I know its hard to get solid facts, since sources vary so widely on the subject. Mostly you hear about how wonderful ethanol is as a renewable fuel that releases zero carbon emissions and works in current engines. I don't want to discount those positives, but I think the glossed over downsides are worth contemplating. Environmentalist Lester Brown is a major proponent of using food for food. He points out that rising gas prices are making corn more profitable as fuel than as food. Ethanol plants are being installed all over the world, Brazil leading in production. Last year the US ethanol industry consumed more corn than the entire Canadian harvest.
"There is no international body to mediate the competition between 800 million people with cars and two billion of the poorest people who spend more than half their income on food.'
How is someone supposed to be able to compete with an industry that is willing to pay double an item's worth just to burn it? Couple the ethical dilemma of burning dinners with the fact that ethanol just shifts pollution. Sure, zero emissions when it is burned; but ethanol is produced using fossil fuels that release just as much carbon. Then think about the production and transport of crops using fossil fuels, and you'll realize that such a complicated process requires many layers of infrastructure that will all need to be modified as we try to shed fossil fuels.
Ethanol is a stopgap. Its meant to appease people without having to lay out for a new car that uses a fundamentally different technology. I'm not saying it isn't a small improvement over the past 50 years of consumption, but I find it hard to believe its superior to other methods of energy collection.
No comments:
Post a Comment