Washington – Today, Tom Buis, CEO of Growth Energy, released a statement regarding an online column by Ed Wallace that appeared on BusinessWeek.com:
“In Ed Wallace’s latest column for BusinessWeek.com bashing ethanol, he again fails to recognize the enormous problems posed by America’s dependence on foreign oil and ethanol’s role in increasing our nation’s energy independence. Ethanol is America’s only readily available alternative to foreign oil, already powering more than 70 percent of vehicles on the road today. He also ignores the contribution ethanol made to our economy last year, supporting and creating nearly half a million jobs and contributing $65.6 billion to our nation’s GDP. I invite Mr. Wallace to come visit today’s modern ethanol plants and learn about today’s modern farming.”
A full rundown of Mr. Wallace’s inaccuracies are chronicled below:
Ed Wallace says:
“On Apr. 10 this year the Congressional Budget Office published a report saying that ‘Higher use of the corn-based fuel additive accounted for about 10% to 15% of the rise in food prices between April 2007 and April 2008.’”
Truth:
The report released by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) confirmed the impact of ethanol production on food prices is minimal and that oil prices were the main driver in the rise of food prices. Ed Wallace left out this important point made by the CBO study, “CBO estimates that from April 2007 to April 2008, the rise in the price of corn resulting from expanded production of ethanol contributed between 0.5 and 0.8 percentage points of the 5.1 percent increase in food prices measured by the consumer price index (CPI).” That’s one-half of one percentage point attributed to ethanol. The study goes on to state that, “over the same period, certain other factors—for example, higher energy costs—had a greater effect on food prices than did the use of ethanol as a motor fuel.”
Ed Wallace says:
“Ethanol use has much more impact on prices of foods directly connected to corn, whether it be Kellogg's Corn Flakes or beef from the butcher's department at your local grocery store.”
Truth:
Other factors have a far greater impact on food prices than the production of renewable fuels – oil prices, excessive unregulated speculation in the commodity futures markets by Wall Street investors, the weak dollar that increased export demand, and worldwide weather were the biggest culprits last year when commodity prices reached record levels. Since then commodity prices have collapsed and food prices continue to increase. Furthermore, according to USDA, farm commodity prices account for less than 20 percent of what a consumer spends for food. Mr. Wallace should also be aware that Americans spend less per capita of their income on food than any citizen in the world. It makes great headlines to blame ethanol as the culprit, but the facts state otherwise.
Ed Wallace says:
“Last month the International Council for Science released a new study, which in turn validated work from 2007 by Paul Crutzen at Germany's Max Planck Institute for Chemistry. These studies show that the amount of nitrous oxide released as a result of farming corn or rape for biofuels had been underestimated by a factor of 3 to 5 times. Nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide.”
Truth:
This is a direct misrepresentation of the study from the International Council for Science (ICSU). They simply reported previous work by Paul Crutzen on nitrous oxides and did nothing to validate that or any other of the studies they referenced. Neither Crutzen nor ICSU explained why their estimates were more credible than the actual measurements over time done by the International Panel on Climate Change.
Used efficiently, nitrogen fertilizer helps us both feed and fuel the world as it helps increase average corn yields by about 60 percent. With good crop and soil management practices it is possible to achieve very high yield levels with nitrous oxide emissions less than 1 percent of applied nitrogen.
Ed Wallace says:
“But let's look at the claim that using biofuels lowers overall carbon dioxide emissions. Essentially it isn't true.”
Truth:
The most recent literature in Yale’s Journal of Industrial Ecology states that the ethanol industry currently is producing a fuel that is as much as 59 percent lower in direct-effect lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline. That's two to three times the reduction reported in earlier studies that did not take into account recent advances in corn-ethanol production. Newer corn ethanol plants are applying the latest technology to produce ethanol that is cleaner, greener, more energy efficient and reduces GHG emissions through the use of improved technologies, smarter planning, and increased corn yields. According to DOE’s Argonne National Laboratory, ethanol plants since 2001 have seen a 21.8 percent reduction in energy use, and 26.6 percent reduction in water used, despite a 6.4 percent yield increase.
Ed Wallace says:
“The region around São Paulo is their main ethanol production center. It was once a major center for cattle ranching, but the ranchers have often been supplanted by sugar cane plantations, whose proximity to the city make them efficient producers of ethanol for the urban market. Cattle and other agriculture have been pushed farther west, requiring that large patches of the Amazon rainforest be cleared. Yes, the world's greatest natural carbon dioxide trap, the Amazon rainforest, is being cut down so the world can have all the ethanol it thinks it needs.”
Truth:
Contrary to Wallace’s assertion that biofuels production in America causes rainforest clearing in Brazil, deforestation in the Amazon declined sharply just as American biofuels production doubled. According to the National Institute of Space Research, in 2004, 10,588 square miles of the Amazon was deforested and in 2008, that number dropped to 4,621 square miles.
Ed Wallace says:
“…[A] study in Science magazine stated that when you take deforestation into account, ethanol and biodiesel produce twice as much carbon dioxide emissions as regular gasoline.”
Truth:
Mr. Wallace is basing this statement on a theory called indirect land use change (ILUC). The theory of indirect land use change gained notoriety as a result of a study by Tim Searchinger published in Science in February 2008. Searchinger, a lawyer with no scientific bakground, claimed that ethanol production created more greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline due to “indirect land use changes.” ILUC is not based on empirical data and it singles out and punishes American farmers and ethanol producers for actions over which they have no control in other countries. ILUC is a flawed theory, dismissed by many in the academic life cycle analysis community because of its many ethical and intellectual weaknesses. Academics agree there is simply not enough hard empirical data to base any sound policy regulation in regards to the indirect impacts of renewable biofuels production.
Ed Wallace says:
“[T]he increased use of fertilizers required by additional corn production due to ethanol will widely increase the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. That is because the runoff from farms throughout the Midwest feeds into the Mississippi's tributaries to the Gulf.”
Truth:
The Dead Zone, also known as a hypoxia zone, is an annual phenomenon that lasts several months and usually peaks around late July. Discovered in the 1970s, it may have existed for a century. The “Dead Zone” is caused by nitrogen and phosphorus delivery to the Gulf of Mexico, but it is unfair to place the majority of the blame on ethanol. Nitrogen and phosphorus come from many sources other than crop fertilizer such as animal manure, crop cultivation, municipal and domestic waste from sewage treatment plants and storm water runoff, and atmospheric deposition from power plants and vehicles. According to a recent report by the U.S. Geological Survey, animal manure on pasture and range lands contribute nearly as much phosphorus as cultivated crops, 37 vs. 43 percent.
Ed Wallace says:
“Recently the University of Minnesota concluded that the amount of water needed to grow corn for ethanol varied widely, from 1.3 to 565 gallons per gallon of ethanol made—in Western states such as Nebraska, Colorado and California corn crops must be irrigated.”
Truth:
America’s ethanol producers are continuously decreasing water usage in their plants; from a high of eight gallons of water per gallon of ethanol 20 years ago to around 3.5 gallons today. Just in the last five years it has decreased another 26.6 percent. Additionally, only four percent of the corn used to produce ethanol in the United States is on irrigated land. Seed biotech companies are developing hybrid seeds that will drastically decrease the amount of water needed to grow crops.
###
About Growth Energy
Growth Energy is a group committed to the promise of agriculture and growing America’s economy through cleaner, greener energy. Growth Energy members recognize America needs a new ethanol approach. Through smart policy reform and a proactive grassroots campaign, Growth Energy promotes reducing greenhouse gas emissions, expanding the use of ethanol in gasoline, decreasing our dependence on foreign oil, and creating American jobs at home. More information can be found at GrowthEnergy.org.