to livestock. It was always one of the staples Dad grew in his garden and it was one of the main ingredients in the grains he fed to his cattle and hogs. Mom always felt cheated if her corn didn't make enough ears. If there was a big meal at the Jackson house, corn was always on the menu.

As I have progressed in my life to the point of being over 50 years in age, things have changed. We have been told by the federal government that corn should also be used as a fuel supplement for gasoline. The powers that be in Washington felt so strongly about it, they created an entire industry for ethanol production. The effects on the environment, we were told, would be beneficial. Ethanol subsidies were put into action to make sure ethanol production was profitable to farmers and producers. Ethanol mandates were put into place to make sure a certain percentage of the product was used to supplement gasoline. And we were sold a song and dance and bill of goods that is nothing but a load of nonsense. The report from the Associated Press has been attacked by the ethanol industry, but that doesn't take away from the truths they have exposed.

Huffington Post - With the Iowa political caucuses on the horizon in 2007, presidential candidate Barack Obama made homegrown corn a centerpiece of his plan to slow global warming. And when President George W. Bush signed a law that year requiring oil companies to add billions of gallons of ethanol to their gasoline each year, Mr. Bush predicted it would make the country "stronger, cleaner and more secure."

But the ethanol era has proven far more damaging to the environment than politicians promised and much worse than the government admits today.

As farmers rushed to find new places to plant corn, they wiped out millions of acres of conservation land, destroyed habitat and polluted water supplies, an Associated Press investigation found.

Five million acres of land set aside for conservation - more than Yellowstone, Everglades and Yosemite National Parks combined - have vanished on Mr. Obama's watch.

Landowners filled in wetlands. They plowed into pristine prairies, releasing carbon dioxide that had been locked in the soil.

Sprayers pumped out billions of pounds of fertilizer, some of which seeped into drinking water, contaminated rivers and worsened the huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico where marine life can't survive.

The consequences are so severe that environmentalists and many scientists have now rejected corn-based ethanol as bad environmental policy. But the Obama administration stands by it, highlighting its benefits to the farming industry rather than any negative impact.

Farmers planted 15 million more acres of corn last year than before the ethanol boom, and the effects are visible in places like south central Iowa.

The hilly, once-grassy landscape is made up of fragile soil that, unlike the earth in the rest of the state, is poorly suited for corn. Nevertheless, it has yielded to America's demand for it.

"They're raping the land," said Bill Alley, a member of the board of supervisors in Wayne County, which now bears little resemblance to the rolling cow pastures shown in postcards sold at a Corydon pharmacy.

All energy comes at a cost. The environmental consequences of drilling for oil and natural gas are well documented and severe. But in the president's push to reduce greenhouse gases and curtail global warming, his administration has allowed so-called green energy to do not-so-green things.

In some cases, such as its decision to allow wind farms to kill eagles, the administration accepts environmental costs because they pale in comparison to the havoc it believes global warming could ultimately cause.

Ethanol is different.

The government's predictions of the benefits have proven so inaccurate that independent scientists question whether it will ever achieve its central environmental goal: reducing greenhouse gases. That makes the hidden costs even more significant.

The quote I have included is not the full extent of the report. I would urge you to visit the link and read it in its entirety. You should also read the Huffington Post's report on how the ethanol industry has attacked the Associated Press for their investigation.

Frankly speaking, I have been more than a little harsh on President Obama and his push for green energy. It is on his watch that the ethanol industry has grown with such leaps and bounds, but in all fairness, he isn't the man who started this push. The report points out that it was President George W. Bush who signed the law into force that required gasoline production to include billions of gallons of ethanol in the mix. As much as I liked Bush, I didn't agree with many of his policies and his push for ethanol production ranks close to the top of my disagreements with him.

Ethanol was sold to us as a great product. We were told of its properties and how it would allow gasoline to go further. The reality of ethanol is much different from the stories we were told. I mentioned my firsthand experience in the opening paragraph. Simply put, it takes a greater amount of a higher octane ethanol to produce the same horsepower as a lesser amount of a lower octane gasoline. It just is not as efficient as a good grade of gasoline. And one more thing about ethanol that a lot of people do not realize. I'm not sure of the percentage, but a certain number of automobiles that come into our shop with driveability problems are directly related to the amount of ethanol in the gasoline they are using. Even the engines that are supposedly designed to run on ethanol have trouble handling any fuel that is over 10% ethanol. In other words, it just does not work like we were told it would work.

I would urge you again to read the entire report on how the push for using ethanol has hurt the environment. It is a case of unintended consequences on a massive scale and a prime example of why the federal government should not be involved in so many of the issues they are controlling.

How much longer before we realize that the federal government is not an entity that knows everything. The Obama administration is big on saving the environment through their push for green energy and a green economy. How ironic it is that their push for ethanol production is hurting the environment. I'm not happy about the damage they have done, but the irony of it all is pure sweetness.

[DeWalt]

Deceived or B.S. crammed down your throat? Anyone that is deceived by goverment, deceived themselves. When looking for information on any given subject, never go to a goverment source or a goverment funded source. Global Warming anyone?

[JDoutrider]

Exactly! The non-ox sold around here is 90 cents more than the corn juice. It’s worth it in the long run....

[Missouri gal]

These are common liberal fallacies. “Pollution” in the liberal mindset is planting fallow fields with something that will make a little more than it costs to raise it. The “reducing food” fallacy ignores that the ethanol produced does NOT reduce the food value of the corn pulp remainder, which is fed to cattle. Also, if the farmer stays in business instead of going broke taking pennies for his product, you are NOT reducing food availability, but securing it better. Finally, corn is not the only source of ethanol. Many other things of little value, like wood pulp and other plant waste can be used. As to whether ethanol damages cars, my understanding is that it will damage older cars not properly made for ethanol, but fine for almost all cars on the road.

People, please stop buying into liberal hoaxes!

[SpeakerToAnimals]

The first mandated use of ethanol was in Denver in 1988. Wrenching in a Toyota dealership I saw firsthand the problems caused by ethanol. At the time emission testing was done in repair shops. Most cars and trucks still had carburetors.

I made a bundle resetting the idle mixture (under a sealed plug) every spring, and again every fall.

Junk science promoted for the reelection of scumbag politicians in corn country. Like Senator Grassley.

[hal ogen]

Ethanol as an additive to gasoline (rather than using corn for food) accomplishes internationally what the LIBs are accomplishing domestically with their love of abortions...killing (mainly) poor children. These ghouls must be removed before they murder all humanity.

[Mr. Lucky]

You've hit the nail on the head.

The biggest flaw of the fuel ethanol industry isn't the product they produce, but the business model they've chosen. Had the industry spent as much money on bringing an ethanol optimized engine to market as they have on convincing the government to eliminate market choices, it might produce a viable product.

[fungoking]

ethanol is just energy version of government run health care.

[wita]

“Had the industry spent as much money on bringing an ethanol optimized engine to market as they have on convincing the government to eliminate market choices, it might produce a viable product.”

Very interesting point you bring up. Since 2006 apparently there is a computer switch, within the vehicle brain, that allows multiple fuel use. There are those in the wings that would like to see methanol (straight) as a fuel, and the computer switch would allow it, E-85, biodiesel, and much greater alcohol percentages to run, with some fuel system mods to avoid corrosion.

At the moment the unfortunate point is the switch is off from the factory, and getting it turned on from the factory involves convincing a bunch of lobbyists from the oil industry it is a good idea. They will probably think otherwise.

[BlueMondaySkipper]

People, please stop buying into liberal hoaxes!

I did that a long time ago. Today, it's your turn.

Your information is flat out wrong. For example, while the leftover corn pulp can be feed to animals, it is most certainly NOT the same food value. The alcohol is calories removed. period.
Second, your understanding about engine damage is wrong. Rather than taking the corn lobby's word for it you should talk to folks who work on cars and manufacturers who warranty cars.
Third, burning corn does not make our food availability better. In fact it makes it worse, much worse. For every acre that is dedicated to ethanol production, less are dedicated to food. This simple supply and demand scenario, makes food more scarce and expensive.

I could go on, but it sounds like YOU are the one listening to the liberal BS.

[Shery]

I also read an article about 3-4 years back stating that the emissions from ethanol gas were more noxious than the gasoline only engines. Will this change anybody’s mind? Apparently not. They seem to disregard any data that does not conform to their predesigned agenda. Truth be told, that agenda is population control, not emission control! IN light of the fact that by growing millions of acres more of the feed corn used to produce ethanol costing the lives of millions of men, women & children around the world in food, the finding was laughed off and ridiculed. So, instead of curbing world hunger, we are embarked upon producing a more noxious gas then before and sticking our middle finger to the suffering of the world. What a black eye that is for America.

[SpeakerToAnimals]

Well said. I agree. As an auto technician I see the cost to consumers, but it pales in comparison to the intentional starving of millions.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

Later

[OldNewYork]

Good point, even not considering what it does to automotive seals.

[LD Jackson]

I’m not certain about the food value question, but I am positive about the fact that ethanol is not good for engines. Your understanding that it is fine for almost all vehicles on the road is simply not true. I know this because I work in an automotive repair shop and we deal with the problems it causes every day.

[Verginius Rufus]

A couple of days ago I got gas at a station which had higher-octane grades of gasoline which it claimed were ethanol-free. I have always put the lowest octane gas in my car. Can it do any harm to my car if I were to start putting higher-octane gas in it?

[wally_bert]

There are a few pure gas places in my area and all of them are a buck or so more last bought any for the Willys and K5.

[Spitzensparkin1]

"A couple of interesting facts from that pure gas website. My home state CT has no stations that carry pure gas. NY state has quite a few. A lot of them are boat marinas. Very few sell 87 octane which most cars recommend. Alaska: all gasoline is ethanol-free. Interesting facts."

Another interesting fact, here in my state only one city is mandated by the EPA to use oxygenated (10% alcohol) fuels. Not the entire state, but just one city. But because of the supposed air pollution in Albuquerque, and the EPA requirement, refiners here are now only making gasahol because there isn't enough refining capacity to make both. Can't build new refineries because the EPA red tape.

Slowly but surely stations were switching over and selling gasahol for the past few years. We used to be able to get regular gas at a couple of stations here until this summer because it was piped in from Texas. I'd go out of my way to buy real gas from them. No more, they have changed hands, were bought out, now every gas station in my county and as far as I know the entire state now has only gasahol even though there was no legal requirement except in the one city.

I think this is really just an "under the radar" plan to kill off all the older vehicles with a fuel that destroys them, forcing us to all drive Obamacars.

SS1