Page added on July 8, 2013
Aclever ActionAid U.K. video asks Londoners to sign a petition that claims “greedy people in developing nations are eating huge amounts of food that could easily be turned into biofuel to power our cars.” They refused.
The stunt underscores how biofuel programs turn food into fuel, convert cropland into man-made hydrocarbon deposits, disrupt food supplies and harm the environment.
Why can’t politicians, bureaucrats and environmentalists show the same compassion and common sense as Londoners? Why did President Obama tell undernourished Africans that they should refrain from using “dirty” fossil fuels and use their “bountiful” biofuel and other renewable energy resources instead? When will Congress pull the plug on the renewable-fuel standards?
Ethanol and other biofuels might have made some sense when Congress passed the 2005 Energy Policy Act, requiring that refiners and consumers purchase large quantities of ethanol and other biofuels. This is not 2005.
The hydraulic-fracturing revolution has obliterated the notion of “peak oil” popularized by the Club of Rome that we are rapidly exhausting the world’s petroleum. Meanwhile, Climategate and other scandals have demonstrated that the “science” behind climate-cataclysm claims is conjectural, manipulated and even fraudulent — and actual observations of temperatures, storms, droughts, sea levels and Arctic ice have refused to cooperate with computer models and disaster scenarios.
The United States is using 40 million acres of cropland (the size of Iowa plus New Jersey) and 45 percent of its corn crop to produce 14 billion gallons of ethanol annually. This amount of corn could feed some 570 million of the 1.2 billion people who still struggle to survive on $1.25 per day.
This heavily subsidized corn-centric agriculture is displacing wheat and other crops, dramatically increasing grain and food prices, and keeping land under cultivation that would otherwise be returned to wildlife habitat. It requires millions of pounds of insecticides, billions of pounds of fertilizer, vast amounts of petroleum-based energy, and billions of gallons of water — to produce a fuel that gets one-third less mileage per gallon than gasoline and achieves no overall reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions.
Ethanol mandates have caused U.S. corn prices to rocket from $1.96 per average bushel in 2005 to as much as $7.50 in the autumn of 2012 and $6.68 last month. Corn growers and ethanol makers get rich. However, soaring corn prices mean beef, pork, poultry, egg and fish producers pay more for corn-based feed; grocery manufacturers pay more for corn, meat, fish and corn syrup; families pay more for everything on their dinner table; and starving Africans go hungry because aid agencies cannot buy as much food.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 mandates the use of 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol and 21 billion gallons of cellulosic and other non-corn-based biofuels by 2022.
Equally irrational, the Environmental Protection Agency’s draft rule for 2013 requires that refiners purchase 14 million gallons of cellulosic biofuels. However, the fuel doesn’t exist. Just 4,900 gallons were produced in March, and zero the other months. So companies are forced to buy fantasy fuel, are fined if they do not, and are punished if they get conned into buying fraudulent “renewable-fuel credits.”
Ethanol collects water, which can result in engine stalls. It corrodes plastic, rubber and soft metal parts. Pre-2001 car engines may not be able to handle E15 fuel blends (15 percent ethanol, 85 percent gasoline), adversely affecting engine, fuel pump and sensor durability.
Older cars, motorcycles and boats fueled with E15 could conk out in dangerously inopportune places or require costly engine repairs. Lawn mowers and other gasoline-powered equipment are equally susceptible.
On a global scale, the biofuels frenzy is diverting millions of acres of farmland from food crops, converting millions of acres of rainforest and other wildlife habitat into farmland, and using billions of gallons of water to produce corn, jatropha, palm oil and other crops for politically correct biofuels.
These biofuels could easily be replaced with newly abundant oil and gas. New seismic deepwater drilling, hydraulic fracturing and other technologies have opened huge new reserves of oil and natural gas — and enabled companies to extract far more from reservoirs once thought depleted.
That means we can now produce vastly more fossil-fuel energy — from far less land than is needed for biofuels, with far fewer effects on environmental quality, biodiversity and endangered species, and with none of the nasty effects on food supplies, food prices and world hunger that biofuel production entails.
Congress simply needs to amend the 2005 Energy Policy Act, eliminate the renewable-fuel standards and end taxpayer subsidies for biofuels.
A few thousand farmers and ethanol makers will undoubtedly feel some pain. A few hundred politicians will have fewer biofuel producers shoveling money into their re-election coffers.
However, countless wild creatures will remain safe in their natural habitats and millions of families will enjoy welc
Washington Times
9 Comments on "Biofuel mandates produce widespread collateral damage"
efsome on Mon, 8th Jul 2013 8:54 pm
I agree ethanol is a big fail. But i don’t get why’d americans be responsible for “starving africans”? Maybe indirectly by imposing globalaziation to every nation and evicting local populace to grow things (palm oil?) to sell in the global market via evil corporations (tho i guess they’re multinational corps, so not alone in this), or introuducing people healthcare so they go overpopulate the continent and starve.
Juan Pueblo on Mon, 8th Jul 2013 11:56 pm
My paddle and my sails don’t need fuels of any kind 😉
Ricardo on Mon, 8th Jul 2013 11:57 pm
The ever increasing non white population of third world countries will screw the world. We need to balance growth in third world countries.
BillT on Tue, 9th Jul 2013 3:23 am
Ricardo, Americans consume MORE than the entire continent of Africa and the Middle East combined. Throw in Europe and there goes India and China. That covers most of the white, non-latino population of the world vs others.
We need to stop waste and consumption in the 1st world, not limit the opportunities in the 3rd. You are either narrow minded or uneducated/unintelligent, greedy, or all four, it seem to me.
Ricardo on Tue, 9th Jul 2013 4:26 am
Quantity vs quality is the rule you seem to apply. What´s better, a world of 500 million living with current german levels of comsuptions, or a brownish population of billions living in total misery?, if you choose the second you are just insane.
And by the way, my IQ is 110, good enough to me.
simon on Tue, 9th Jul 2013 10:41 am
Billt
Shouldnt we characterise the 1st world as a result of the ‘waste’ . As what pleasure is not essentially wasteful, and whats the point of being the richest if you cannot have pleasure.
Ricardo
Kind of depends if you are one of the rich or one of the ‘deleted’ brownish populations.
Again all subjective
BillT on Tue, 9th Jul 2013 3:06 pm
Ricardo, then open your mind and use it … and mine is 125, so what? If you don’t use it, it can be 10.
GregT on Tue, 9th Jul 2013 3:46 pm
“and actual observations of temperatures, storms, droughts, sea levels and Arctic ice have refused to cooperate with computer models and disaster scenarios.”
Yes they have, they are accelerating faster than the models predicted.
The Arctic, for example, was expected to be ice free in the summer in or around 2060, it now appears that it will occur as early as 2015, or maybe sooner. Anyone that has been paying attention to extreme weather events around the globe, is well aware of what is occurring. Once in a century weather occurrences are happening twice in a decade. Flooding has become widespread globally, grain yields have been falling for the past three years due to drought, and temperature records are being broken everywhere around the globe.
If we ‘westerners’ do not wean ourselves off of our, non sustainable, infinite growth and greed based economy, we will all be living in total misery. Proud germans and ‘brownish’ people alike.
simon on Wed, 10th Jul 2013 8:06 am
Hi Greg
I agree about the infinite growth. Having just got off the phone with a colleague from the one of the BRIC economies, I can assure you they are motivated by the same short sited goals as ‘we’ are.
I dont think anything will change unless we all change together, and thats not going to happen.
Kind of like playing chicken with supertankers. No one wants to jump first for fear their economy will be trashed in the short (1 election period) term.
Simon (bashful celt)