It is interesting to observe that Time Magazine (The Clean Energy Myth, April 7, 2008) would choose to write such an inflammatory and unbalanced cover story on corn-based ethanol at a time when oil and subsequent gasoline prices are at record highs. It’s enough to make you wonder if somebody might not be trying to distract the American public from the real elephant in the room … the petroleum industry and the billions in profits and government subsidies, it enjoys.
Ethanol creates jobs in this country, jobs that won’t be outsourced. It impacts local economies in a very positive way both in terms of taxes paid and peripheral industry growth. It helps the agriculture industry and farmers whose money stays in this country, and last but not least it helps – even if in a small way – ease the amount of imported oil we purchase from countries that preach hatred for America.
The anti-ethanol crusaders cite subsidies as a reason to dismantle an entire industry forgetting apparently that many other new industries in the country could not have survived their initial growth stage if the government had not assisted – railroads and airlines come to mind.
The energy required to produce ethanol versus its energy output has been exhaustively examined with the vast majority of studies concluding that there is a positive energy balance when ethanol is produced in a modern production facility. The food versus fuel issue has also been shown to be a house of cards with ethanol’s impact on food costs minor compared to the impact of significant increases in petroleum costs and the low value of the dollar.
We now have a couple of enterprising researchers extolling the damage ethanol can do to the environment through carbon release due to crop growth and land clearing. What is missing in Time’s article is the fact that the research methodologies used by these researchers have been disputed by a number of other biofuels life cycle research organizations which state that outdated and erroneous data was used to reach the conclusions noted in the Time article. Apparently, the author made no attempt to include this information.
Finally, it’s a bit of a stretch for Time Magazine, and other print media to completely embrace these new and highly speculative studies with such self righteous fervor. They apparently find no irony in the fact that the paper they use requires hundreds of thousands of trees to be harvested each year with a subsequent carbon release that greatly contributes to greenhouse emissions.
The fact is, when looked at with a critical eye, almost every industry has some negative environmental impact … so each must be examined in terms of the positives they bring relative to societies needs and how responsible they are in managing environmental impact.Mark Walters
Biofuels Director,
Indiana Corn, Soybean Organizations |
