creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
John Stossel
John Stossel
15 Feb 2012
Never Trust Government Numbers

President Obama said in his State of the Union speech, "We've already agreed to more than $2 trillion in … Read More.

8 Feb 2012
Government Can't Make Us Happy

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson called the pursuit of happiness an unalienable right. … Read More.

1 Feb 2012
Policing the World

With an election approaching and at least some Americans upset about irresponsible spending, the president … Read More.

The Many Myths of Ethanol

Share Comment

No doubt about it, if there were a Miss Energy Pageant, Miss Ethanol would win hands down. Everyone loves ethanol.

"Ramp up the availability of ethanol," says Hillary Clinton.

"Ethanol makes a lot of sense," says John McCain.

"The economics of ethanol make more and more sense," says Mitt Romney.

"We've got to get serious about ethanol," says Rudolph Giuliani.

And the media love ethanol. "60 Minutes" called it "the solution."

Clinton, Romney, Barack Obama and John Edwards not only believe ethanol is the elixir that will give us cheap energy, end our dependence on Middle East oil sheiks, and reverse global warming, they also want you and me — as taxpayers — to subsidize it.

When everyone in politics jumps on a bandwagon like ethanol, I start to wonder if there's something wrong with it. And there is. Except for that fact that ethanol comes from corn, nothing you're told about it is true. As the Cato Institute's energy expert Jerry Taylor said on a recent "Myths" edition of "20/20," [http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3140713], the case for ethanol is based on a baker's dozen myths.

A simple question first. If ethanol's so good, why does it need government subsidies? Shouldn't producers be eager to make it, knowing that thrilled consumers will reward them with profits?

But consumers won't reward them, because without subsidies, ethanol would cost much more than gasoline.

The claim that using ethanol will save energy is another myth. Studies show that the amount of energy ethanol produces and the amount needed to make it are roughly the same. "It takes a lot of fossil fuels to make the fertilizer, to run the tractor, to build the silo, to get that corn to a processing plant, to run the processing plant," Taylor says.

And because ethanol degrades, it can't be moved in pipelines the way that gasoline is. So many more big, polluting trucks will be needed to haul it.

More bad news: The increased push for ethanol has already led to a sharp increase in corn growing — which means much more land must be plowed. That means much more fertilizer, more water used on farms and more pesticides.

This makes ethanol the "solution"?

But won't it at least get us unhooked from Middle East oil? Wouldn't that be worth the other costs? Another myth.

A University of Minnesota study [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/30/11206] shows that even turning all of America's corn into ethanol would meet only 12 percent of our gasoline demand. As Taylor told an energy conference last March, "For corn ethanol to completely displace gasoline consumption in this country, we would need to appropriate all cropland in the United States, turn it completely over to corn-ethanol production, and then find 20 percent more land on top of that for cultivation."

OK, but it will cut down on air pollution, right? Wrong again. Studies [http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/E85PaperEST0207.pdf] indicate that the standard mixture of 90 percent ethanol and 10 percent gasoline pollutes worse than gasoline.

Well, then, the ethanol champs must be right when they say it will reduce greenhouse gases and reverse global warming.

Nope. "Virtually all studies show that the greenhouse gases associated with ethanol are about the same as those associated with conventional gasoline once we examine the entire life cycle of the two fuels," Taylor says.

Surely, ethanol must be good for something. And here we finally have a fact. It is good for something — or at least someone: corn farmers and processors of ethanol, such as Archer Daniels Midland, the big food processor known for its savvy at getting subsidies out of the taxpayers.

And it's good for vote-hungry presidential hopefuls. Iowa is a key state in the presidential-nomination sweepstakes, and we all know what they grow in Iowa [http://www.iowacorn.org/]. Sen. Clinton voted against ethanol 17 times until she started running for president. Coincidence?

"It's no mystery that people who want to be president support the corn ethanol program," Taylor says. "If you're not willing to sacrifice children to the corn god, you will not get out of the Iowa primary with more than one percent of the vote, Right now the closest thing we have to a state religion in the United States isn't Christianity. It's corn."

John Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News' "20/20" and the author of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel — Why Everything You Know is Wrong," which is now out in paperback. To find out more about John Stossel and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2007 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


Comments

3 Comments | Post Comment
Big Oil has won all Pageants to date. It is high time to stop scapegoating Ethanol. Our cost in income taxes alone for access to mid east oil runs in the hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The paltry amount Ethanol has received pales in contrast. Even Big Oil gets the 51 cent subsidy in most cases since it is they who blend Ethanol and the one who blends it, is the one who gets to pocket it.
Retired world bank economist Joseph Stiglitz has discovered the war on some terrorists has cost us an extra hidden 2.5 trillion dollars to date. Since most of that goes into the Pentagon to make the world safe for oil giants like Haliburton and the Majors, we need to realize that the price we are paying at the pump is just a down payment for gasoline. Taxes on debt will make it $15 a gallon.
Engines designed to run on 100% Ethanol are up to 46% thermal efficient.
You auto is lucky if it is 20% thermal efficient on pump gas.
There are ways to make Ethanol without using any cropland, by feeding primary treated waste water to feed cattails on marginal land, empty gravel pits, etc There is enough waste water to feed the under 20 million ag acres needed leaving over 1.3 billion ag acres for other uses. Netting 150 billion gallons of Ethanol or equivalents as methane for piston fueled vehicles, including light aircraft. The US uses about 145 billion gallons a year. It wouldn't hurt America to have more productive jobs either.
Get a copy of "Alcohol can be a gas" by David Blume and get informed.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Robert Jackman
Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:03 PM
There is a much fuller explanation of the problems with articles by Stossel, Williams, and others here:
http://roberto-de-sonora.blogspot.com/2008/05/end-all-subsidies-to-alternative-energy.html
and Here: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/alcohol_fuel_production/message/375
If one is going to attempt to find fault with one energy source then the same measuring stick should apply to others.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Robert Jackman
Fri May 30, 2008 5:00 PM
Not only are all those negatives true about ETHANOL.....BUT no one speaks about the LOWER mpg when using ethanol added fuel. I only get 17 MPG in my Honda Accord when I buy the MANDATED ethanol gas in Chicago where I live. When I buy gas in Indiana or other states without ethanol I get 31 MPG! Have tested this numerous times.
That means I must buy and use much MORE GAS TO GO THE SAME DISTANCE. HOW DOES THAT SAVE FUEL OR POLLUTION??
Who decided on this terrible waste of my money? Agriculture Lobbyists created a real SCAM. It was obvious from the start that 10% corn ethanol added to fuel would result in lower MPG. Obama pushed mandate through for Illinois and NOW Congress decided to continue those subsidies for corn ethanol.
I am totally disgusted with the Fed. Govt. and its falling for pressure from Lobbyists.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Judy Wool
Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:15 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
John Stossel
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Austin Bay
Austin BayUpdated 15 Feb 2012
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 15 Feb 2012
Jim Hightower
Jim HightowerUpdated 15 Feb 2012

21 Jan 2009 Anything That's Peaceful

9 Jan 2008 Live and Let Live, Says One Candidate

19 Aug 2009 Obamacare's Inevitable Logic