ETHANOL PLEADS NOT GUILTY!
BY: KENNETH C. REED
Natural Alternative Fuels, Inc.
Ethanol is currently on trial, charged with causing world hunger and civil unrest. It is alleged that the corn and grain diverted from the food chain to produce biofuels has lead to severe food shortage and disrupted food security around the world. Alternative fuel production has been blamed for high food prices at the grocery store and causing a “silent famine” among the world’s poor. Some have gone as far as to claim that production of ethanol and biodiesel from grain is a “crime against humanity.” To the charges, ethanol pleads “not guilty.”
The purpose of this article is to set forth the truth and debunk the myth about ethanol and biodiesel. The public deserves to know the truth so that they can discern fact from fiction and propaganda. Armed with truth, consumers will be less inclined to succumb to biased media hype, special interest group propaganda and knee-jerk decision making by political leaders. The truth will expose the real culprits behind high food prices and the hunger crisis.
The real perpetrators of the current world food crisis are: Fear, greed, rising demand, dwindling supply, prolonged drought in Argentina, heavy rains and flooding in the mid-west U.S. and other parts of the world, and foreign government decisions to reduce grain exports in an effort to drive down domestic prices. These factors all play a pivotal role in the price and availability of food. U.S. ethanol production uses 25 percent of the nation’s corn output, however, the corn used is field corn and not sweet corn used for human consumption. The actual net impact of ethanol production on food prices in the store amounts to a few pennies. Now compare this to the following facts.
Truth 1.
A barrel of oil sold on the New York Stock Exchange for $75.00 in July 2007. On May 7, 2008, this global commodity sold for $122.00 per barrel. By May 9th, the price hit $126.00 per barrel. It takes approximately 6 weeks for a barrel of oil to make its way from the refinery to the consumers’ gas tank. In addition, oil companies switch from winter gas to summer gas; a process that will soon take place and will result in an upward spike in gas prices.
Truth 2.
Consumers paid approximately $2.78 per gallon for gas in April 2007. On May 7, 2008, the average cost of gas was $3.61 a gallon. The American public will soon feel the effects of $126.00 per barrel oil and the summer change-over gas as the cost of a gallon of fuel will exceed $4.00 and move toward $4.50 by the end of June, 2008.
Truth 3.
Rice is the number one food staple for nearly ½ of the population of the world. The record price of $894.00 per ton was set on May 6, 2008. The previous record was set in May 2007 when the price was $327.25 per ton. Much of the world’s population that relies on rice as their primary dietary supplement are poor and have been the hardest hit by this sharp increase.
Truth 4.
Thailand, the world’s largest exporter of rice, ships 1/3 of all rice exports. The world is gripped by the fear that Thailand will soon restrict rice shipments, thereby furthering the global food crisis. The Thai government has said it will not impose such restrictions. Nevertheless, worry has caused consumers to hoard rice which has lead to a $2-$3 increase in price in the grocery store. Sam’s Club and Costco have placed limits on bulk rice purchases claiming their decision is “based on recent supply and demand trends.”
Truth 5.
Fear concerning Thailand’s potential to restrict rice exports is fueled by the fact that other major world exporters (India and Vietnam) indicated that they will reduce rice exports in an effort to drive down domestic prices. China, Egypt and Cambodia have imposed such restrictions.
Truth 6.
By December 2007, the price of wheat had topped $10.00 per bushel. This is after experts had predicted that wheat would sell for $3.80 per bushel by June 2007. May 2008 wheat sells for $12.92 per bushel, having fallen back down from $19.80 per bushel in February 2008. This price volatility is coupled with the fact that the world’s wheat supply has diminished to its lowest level in 60 years.
Truth 7.
A bushel of corn sold for an average price of $3.40 in June 2007. By May 5, 2008, a bushel of corn sold for $6.02. Soybeans sold for an average of $6.35 per bushel in 2007 and reached $13.32 per bushel by May 2008. Corn and soybeans are the primary feedstock for producing ethanol and biodiesel fuels.
Truth 8.
Developing nations like China and India have become more affluent, resulting in increased food consumption particularly meats, poultry and vegetable oils. People who once ate approximately 44 kilograms of meat are now eating 110 kilograms of meat per year. Increased meat consumption requires increased livestock which requires significant increased grain feed for the livestock. This increase in demand for grain has been a trend for the past 5 years, significantly impacting world-wide supply and is a cause of surplus levels dwindling to their lowest point in 60 years.
Truth 9.
Prolonged drought in Argentina, floods in mid-western U.S., heavy rains in other areas of the world have slowed the planting season for farmers. Unless the weather changes soon, crop yields will be significantly less in 2008. Lower supply, world-wide population growth and increased demand results in higher prices. Add to these factors the decline in the value of the American dollar and the shift of investment dollars into global commodities, and you have the ingredients for higher food prices in the grocery stores. At the same time everything is rising in price, household incomes remained flat or declined. Unfortunately, the poor of the world suffer the most. Civil unrest in areas of predominantly poor have nothing to do with production of ethanol, but everything to do with the widening gap between the “haves and the have-nots.”
Truth 10.
This time, ethanol and biodiesel is here to stay. In prior generations, major oil companies and special interest groups have been able to block the penetration of biofuels into the market. With rising energy costs, increased concern for global warming and greater emphasis on reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil, the time is right for America to invest in alternative fuels. The renewable fuels industry achieved 25.4 billion in revenues in 2007 from sales of 15 billion gallons of fuel. The market is projected to grow to 81.1 billion dollars by 2017.
Major oil companies raked in 123 billion dollars in profits this past year while the price of gas at the pump reached levels which force people to choose between driving and eating. American truckers are unable to afford to fuel the trucks that deliver most of this country’s food to the stores. Truckers have paid in excess of 22 billion dollars more in gas in 2008 than they did in 2007. Higher gas prices are passed from the truckers to the stores and from the stores to the consumers. The sad truth is that there is no food shortage. Food is in the store and rotting on the floors of the warehouses; but the people of the world are increasingly unable to afford to purchase the food due to severe price increases fueled by ungodly price increases for oil. If it had not been for the
availability of ethanol and biodiesel as a competitive alternative to petroleum-based gasoline, the price of gas would be even higher than it is now.
In conclusion, the charges against ethanol and biofuels are wrong. At best, those who promote these charges are misinformed. At worst, these people and groups are part of a conspiracy to reverse U.S. government policies that promote alternative fuel development; the goal being to protect big oil profits.
Knowledge is power. Power is the strength and ability to effect change. Without knowledge, our people will perish. To ignore the knowledge shared herein is to fall victim to the smoke and mirror tricks intended to divert attention away from the real culprits behind the suffering of the people. The facts speak for themselves. It has very little to do with the production of corn-based ethanol. The real ringleaders for the alleged “crime against humanity” are fear and greed and the people or companies that trade on that fear. On the basis of the facts and truths set forth herein, the charges against ethanol and biofuels must be dismissed!
Respectfully submitted by:
Kenneth C. Reed,
© All rights reserved. Kenneth C. Reed. Natural Alternative Fuels, Inc. May 9, 2008
You might be interested in:
Sphere: Related Content
[polldaddy 1781711 http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/1781711/ polldaddy]
Obama is bankrupting the USA with his liberal-socialist 5-year plans, and environmentalist scare mongering. Fear is a weapon against Democracy, and this whole Global Warming scam was thought up just to make his liberal friends rich. Google "Gordon Liddy" for the truth.
Not all Biodiesel is a waste, nor ethanol. See explanation in comment section of this post:
http://www.marylandgreenpower.com/greenpower/2008...
Biodiesel is another case of do-gooders having the opposite, disastrous effect. Biodiesel is a scam, a waste of government money and our tax dollars.
Because of bio-diesel, more tropical rainforest is being cleared to make room for soy bean, palm, and corn plantations.
It’s common knowledge that corn is an inefficient source.
Recently found a good counter-argument at:
University of Washington (2008, May 28). Some Biofuels Might Do More Harm Than Good To The Environment, Study Finds. ScienceDaily. Retrieved May 28, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080527130056.htm#
Citation follows:
Some Biofuels Might Do More Harm Than Good To The Environment, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (May 28, 2008) — Biofuels based on ethanol, vegetable oil and other renewable sources are increasingly popular with government and environmentalists as a way to reduce fossil fuel dependence and limit greenhouse gas emissions.
But new research led by a biologist at the University of Washington, Bothell, shows that some of the most popular current biofuel stocks might have exactly the opposite impacts than intended. The authors of a paper published in the June issue of the journal Conservation Biology offer a dozen policy recommendations to promote sustainability and biodiversity in biofuel production.
The study looked at factors such as the energy needed to produce a renewable fuel source compared with how much energy is produced, the impact on soil fertility and effects on food supply when fuels based on crops such as corn and soybeans are mixed with fossil fuels. Based on those factors, the authors determined that corn-based ethanol is the worst alternative overall.
“It’s foolish to say we should be developing a particular biofuel when that could mean that we’re just replacing one problem with another,” said lead author Martha Groom of the UW Bothell. Co-authors are Elizabeth Gray of The Nature Conservancy and Patricia Townsend of the UW Seattle.
The authors argue that precise calculations are needed to determine the ecological footprints of large-scale cultivation of various crops used for biofuels. They note, for example, that because such large amounts of energy are required to grow corn and convert it to ethanol, the net energy gain of the resulting fuel is modest. Using a crop such as switchgrass, common forage for cattle, would require much less energy to produce the fuel, and using algae would require even less. Changing direction to biofuels based on switchgrass or algae would require significant policy changes, since the technologies to produce such fuels are not fully developed.
The paper’s policy suggestions are “not definitive at all,” Groom said, “but rather each category calls out a question and is a starting point in trying to find the proper answers.”
These concerns are becoming more acute with the rapid rise of both food and fuel prices, she said. The issue is especially touchy for farmers who might for the first time be realizing significant profits on their crops, but it also is a serious concern for motorists.
“I’ve heard about people getting their gas tanks siphoned, and I hadn’t heard of that since the ’70s,” she said.
A difficulty, Groom said, is that while escalating prices add pressure to find less costly fuel sources, acting too hastily could create a host of other problems. For example, farmers who plant only corn because it is suddenly profitable, and don’t rotate with crops such as soybeans, are likely to greatly deplete their soil, which could limit crop growth and promote soil erosion.
Also, some plants are better than others for absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, while others perhaps need more cultivation, which requires more fossil fuel for farm equipment. In addition, fertilization, watering and harvesting all require energy.
The study took about a year to conduct and is a synthesis of peer-reviewed research published in a various journals. The scientists examined the literature looking for indicators of biofuels that are more sustainable and carry a smaller ecological footprint, then used that information to derive the policy recommendations.
The primary audiences for the work are policy makers, students and other biologists, Groom said. The primary goals are to establish a logical basis to evaluate options for biofuel development and to spur new research to find the most ecologically promising alternatives.
“We don’t want to make new mistakes. If we don’t ask the right questions to start with, we’re going to replace old problems with new ones,” she said.
Policy Recommendations
* Calculate a biofuel’s ecological footprint
* Promote only biofuels that can be produced sustainably
* Select highly efficient species for biofuels
* Work to minimize land needed for biofuels
* Encourage reclamation of degraded areas
* Prohibit clearing areas for more cultivation
* Promote use of energy crops that require less fertilizer, pesticide and energy
* Promote native and perennial species
* Prohibit use of invasive species
* Promote crop rotation on cultivated lands
* Encourage soil conservation
* Promote only biofuels that are at least net carbon neutral
Adapted from materials provided by University of Washington, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.