EDITORIAL
Our position: Florida can lead the way in finding alternatives to corn in ethanol
May 8, 2008
Orlando Sentinel
President George W. Bush and Congress zoomed
ahead on biofuels in last year's energy law. It's time to ease up on the
throttle.
At the president's urging, Congress substantially raised the federal requirement for using ethanol and other biofuels. This year's mandate of 9 billion gallons represents a big jump from last year's production of 6.5 billion gallons. The annual requirement steadily rises to 36 billion gallons by 2022.
Lawmakers embraced this ambitious schedule to curb America's dependence on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. But unintended consequences already are popping up like weeds.
Almost all of the U.S. demand for biofuel is now being met with ethanol from corn. About a quarter of the U.S. corn crop was used for ethanol last year, and that share could rise to a third this year, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The demand has driven up the price of corn and other crops displaced by it. And that has contributed to a spike in prices for food of all kinds -- including from livestock fed with corn.
Just how much corn ethanol has raised food prices is hotly debated. The ethanol industry says 4 percent; the USDA says more like 20 percent. There are other inflationary factors, including soaring oil prices, severe weather that has cut crop yields in some key countries, and growing demand for food from China and India. But Washington, D.C., has little to no control over those factors, unlike the ethanol mandate.
There are other drawbacks with corn ethanol. When planting, fertilizing, harvesting and transporting are taken into account, corn produces far less net energy than other sources such as sugar. Increasing corn production also adds to soil erosion, loss of wildlife habitat and pollution from fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides.
This week Republican presidential candidate John McCain and 23 fellow GOP senators, citing the spike in food prices, called on Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson to waive or alter the biofuel mandate. Mr. Johnson would be smart to freeze it at its current level until the availability of biofuels from other sources starts catching up.
Congress and the president could take several steps to speed up that process: Lift the import tariff that keeps out sugar-based ethanol from Brazil; phase out taxpayer subsidies for corn ethanol; and direct more dollars to developing biofuels that would yield more energy with less impact on food prices and the environment.
In Florida, Agriculture Commissioner Charles Bronson has been leading the way by supporting projects to produce biofuel from animal waste, citrus peels and other biomass.
Corn ethanol is, at best, a bridge to other, better biofuels. The United States needs to get across that bridge as soon as possible.
At the president's urging, Congress substantially raised the federal requirement for using ethanol and other biofuels. This year's mandate of 9 billion gallons represents a big jump from last year's production of 6.5 billion gallons. The annual requirement steadily rises to 36 billion gallons by 2022.
Lawmakers embraced this ambitious schedule to curb America's dependence on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. But unintended consequences already are popping up like weeds.
Almost all of the U.S. demand for biofuel is now being met with ethanol from corn. About a quarter of the U.S. corn crop was used for ethanol last year, and that share could rise to a third this year, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The demand has driven up the price of corn and other crops displaced by it. And that has contributed to a spike in prices for food of all kinds -- including from livestock fed with corn.
Just how much corn ethanol has raised food prices is hotly debated. The ethanol industry says 4 percent; the USDA says more like 20 percent. There are other inflationary factors, including soaring oil prices, severe weather that has cut crop yields in some key countries, and growing demand for food from China and India. But Washington, D.C., has little to no control over those factors, unlike the ethanol mandate.
There are other drawbacks with corn ethanol. When planting, fertilizing, harvesting and transporting are taken into account, corn produces far less net energy than other sources such as sugar. Increasing corn production also adds to soil erosion, loss of wildlife habitat and pollution from fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides.
This week Republican presidential candidate John McCain and 23 fellow GOP senators, citing the spike in food prices, called on Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson to waive or alter the biofuel mandate. Mr. Johnson would be smart to freeze it at its current level until the availability of biofuels from other sources starts catching up.
Congress and the president could take several steps to speed up that process: Lift the import tariff that keeps out sugar-based ethanol from Brazil; phase out taxpayer subsidies for corn ethanol; and direct more dollars to developing biofuels that would yield more energy with less impact on food prices and the environment.
In Florida, Agriculture Commissioner Charles Bronson has been leading the way by supporting projects to produce biofuel from animal waste, citrus peels and other biomass.
Corn ethanol is, at best, a bridge to other, better biofuels. The United States needs to get across that bridge as soon as possible.
Copyright © 2008, Orlando Sentinel