Wednesday, December 23, 2015

"Iowa voters have given up on ethanol; presidential candidates are following suit" Los Angeles Times

"Even so, a self-described “coalition of unlikely bedfellows” that opposes corn ethanol — which includes oil companies, environmentalists, anti-hunger activists and car manufacturers — is watching the Iowa race carefully."

Tuesday, December 1, 2015

"Earth To Paris: Corn Ethanol Is A Climate Disaster"

"Corn ethanol, once thought of as a way for the U.S. to cut carbon pollution, is conspicuously absent from the emissions reduction plan the White House submitted ahead of the global climate conference in Paris. The plan would reduce U.S. carbon emissions by 28 percent from 2005 levels, but it didn’t even mention corn ethanol, or the federal mandate known as the Renewable Fuel Standard."

"EPA approves lower ethanol increase in U.S. fuel supply than 2007 law" USA Today

"The oil, restaurant and environmental industries have been among the most vocal critics in calling for Congress to repeal or significantly reform the Renewable Fuel Standard. Efforts to change the mandate, including ending the corn-component of the mandate responsible for the lion’s share of production, have languished on Capitol Hill."

"Obama dials back ethanol fuel standard" The Hill

"The final renewable fuel standard (RFS) unveiled by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is more stringent than an earlier version of the rule proposed in May but falls short of the threshold set forth in a 2007 law."

"The debate crosses party lines in Washington, where lawmakers from corn-producing states support a higher ethanol standard. Many Republicans oppose the mandate because of its impact on the oil industry, and some Democrats, who question its environmental impact, are against it as well."

Monday, November 30, 2015

"Last Call for Ethanol" The Ameican Spectator 11.30.2015

"A 2008 study published in Sciencemagazine found that corn-based ethanol increases greenhouse gas emissions instead of reducing them. A 2009 study concluded that plowing fields to grow corn for ethanol could release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than ethanol offsets."

"Ethanol has fallen out of favor largely because it eats up so much of the corn supply. Some 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop goes into gas tanks, not stomachs. As demand for corn has risen, so have food prices. As the cost of feed has risen, so have beef prices. ActionAid USA and other anti-poverty groups also oppose ethanol supports."

Saturday, October 24, 2015

"A decade later: Corn ethanol’s broken promises" The Hill

Speaking at a corn-ethanol industry conference last month, EPA administrator Gina McCarthy characterized the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) as “a crucial part of a broad, Administration-wide strategy to act on climate change and propel us even faster toward a clean energy future.”
Signed into law a decade ago by President George W. Bush, and greatly expanded by Congress in 2007, the RFS was sold to the American public as a winning solution -- a win for energy security; a win for rural development; a win for our environment. It was a way to cut our dependence on foreign oil, slash air emissions, and, while we’re at it, provide a significant economic boost to the country’s struggling farm belt.
But 10 years removed from that landscape, we now know that this policy has fallen short of its goals, not to mention corn ethanol’s impact on commodity prices and the environment.
A decade’s worth of data and experience has taught us a lot about corn-ethanol’s performance in the real world, and the picture that data paints is not very attractive. Soil erosion, a significant increase in the use of agricultural chemicals and fertilizer, the diversion of more than 40 percent of the nation’s corn crop to ethanol – these are just some of the many consequences of having an RFS policy that acts as an engine of forced corn-ethanol production.
On top of the agricultural impacts, corn ethanol’s record on air emissions is called into question. Indeed this might represent perhaps its greatest failure to date. Not only hasn’t ethanol improved our air quality, across so many categories – carbon dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, volatile organics – it actually may have made it worse.
In our study, we look at what agricultural emissions levels would have been today had corn ethanol not qualified as an eligible fuel source under the RFS (absent political intervention, it would not qualify if the decision were being made today, according to EPA’s own data). We wanted to know what would have happened to emissions had that mandated market share gone to advanced biofuels instead of corn. And we also wanted to know what those emissions figures would look like if the RFS had never been implemented at all.
So what did we find? For starters, we saw significant drops in carbon emissions under both scenarios, with a 10 percent decrease under the “no RFS” scenario, and a nearly 17 percent reduction that could have been realized if the RFS were structured in a way that favored advanced biofuels over corn. We also found that soil erosion would have been reduced by 47 million tons if the RFS hadn’t passed, and by 112 million tons under the cellulosic replacement scenario.
As it stands, the RFS focuses almost exclusively on a single crop from a concentrated region of the country. But as innovations continue to be made in the advanced biofuels industry, we believe a very real opportunity now exists to reform the RFS as a means of providing the intended environmental benefits we were promised, while spurring greater, more widespread economic growth.
President Obama has made climate change and environmental policy a centerpiece of his presidency -- but the RFS, as currently constituted, works against those goals. Before the president travels to France for the United Nations climate conference this year, his administration should seize on the opportunity available to it to modernize a broken RFS policy and put the nation and our environment on a more sustainable path forward.
Leading environmental advocates who once supported corn ethanol -- including Al Gore -- have acknowledged its shortcomings. Having government pick winners and losers in the renewable fuel space, with favoritism weighted toward corn ethanol, “is not a good policy” and “was a mistake,” said the former vice president.
Our research – which adds to a growing body of other studies, reports, and fact-based data points – certainly reflects that realization. After 10 years under the RFS, we have yet to see commercially viable next-generation biofuels emerge. Now is the time to reform the RFS and position the country to realize meaningful environmental benefits associated with advanced biofuel growth.
English and De La Torre Ugarte are professors at the University of Tennessee’s Institute of Agriculture.

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Wall Street Journal Op-ed "Paying for Ethanol at the Pump and on the Plate"

What do a franchise owner of four chain restaurants in Virginia, a food service distributor in Ohio and a poultry farmer in Kentucky have in common? They are all small-business owners who work in local communities and help Americans put food on the table.
But they have also all felt the failure of the federal corn-ethanol mandate, known as the Renewable Fuel Standard. Congress doesn’t agree on much lately—but ending a failed policy that stymies small businesses, hurts the environment and increases food prices should be a bipartisan priority.
The federal corn ethanol mandate has caused price volatility for many common food commodities.ENLARGE
The federal corn ethanol mandate has caused price volatility for many common food commodities. PHOTO: BLOOMBERG NEWS
Since the RFS was implemented in 2005, costs of vital food commodities, including corn, grains and oilseeds, poultry, meat, eggs and dairy, have risen dramatically. Here’s one major reason: The federal government’s corn-ethanol mandate requires that a percentage of the nation’s corn crop be blended into gasoline each year as ethanol. Every year the percentage 
required increases, diverting more of the nation’s corn supply into ethanol fuel. This harms the broader U.S. economy.
Before it hit consumers so hard, the federal corn-ethanol mandate caused higher feed costs for poultry producers, cattle feeders, dairy farmers and others in the food chain. While food costs have always fluctuated due to unforeseeable factors like the weather, the demand artificially created by the RFS has resulted in a significant increase in volatility, which has left prices higher.
Consider: Between 1973 and 2007, corn prices averaged $2.39 a bushel, according to the U.S. Agriculture Department. The average price of corn jumped more than 110% between 2008 and 2014, to $5.04 a bushel. Even though corn prices have recently declined thanks to fabulous weather that produced two consecutive bumper crops, prices are still more than 59% higher than the historical average. Prices could surge even higher if the U.S. experiences anything less than ideal weather.
The resulting increases in feed costs have also affected the American production of beef, pork and chicken, which had increased consistently over the past 30 years but has now leveled off due to the higher cost of feed. As a result, a 2012 study by Pricewaterhouse Coopers estimates that the RFS costs chain restaurants $3.2 billion every year in increased food commodity costs.
Then there are restaurants. Wholesale food prices have outpaced the consumer price index by more than a full percentage point since the implementation of the RFS. In many instances, especially in the restaurant sector, small business owners are not able to pass on higher retail prices to consumers because of market competition—a concept that the corn-ethanol industry is unfamiliar with thanks to a government quota.
As if this were not enough, ethanol production has contributed to global food scarcity and hunger. No country exports more corn than the U.S., but about 40% is ending up in gas tanks, not on the world market. So much corn has been blended into gasoline that the higher percentage levels routinely render boat engines, motorcycles, chain saws and older automobiles inoperable.
Fortunately, lawmakers in Congress see the chicken producer, the food service distributor, the restaurant owner and others in the food chain for what they are: major contributors to the U.S. economy. Legislation has been introduced in both the House andthe Senate this year to repeal the RFS corn-ethanol mandate, with broad bipartisan support. Congress should take up this legislation and send it to the president’s desk.
The food industry isn’t anti-ethanol. Repealing the fuel standard would simply require the ethanol industry to compete in the marketplace just like restaurants, food distributors and chicken farmers do every day—without a government mandate guaranteeing secure and growing sales.
Mr. Brown is the president of the National Chicken Council. Mr. Green is the executive director of the National Council of Chain Restaurants.

Sunday, March 1, 2015

Ethanol and the election....Big Donor Rastetter to educate 11 GOP hopefuls on ethanol scam. See New York Times "GOP Race Starts in Lavish Haunts of Rich Donors"

"Even a single deep­pocketed donor can now summon virtually the entire field of candidates. No fewer than 11 Republican White House hopefuls will fly to Iowa this week to attend the Iowa Agriculture Summit organized by Bruce Rastetter, a businessman and prominent “super PAC” donor. Each will submit to questions from Mr. Rastetter, who said he wanted the candidates to educate themselves on agriculture policy."

 "While Mr. Rastetter’s agriculture forum will cover a range of issues, much of the advocacy surrounding the event, including a “V.I.P. press reception” featuring Iowa’s Republican governor, is aimed at pushing the candidates to support the Renewable Fuel Standard, which is coveted by the ethanol industry."

Thursday, January 29, 2015

"New Report Urges Western Governments to Reconsider Reliance on Biofuels" New York Times

"Turning plant matter into liquid fuel or electricity is so inefficient that the approach is unlikely ever to supply a substantial fraction of global energy demand, the report found. It added that continuing to pursue this strategy — which has already led to billions of dollars of investment — is likely to use up vast tracts of fertile land that could be devoted to helping feed the world’s growing population."