The unintended consequences of the ethanol quick fix

Outside the United States, the unintended consequences of ill-considered policies promoting ethanol and other biofuel crops are already in full view. The poor, of course, are hit hardest.

Religious leaders who are demanding action on global warming may soon be demanding action on some of the quick fixes put in place in the name of “renewable” energy sources such as ethanol.
Religious leaders should be thinking about the economic impact of ethanol, which goes far beyond the price of tor-tillas. Ethanol is expensive to produce, has contributed to a rise in gasoline prices, and has its own pollution problems. It requires a lot of fertilizer, fresh water, and farm land. And, because of corrosive properties that make pipeline transportation problematic, it takes a lot of trucks to haul it.

Americans may have been able to afford their corn on the cob for this year’s Fourth of July celebration, but price increases are more noticeable for a wide array of foods. That’s because of the widespread use of corn products in US food, less land for other crops due to an increased need for cornfields, and the higher cost of corn feed for livestock.

In the first quarter of this year, food prices rose at an annualized rate of 7.1 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Think of it as a regressive tax on the consumer.

Today’s religious leaders would do well to look to the example of their forebears. John Wesley, the 18th-century Anglican minister who founded Methodism, was a man of practicality who published articles, tips, and advice for helping the poor reduce costs. Wesley’s ministry reached out especially to the kind of poor and marginalized who were hit extremely hard by rising food costs.

It’s hard to imagine that Wesley would side with the unintended consequences of environmental quick fixes and against the poor and needy of the world – especially when the quick fixes are so impractical or destructive.

Christian Science Monitor