Ethanol a scam? - Democratic Underground

LUHiWY

(120 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Sep-18-06 08:21 AM
Original message

Ethanol a scam?

http://pesn.com/2005/04/12/6900080_Acetone_and_Ester/Ethanol_Mandates_Subsidies.doc

Ethanol Mandates & Subsidies

If you believe ethanol advocates, ethanol is the savior of our rural economy and environment and is a vanguard in the war on terror. However, a hard look at the facts shows that the purported benefits of ethanol are an illusion. It’s not cost-effective, requires massive subsidies, has negligible environmental and economic impacts, and doesn’t enhance energy security. When it all comes down to it, ethanol amounts to nothing more than “subsidized food burning” as Cornell University’s David Pimentel puts it.

The Taxpayers League of Minnesota strongly OPPOSES ethanol mandates and subsidies on the following grounds:

Not Cost-Effective. Ethanol is not cost-effective and requires large government subsidies and mandates. A gallon of ethanol costs $2.24 to produce compared to 63 cents per gallon for gasoline. $1.4 billion in government subsidies and mandates are needed to fill this gap.1

Uses More Energy Than It Generates. Research by Cornell University scientist David Pimentel shows that 29 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is contained in ethanol. For each gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 22,000 BTU (British Thermal Units).2

Negligible Environmental Impacts. Ethanol has a host of negative environmental impacts that wipe out any positive impacts. Studies by the California Air Resources Board show that blending ethanol with gasoline increases nitrogen oxide (NOx) and other smog-forming emissions.3

Voids Car Warranties. New car warranties won’t cover engine problems that result from using fuel blended with more than 10% ethanol.

Lowers Gas Mileage. Ethanol-blended gasoline decreases gas mileage by 3 to 5 percent at 10 percent ethanol blend and 6 to 10 percent less with a 20 percent ethanol blend – increasing costs to consumers.

Hurts Livestock & Poultry Farmers. A study by the GAO4 concluded that higher corn prices generated by ethanol hurts livestock and poultry producers because the cost of feed stock increases (70% of corn grain is fed to livestock and poultry in the U.S.). The National Center for Policy Analysis estimates that ethanol production adds $1 billion annually to the cost of beef production.5

Increases Food Prices. By increasing the cost of feed stock for livestock and poultry producers, ethanol production increases the price to consumers for meat, milk and eggs.

Doesn’t Create Net New Jobs. The employment effects of ethanol are a wash because, as shown by economist Ralph Brown6, ethanol production lowers gas tax receipts – reducing jobs in highway construction and maintenance and in sectors adversely affected by higher corn prices. Ethanol doesn’t create net new employment, it simply shifts employment from one sector to another.

Won’t Improve Energy Security. The notion that more ethanol use will promote energy independence and security is a fantasy. Ethanol can never realistically become a large enough share of our energy to make a difference. Even if we increased ethanol production by 1000 percent it would only account for one percent of total energy consumption in the U.S. according to University of South Dakota agricultural economist Ralph Brown. If all cars in the U.S. were fueled with 100 percent ethanol, corn production would cover 97 percent of U.S. land area.7 In addition, reducing our oil imports will not reduce our vulnerability to oil price swings because oil prices are set in the world market, not domestically.

And the list goes on and on. The more you read about ethanol, the more you can agree with the statement by the president of the Agribusiness Council, Nicholas Hollis, that “Ethanol is the largest scam in our nation’s history.”8