juan0505

Washing EnzymeDuring debate on the bill in June, Senators Feinstein, Boxer andObama voted to send the bill back to the House. Sen. McCain, asMcCain is ought to do, stubbornly voted “nay,’ hewingto his principled opposition to pork barrel politics. During thedebate, Sen. Boxer summarized the environmental left’sconcerns with the bill as it was taking shape, opposing any effortto drill for America’s oil and gas resources offshore,opposing the ability to import liquefied natural gas, and opposingnuclear power. To Boxer’s credit, she expressed skepticismover ethanol’s environmental impact. McCain’sopposition was mainly rooted in corn ethanol’s huge federalsubsidies, already totaling well over $40 billion in the 10 yearsbefore the 2005 vote in the Senate. California legislators have gotten into the act as well,introducing multiple bills to increase the use of ethanol, cutgreenhouse gas emissions by mandate, and reduce oil production– all in the name of the environment. That many of the billsoperate at cross purposes to each other or to federal law is nomatter; the appearance of action is more important than outcome inthe Alice in Wonderland world of politics. The benefit of experience has now shown us what uncriticallistening to political pressure groups can give us. Corn ethanolhas been touted by a phalanx of groups from the right and left,including environmental organizations such as the Natural ResourcesDefense Council, national security conservatives, and, of course,the farm industry. Corn ethanol’s central promise was thatit would enhance “energy security” by reducing oilimports while reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. The facts of corn ethanol are otherwise. In exchange for whatamounts to a whopping $0.51 per gallon subsidy for ethanol blenders(reduced to $0.45 per gallon in the recent Farm Bill), Americanfarmers have produced record amounts of corn. This has resulted inmaking a fuel that takes more energy to produce than we get out ofit, increased food prices around the world, increased use of fossilfuel-based fertilizers and pesticides, and increased greenhouse gasemissions. How did this happen? To grow more corn, farmers reduced soy beanproduction, much of which shifted to Brazil. To grow more soybeans, Brazilians cut down rain forest – this, of course, hasruinous implications for greenhouse gas emissions, one of thesupposed benefits of turning corn into vehicle fuel. In addition to being bad environmental policy, corn ethanolsubsidies have added misery to the world’s poor. Accordingto U.S. Department of Agriculture, about one-fifth of the bigrun-up in world food prices has been caused by U.S. corn-ethanolsubsidies. International organizations peg food price increasesdue to corn ethanol much higher, at 40 percent. With food riots inMexico, Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia, and Haiti, our corn ethanolsubsidies are dangerously immoral as well as foolish. Less than a month ago, I had the chance to summarize my oppositionto corn ethanol subsidies at an educational symposium. "Energy Alternatives: America's Challenge in the GlobalEconomy" was sponsored by the University of California,Irvine, the Milken Institute, and the New Majority CaliforniaEnergy Task Force on May 13. Speaking on a panel immediately afterformer governor, and current California State Attorney GeneralJerry Brown spoke – surprisingly, Brown had favorable wordsfor nuclear power – I boosted modern nuclear power as a wayto reduce greenhouse gases and reduce our reliance on importedfossil fuels. During my talk I warned that not every renewable energy source ishelpful in the effort to address global warming, specificallysingling out corn ethanol because it is, "…destroyingBrazilian rainforest as soybean production has shifted from theU.S., it is also starving people in the third world and causingunrest." My remarks caused a bit of a stir, causing another panelist, AnneKorin, an energy policy analyst and co-chair of the Set AmericaFree coalition and a director of the Institute for the Analysis ofGlobal Security (IAGS), to strongly defend corn ethanol at theconclusion of the conference. Ms. Korin passionately stated thatcorn ethanol is not causing a rise in world food prices sinceAmerican farmers are exporting more grain than ever. She alsoemphatically disputed the notion that corn ethanol was causing anydestruction of the Amazonian rainforest, pointing out that sugarcane is grown outside of the rainforest region in Brazil. As I previously cited, Anne Korin's first statement regarding foodprices is flat wrong according to government officials who tracksuch things. Further, to someone in the third world spending 80percent of their income on food, any increase in the cost of foodis devastating and can push their family into starvation. ThatU.S. farm and energy policy is abetting this artificial famine isunconscionable. Ms. Korin's second assertion completely misses the mark. I neverlinked the destruction of the rainforest in Brazil to sugar cane;rather, I linked it to the U.S. appetite for corn ethanol which hasdisplaced domestic soybean production to nations such as Brazilwhere they have cut down rainforest to put more land intoproduction. According to a study by the University of Minnesotaand the Nature Conservancy published in Science in February, 2008, increased demand for corn ethanol iscontributing to the conversion of the Brazilian Amazon intofarmland as Brazilian farmers grow the soybeans U.S. farmers usedto grow. If we want more affordable ethanol, the best U.S. policy would beto drop our $0.54 per gallon tariff on ethanol imported fromnations such as Brazil where they make ethanol from sugar cane. Sugar cane, by the way, is eight times more efficient at makingfuel than corn and it is grown in the southern U.S. Better yet, we can open up Alaska and our offshore territories tooil and gas drilling. Rather than begging the Saudis to pump moreoil we should pump more of our own – sadly, that wouldrequire our living in the real world where hard choices have to bemade. Further, we should produce far more clean and affordableelectricity, using nuclear power, rather than coal and natural gas. If global warming is the problem many say it is, then nuclearpower has to play a major role in its solution since nuclear powermakes the most amount of energy for the least amount of greenhousegas emissions of any source of energy. Fortunately, after some 30years of effort, the Department of Energy a few days ago finallyapplied for a license to operate Yucca Mountain in Nevada as arepository for spent nuclear fuel. Too bad we are not yet doingwhat the French do: recycle nuclear fuel, reducing waste by about96 percent. The bottom line is this: we need to base our energy and globalgreenhouse gas reduction policies on sound science and economics,not simply on what may be good for a few well-placed interestgroups. CRO Chuck DeVore represents 450,000 people in the California StateAssembly in coastal Orange County. He retired from the ArmyNational Guard as a lieutenant colonel. From 1986 to 1988 he was aReagan White House appointee in the Pentagon. DeVore co-authoredChina Attacks with Steven Mosher. The book was translated intoChinese for sale in Taiwan. See: www.ChuckDeVore.com . copyright 2008 Chuck DeVore
2008-06-12 09:54:37