|
Ethanol: Fact vs. fictionA debate questioning the merits of renewable biofuels is sweeping across the country as Americans spend more and more of their weekly budgets on gas and groceries. Some are blurring facts with fiction as they try to portray corn-based ethanol as the culprit. Before farmers and energy entrepreneurs in rural America turn into the collective scapegoat for $120/barrel of oil, food riots in developing nations and accelerating commodity prices across-the-board, let's study the facts and, in doing so, dispel the myths. Ethanol remains America's best domestic, homegrown, renewable alternative to foreign petroleum. The bulls-eye painted on corn country misses the mark. As the legislative pioneer who helped incubate America's fledgling renewable fuels industry more than two decades ago, I understood there would be a long row to hoe before the first drop of corn-based ethanol reached the consumer's gas tank. The initial federal tax incentives jump-started marketplace inertia and helped fuel critical research and development funding. They have helped unlock technological advances in the renewable fuels and automotive industries. Fierce opposition a decade after they started from Big Oil nearly derailed efforts to expand and renew the public policy breakthroughs that had allowed ethanol to gain critical capital investment, market share and consumer acceptance. Ten years ago, my bipartisan, bicameral coalition on Capitol Hill prevailed on the merits of investing in homegrown energy to shield the United States' economy and boost energy security from volatile, state-controlled oil empires in the Middle East. More recently, the 2005 federal energy law confirmed how essential it is to build long-term energy independence, not weaken its progress. The green energy policies I helped to secure recognized the United States must develop more alternative resources, not fewer, to meet the surging global demand for electricity and fuel. The current energy law leverages federal tax incentives to boost development of homegrown, non-fossil fuels. It helps engineer alternative vehicles friendly to the environment. It ramps up economic development in rural America that produces green energy. It rewards consumers for choosing bio-fuels at the pump. It diversifies profitability for American agriculture to earn more from the marketplace and depend less on the Federal Treasury. It triggers capital investment in the research, development and production of green energy in Middle America. And it buffers the United States' economy and national security from foreign producers of petroleum. Ethanol is not the only remedy to long-term U.S. energy independence. And I've also advocated greater domestic oil and natural gas production and development of other green resources and conservation practices, including wind energy, biomass and geothermal, biodiesel, high-efficiency appliances, and clean coal technologies. Ethanol producers and corn farmers can't single-handedly supply enough fuel to fill the nation's transportation fleet or secure U.S. energy independence. That's why I've also pursued polices to spur research, development and production of cellulosic biofuels produced from biomass like switchgrass, cornstover and wood wastes. Blaming ethanol as the bad guy behind high gas and grocery bills and world food shortages could result in long-term damage. If the argument gains traction, it could impede the growth and development of other domestic alternative fuels like cellulosic ethanol that are needed to displace foreign petroleum and provide U.S. consumers with viable alternatives and an energy safety net. Contrary to all the anti-ethanol propaganda, converting corn into renewable fuel is not responsible for the likelihood Midwesterners will soon pay $4 for a gallon of gas or loaf of bread. Most experts agree that corn ethanol isn't responsible for more than 10 or 20 percent of the total increase in food prices. The fact is, $120 a barrel oil is the biggest culprit behind the rising cost of food. Another driving force is the surging demand for more and better food by an escalating middle-income population in China and India. Sooner, rather than later, the swelling ranks of consumers in these two exploding economies will also add millions more automobiles to the global transportation fleet, further squeezing demand for crude oil. Increased global demand for all commodities, including rice and grains, has also played a role. The declining value of the dollar has made a contribution, and the drought in Australia has also been major-some say maybe even the biggest-factor. Critics can complain about ethanol until they are blue in the face. But using it as a scapegoat won't fix the nose-diving dollar, erase home foreclosures, release OPEC's stranglehold over American consumers, end world hunger, or stop the global population from competing for limited natural resources. When it comes to the advancement of renewable, homegrown alternative fuels, I will continue my advocacy of public policies that champion-not jeopardize-U.S. national security, economic security, energy security and food security. -U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley, R-IA 5/19/08 Date: 5/14/08
Copyright/Privacy
Copyright 1995-2008. High Plains Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. Any republishing of these pages, including electronic reproduction of the editorial archives or classified advertising, is strictly prohibited. If you have questions or comments you can reach us at High Plains Journal 1500 E. Wyatt Earp Blvd., P.O. Box 760, Dodge City, KS 67801 or call 1-800-452-7171. Email: webmaster@hpj.com |
| |||||||||||||||||||||
