The ‘myth’ of ethanol could hit Delta hard
If this shifting of crops were just one of the unavoidable consequences of moving toward a superior form of energy production, that would be one thing. But the evidence is mounting that biofuels – at least those made from anything planted in the ground – are more expensive, more politically destabilizing and, most surprisingly, less environmentally friendly than oil-derived gasoline and diesel.
First off, biofuels are benefitting from not only government mandates but also from a false economy. Motorists wouldn’t pump an ounce of ethanol into their gas tanks if they had to pay at the pump for the true costs of producing it.
According to a Time magazine cover article on biofuels earlier this month, U.S. taxpayers are shelving out more than a dollar in subsidies for every gallon of ethanol produced, thanks to the muscle of the farm lobby in politically potent states such as Iowa.
Food costs rising
Diverting corn and soybeans into fuel production is not only gobbling up tax dollars but also driving up the cost of food.
The most stunning rebuttal to the ethanol boom is that the environmental premise on which it was sold – namely, that biofuels would help reduce carbon emissions and thus global warming – turns out to be scientifically flawed.
Add it all up, the conclusion is becoming inescapable: Using food for fuel is a rotten idea. It makes no sense for American taxpayers, no sense for environmentalists, no sense for the starving, no sense for most of the planet. Even for a farm economy like ours, the short-term benefits are probably not worth the long-term costs.
We have swallowed a myth. If not debunked, it is going to leave us in worse shape economically and environmentally, not better.
Tim Kalich
Clarion Ledger
4/27/8
Magnolia Tribune
