Writing in the Chicago Tribune, FDD Senior Fellow Dr. Robert Zubrin and Gal Luft, executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, address the myths and facts surrounding the issue of biofuels.
In recent weeks, a flood of reports and statements has claimed that the world's biofuel programs—in particular the U.S. corn ethanol effort—is starving poor people around the globe. Even the UN's special rapporteur for the Right to Food decried biofuel production as "a crime against humanity."
It seems so obvious: With so much corn being turned into fuel, food shortages must inevitably result, and biofuel programs must be the cause. However, that's completely untrue.
Here are the facts. In the last five years, despite the nearly threefold growth of the corn ethanol industry (or actually because of it), the U.S. corn crop grew by 35 percent, the production of distillers grain (a high-value animal feed made from the protein saved from the corn used for ethanol) quadrupled and the net corn food and feed product of the U.S. increased 26 percent.
Contrary to claims that farmers have cut other crops to grow more corn, U.S. soybean plantings this year are expected to be up 18 percent and wheat plantings up 6 percent. U.S. farm exports are up 23 percent.
America is clearly doing its share in feeding the world.
Agriculture is not a zero-sum game. There are 800 million acres of farmland in the U.S., and only about 30 percent of it is actually being used to grow anything. As a result of the ethanol program, the corn price received by farmers doubled over the last five years, causing a huge increase in the amount grown in terms of acreage and yield.
The increased demand for food from the hundreds of millions of people in China and India rising out of poverty and moving to a more calorie-rich diet affects the price of food the most. Second is the price of fuel.
Higher fuel prices increase the cost of production, transport, wages and packaging, the main cost of retail food. For example, a $3 box of cornflakes contains 15 ounces of corn that cost 8 cents when bought from the farmer. So, farm commodity prices have almost no effect on retail prices. But the effect of oil price increases can be huge.
Which brings us to the real culprit: the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. This year, with OPEC-rigged oil prices exceeding $100 a barrel, the U.S. will pay $800 billion for its oil supply, and the world as a whole will pay $3.2 trillion. These figures are both up a factor of 10 from what they were in 1999 and represent a huge regressive tax on the world economy.
In this, biofuels have done more good than damage to the poor.
According to Merrill Lynch analysts, without biofuel programs, the price of oil would be about $13 a barrel higher than it now is. A $13 savings for each barrel could save the U.S. $65 billion in foreign oil payments.
So, rather than shut down biofuel programs, we need to radically augment them, to the point where we can take down the oil cartel. Congress can make this happen by passing a law requiring that all new cars sold in the U.S. be flex-fuel vehicles that can run on any combination of gasoline, ethanol or methanol. The technology costs only about $100 per vehicle.
By making America a flex-fuel vehicle market, we will effectively make flex-fuel the international standard. Around the world, gasoline would be forced to compete against alcohol fuels made from a number of sources, including not only commercial crops such as corn and sugar, but cellulosic ethanol made from crop residues and weeds, as well as methanol made from any kind of biomass, coal, natural gas and recycled urban trash. By creating such a fuel market, we can enormously expand and diversify humanity's fuel resource base, protecting all nations from continued economic bleeding and, indeed, in some cases, starvation. That, and not blindly accepting the naysayers' propaganda demanding the preservation of the oil monopoly, should be our course.
Robert Zubrin is the author of "Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil." Gal Luft is executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. They are members of the Set America Free Coalition.
Biofuels are still a waste of food period. Fuel made from US corn was supposed to ease our foriegn oil dependancy. it hasn't. It was supposed to be better for the environment, it's not.
When a nation chooses to burn it's food instead of drilling for an abundant natural resource. That nation plays the fool.
Posted by: The Troll | May 09, 2008 at 10:25 PM
Flex Fuel is a lower octane than regular gas, the engine burns more fuel, hence, more fill-ups and less BANG for your buck!
Posted by: Dave Ross | June 14, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Fuel prices are up in Iowa. Food prices are up. Now it appears the favorite whipping boy is ethanol to take the blame. The word is out, we are using food for fuel in America and we should be ashamed of ourselves as the story goes. And it is the tall corn state, Iowa, and its people, you and I, which are being mistakenly focused upon as nasty and ultimately evil because Iowa is contributing to making children starve around the world because “our” corn is not being used as food -- instead it is being used to fuel gas-guzzling SUVs. That argument is completely bogus in my humble opinion. And so are most all other arguments made against ethanol likewise bogus.
Ethanol does not consume food for fuel, but, instead, refining corn in the fermentation process actually extends the world food supply. The fermentation process makes corn more digestible for ruminant animals, so you need to feed them less, thus increasing the available supply. How much of an increase in the world food supply? Refining 3 billion bushels or 25% of the 2007 American corn crop to begin to meet the goal to make America energy independent under the present federal Energy Act signed into law will not take 3 billion bushels of corn away from the world food supply in year 2008. Instead it will actually add the equivalent of an additional 300 million bushels of corn to the world food supply! That is enough corn to fill 375,000 semi grain trucks (800 bushel capacity, 65 feet long each) lined up bumper to bumper all the way from the beach in Atlantic City, New Jersey, to the beach in Santa Barbara, California, and then half again back across this great land to the Four Corners in Osceola, Iowa, 4,616 miles!
To see how the above was arrived at there is an article posted on www.libertytruth.org, and once to the web site click on the Old Codger’s blog. What you read you might call thinking outside the box, but where is the law that says we must all think inside the box? Who built the box in the first place? For what reason is there a box? To keep us contained? The purpose for that web-posting is for people to direct all those they know that are running for public office, local, state and federal in this election year to read it also so when they take office they will be better informed and more likely to promote a vital industry in this country to move us toward energy independence, along with feeding the hungry.
Posted by: Dale Mastarone | August 06, 2008 at 07:00 PM
TheTroll, you are well named.
"Biofuels are still a waste of food period."
Did you read the article? Do facts matter to you? It showed with numbers and facts that biofuels are no threat to food at all. In fact they help reduce the price of food and make it more available by helping cap fuel and fertilizer costs.
"Fuel made from US corn was supposed to ease our foriegn oil dependancy. it hasn't."
Yes it has. When 10% of our gasoline is in fact ethanol, that cuts substantially into our gasoline usage, 60% of which comes from overseas.
But you're right that there's a long way to go. Getting there requires a relatively simple step of mandating as standard equipment a minor change in all new cars so that they can run not just high gasoline low alcohol blends as they do now, but can also run the opposite (high alcohol low gasoline), such as E85 and M85, which are only 15% gasoline.
Instead of a tiny 6% chop in gasoline usage, an 85% slash in it would have enormous effects.
"It was supposed to be better for the environment, it's not."
It's FAR better for the environment. Alcohol fuels produce far less NOx, and they are only one tenth as reactive to it, so the effect is far less. Furthermore they produce no sulfur. So the contribution to ozone smog and acid rain from vehicles is massively slashed.
Furthermore unlike gasoline alcohols produce NO SOOT, SMOKE, OR PARTICULATE EMISSIONS. No conventional smog whatsoever. Ask a Los Angeleno or a resident of Beijing if that would be nice. The EPA says 40,000 Americans die a year from that.
Going on, unlike gasoline, alcohols are non-carcinogenic and non-mutagenic.
And unlike gasoline, alcohols dissolve in water instead of persisting as floating scum. And even if they didn't, they are (again, unlike petroleum and its refined products) readily biodegradable, breaking down within a day if not hours within safe components. Meanwhile the Exxon Valdez is STILL killing wildlife a decade later, and leaks from underground gasoline stations are poisoning groundwater. Neither would happen with alcohol.
"When a nation chooses to burn it's food instead of drilling for an abundant natural resource. That nation plays the fool."
We have about 4% of the world's oil reserves, and the Mideast has over 70%. If we keep going, we'll be down to 1% and the Mideast will have over 80%. And that's WITHOUT tapping our offshore and ANWR reserves, which would deplete what little we have even faster. That's a desperation, one-shot Derringer we should keep ready for truly dire emergencies.
A nation that eats its basement emergency rations just to keep business as usual going is the real fool.
Especially when it can switch, easily and with very little cost, to a cheaper, cleaner burning fuel that does not fund its enemies.
Did you know that in 2008 we spent more on foreign oil than on our own defense budget? We're funding both sides in the war on terror. Who's the fool again?
Posted by: Carney | January 31, 2009 at 04:45 PM
Dave Ross said: "Flex Fuel is a lower octane than regular gas,"
First of all, "flex fuel" is not a fuel, it's a reference to a car being able to burn more than one fuel rather than being unnecessarily locked in to one fuel only. Flex fuel cars in the current context can not only run on gasoline but also on any alcohol fuel (and there are many).
What you unnecessarily tried to say is that "alcohol fuel is a lower octane".
And second of all, you're flat-out wrong about that. Methanol and ethanol have a far higher octane rating than ordinary gasoline. The exact number varies depending on the source and composition (such as whether it is a blend with 15% gasoline), but this fact is not disputed. Google for more.
"the engine burns more fuel, hence, more fill-ups"
Now this is true. The "more fill ups" problem is relatively easily solved by just making the fuel tanks a little bigger. Much of the design of a car, even its walls, is empty space, its edges defined by with curved metal and plastic. Some of this empty space (not passenger or cargo space) can be filled with extra room for a bigger fuel tank. And alcohol is safer in crashes, less likely to explode.
"and less BANG for your buck!"
Untrue. Methanol is far cheaper than gasoline, and ethanol slightly cheaper. Ethanol could also be much cheaper if we dropped our tarrifs on Brazilian ethanol.
So yes you get fewer miles per gallon, but contrary to your claim you get more miles per DOLLAR.
Especially when you look at prices over the last several years rather than just this slump. OPEC has slashed production to raise gasoline prices again.
Alcohol fuel is not just cheap during an economic downturn; it's cheap permanently.
The reason is the vast and wide resource base available for alcohol. Ethanol can be made from the starchy or sugary portions of a wide variety of plants (at least 17 by one count) which can be grown the world over. Methanol can be made from plentiful coal and natural gas, or from ANY biomass without exception including crop residues, weeds, trash, and sewage. That means nobody can "corner" the market on alcohol fuel and deliberately choke back production to artificially raise the price, let alone funnel those monopoly profits into extremist propaganda, illicit nuclear weapons programs, and terrorism.
In every way, alcohols are worth it compared to gasoline.
Posted by: Carney | January 31, 2009 at 10:14 PM
If you can handle the truth, watch the ethanol myth buster and discover in a few minutes what the public will never know.
http://www.permaculture.com/site/node/1329
Posted by: Mark | February 15, 2010 at 04:34 PM
For our reading class we have to make a food for the theme of our book. My theme is adventure. So what food can I make for adventure thats not to hard and expensive?
Posted by: cheap kamagra | April 26, 2010 at 03:48 PM
But you're right that there's a long way to go. Getting there requires a relatively simple step of mandating as standard equipment a minor change in all new cars so that they can run not just high gasoline low alcohol blends as they do now, but can also run the opposite (high alcohol low gasoline), such as E85 and M85, which are only 15% gasoline.
Posted by: wench wear | May 25, 2010 at 04:29 PM
I’m hoping that we’ll end up with a slew of prototyped ideas and a bunch of happy people. I’m sure there’ll be a lot more hard work until we can turn those embryonic proofs of concept into living
Posted by: louis | July 31, 2010 at 04:36 AM
Sounds very logical, this is not the technology that will save the world, meanwhile It is intended only to dilute the population of Earth. Exhausting the soil to move the wealthy world when the rest are remaining hungry.
Posted by: business card scanner | October 28, 2010 at 02:07 PM
This is an essential stage since it determines the exact shape of the building's foundation.
Posted by: tucson pool contruction | March 23, 2011 at 10:29 AM
I think in this more than a true, if you observe the change of the food prices, anytime that fuel price change, you can see that is real, for example, in the last fuel change most of the basic product raise it prices, for that reason I think in this as something real and not as a myth.
Posted by: cialis online | September 19, 2011 at 11:10 AM
jR ugg boots uk kS http://anointedasone.com/elgg/pg/blog/read/82999/ugg-boots-uk-cheap-94zk mC hogan sito ufficiale wH http://amerigreenbag.com/blog/green-shopping-bags/hogan-outlet-22258
Posted by: AppeltLuptego | December 22, 2011 at 03:20 AM