Los Angeles Times

End the ethanol charade

Is it just me, or was there actually a time when ethanol was the great, green hope?

Didn't Al Gore tell us it would fight global warming through cleaner motor vehicle emissions? Didn't George W. Bush promise this homegrown grain byproduct would reduce U.S. dependence on expensive foreign oil?

And even though they had grave misgivings, didn't the folks at the tri-state Chesapeake Bay Commission conclude they had to embrace this political reality and make the best of it?

I may have been the only dope who fell for any of this, but the U.S. Senate has set me straight. In perhaps the single worthwhile step taken recently by what used to be called the world's greatest deliberative body, a 72 to 27 majority of senators signaled last month that they are ready to end $6 billion in annual subsidies to the ethanol blenders and refiners.

When senators return to Washington in September — tanned, rested and ready — voters should demand they follow through with a stake to the heart of this scam. Let's nix the tariff on imported ethanol while we're about it.

At best, ethanol enthusiasm has always been muted in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. There's lots of corn grown here, and corn's been the main stock for making ethanol. But the farms are small, not suited to the factory-style production of the Midwest. Plus, the Delmarva poultry industry provides a strong market for local corn.

As further evidence that corn-based ethanol is a bad local investment, the bay commission noted in a 2007 report that the bay watershed is the only major corn-producing region in the country without an ethanol plant. The two plants that opened since then in central Pennsylvania and Hopewell, Va., have now gone belly up. Federal subsidies didn't save them.

Forget the lack of benefits, though. Encouraging more local acreage to be planted in corn presents very real dangers to the Chesapeake Bay.

Worst among them would be the loss of forests that now cover nearly 60 percent of the bay watershed's 64,000 square miles and contribute far fewer pollutants than any other land use, and the loss of buffer zones near streams.

Encouraging more corn production — a shift from soybeans and haylands — is also a threat to the bay. Corn requires more fertilizer and thus sends more polluting nitrogen into the waterways. Diligent use of practices to reduce the runoff can help a lot. But those measures take time and money, and even today, 80 percent of the cropland in the Chesapeake watershed is not getting the careful treatment it needs, according to a recent U.S. Department of Agriculture study. And the budget calamity in Washington, D.C. suggests that there are likely lean days ahead for help from federal grants — even if ethanol subsidies get the heave-ho.

And then there's the punch line: Corn-based ethanol as an environmental benefit was all a hoax from the beginning. It doesn't reduce greenhouse gases; it raises the price of corn used for food; it can't survive without subsidies; and it never represented a long-term source of transportation fuel.

Mr. Global Warming, Al Gore, admitted as much at a conference in Athens last year when he called his support for corn-based ethanol a "mistake." He said he was driven by his desire to curry support with the farm lobby in the early Midwest primary states when he was preparing a presidential run.

George H.W. Bush got so frustrated with Mr. Gore during the 1992 campaign that he called him "Ozone Man."

In fairness, Mr. Gore appears to have been right about humanity's contribution to global warming. It's already upon us. But President Barack Obama has come up with a much better approach than ethanol for dealing with greenhouses gases: He wants tougher fuel-efficiency standards for buses and light trucks.

It's the old conservation approach: If we can just learn how to make better use of the energy resources we have, we won't be quite so desperate for magic elixirs.

Karen Hosler, a former editorial writer for the Baltimore Sun, is a reporter, commentator and talk show host in Baltimore. This article is distributed by the Bay Journal News Service.

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • Climate change and national security

    Climate change and national security

    Your editorial "The danger of climate denial" (May 22) offered a dismal forecast, yet some people continue to deny that climate change is real or that it is caused at least in part by human activity.

  • Obama's words and actions at odds

    Obama's words and actions at odds

    Your editorial on President Barack Obama's speech at the Coast Guard Academy graduation ceremony rightly commended him for his straightforward discussion of climate change ("The danger of climate denial," May 22).

  • Holding one's breath, GOP style

    Holding one's breath, GOP style

    Last month, the Obama administration announced tougher Clean Air Act rules intended to reduce ground-level ozone, the chief component of the smog that plagues the Baltimore-Washington area and much of the nation. With at least half the pollution blowing into Maryland from the burning of fossil...

  • Faith communities and climate change

    Faith communities and climate change

    I loved Bishop Wolfgang Herz-Lane's oped about the Pope's call for climate action and the fact that congregations of all faiths are cutting institutional emissions and urging members to lower their carbon footprints ("Climate change: the moral challenge of our time," July 9).

  • Texas hates the federal government. Unless it needs disaster relief.

    Texas hates the federal government. Unless it needs disaster relief.

    As extreme weather marked by tornadoes and flooding continues to sweep across Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott has requested -- and President Barack Obama has granted -- federal help.

  • The danger of climate denial

    The danger of climate denial

    It's Memorial Day, and the forecast is for renewed mocking and derision regarding man-made climate change from the know-nothing, science-averse wing of the Republican Party. President Barack Obama's warning — issued during his commencement address at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy graduation ceremonies...

  • If conservatives support Israel, they should fight climate change

    If conservatives support Israel, they should fight climate change

    Paul Jaskunas argues climate action fails because environmentalists don't appeal to conservatives' values ("Acknowledging climate change in GOP's best interest," Nov. 26).

  • The wrong turn in the Arctic

    The wrong turn in the Arctic

    Nobody in their right mind vacations in the Chukchi or Beaufort seas. Only hard core geography buffs can even name them. Instagram isn't filled with photographs of close encounters with Arctic whales or polar bears. It is a cold and hostile environment.

Comments
Loading
68°