We need food, not ethanol
Our misplaced confidence in
biofuels
Last winter, I was in the
sub-basement of the library at the University of Minnesota, with two state maps
stretching 10 feet across spread out on the table in front of me. One was from
the 1990s, the other a century older. Growing up on the Wisconsin border, the
Minnesota I knew was nothing but farm fields growing food, interrupted only by
the Twin Cities and their suburbs. But the map from the state’s early years
showed a different landscape. Back then, carbon-storing forests covered most of
Minnesota.
Today it’s mostly cornfields with ethanol fuel plants sprouted in between. Farmers used
to grow corn and other crops to sell as food for families and livestock, but in
the last decade, selling it for ethanol has become too lucrative to refuse. In
2013, thanks largely to surging demand from ethanol plants, U.S. farmers
snagged an average of $6.15 per bushel of corn — up from $1.96 in 2005.
The federal government has
encouraged ethanol use since 1992, but it really took off as an alternative to
gasoline in 2005, spurred by the fines and mandates of the newly adopted Renewable Fuels Standard. The current version of the standard requires 36 billion
gallons of renewable fuels to be blended with gasoline by 2022, which the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency predicts will be about 7 percent of the total
fuel use.
Though these policies were well
intended at the time, research now shows that the land we’re using to grow
plants for biofuels would be better used for crops to feed hundreds of millions
of undernourished people around the world. The World Resources Institute, a
non-partisan environmental policy group, released a report in January calling for an end to biofuel production. Its
argument is that we can no longer spare agricultural land for fuel crops that
don’t produce enough energy to justify the investment. Government subsidies
aimed at propping up the ethanol industry to make it competitive with gasoline
cost more than $20 billion, mostly in the form of federal tax cuts. But it still
wasn’t enough to make the renewable fuel worth it.
From the time the seeds are planted
to the time it burns out of your exhaust pipe, ethanol only converts 0.15
percent of the sun’s radiation into energy. Next generation solar panels, on
the other hand, can convert 16 percent of solar radiation into electricity,
according to the institute’s report.
The fact that ethanol isn’t worth it
highlights other options we already have. The best thing about harnessing
energy directly from the sun is that we can put solar panels on land that can’t
be used for agriculture — in deserts and on top of buildings, for example. And
wind turbines can turn in between fields of crops, as they already do in southwestern Minnesota and many other rural areas. We could even confine biofuel
crops like switchgrass to roadsides, or backyards. If people are going to insist
on staying in the energy-profligate suburbs, we could at least make their
valuable land worth something instead of wasting it on the great American lawn.
A few decades from now, I imagine filling
our world with carbon storing and energy generating opportunities in every
crevice, like a patchwork quilt of sustainability. In this world, we’ll cover
as much of the land with forests and natural habitat as we can. After that,
we’ll use the rest of the space for agriculture, which by then will be even
more efficient than it is now (and mostly hydroponic,
I hope). Then, we’ll tuck ourselves into densely packed, energy efficient cities.
Dutifully organizing our land is the best way to protect it, and ourselves in
the process. But we have to make these plans now before we ruin the earth with
foolish policies.
By 2050, the world population may
grow from its current 7.2 billion to 9.5 billion. To keep up, according to the
World Resources Institute, we will have to increase crop calories by 70 percent
from 2006 levels. That’s a very technical way of putting it, but the way I see
it is this: 805 million
people go hungry today. If we can’t feed everyone now, how are we going to do
it with 2 billion more people at the table? We need land for food, and farmers
are willing to cultivate it for us.
When I reported on agriculture
stories in Minnesota, the farmers I talked to felt pressured into growing crops
for biofuels. They wanted to grow food as their families always had, they told
me, but the heavily subsidized prices they were getting from ethanol producers
were just too good to resist. Let’s stop promoting biofuels as the solution to
our energy future, and use that land to grow food instead.
No comments:
Post a Comment