Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

News Release - National Academies: Ethanol Worsens Greenhouse Gases
Environmental Working Group ^ | Oct 4, 2011

Posted on 10/16/2011 6:20:15 AM PDT by KeyLargo

News Release - National Academies: Ethanol Worsens Greenhouse Gases

Published October 4, 2011

Washington, D.C. -- A new report by the National Academy of Sciences has found that corn ethanol production increases greenhouse gas emissions and damages soil, air, water and wildlife habitat. As well it says advanced biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol are unlikely to prove practical substitutes for either corn ethanol or fossil fuels.

“This report highlights the severe damage to the environment from corn-based ethanol,” said Sheila Karpf, EWG’s legislative and policy analyst. “It underscores just how misguided U.S. biofuels policy has become. It catalogs the environmentally damaging aspects of corn-based ethanol and also casts serious doubt on the future viability of so-called ‘advanced’ biofuels made from other sources.”

During the Congressional debate over the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, the Environmental Working Group argued for provisions to roll back biofuels mandates of production of these renewable fuels that were found to be harmful to the environment. But the Renewable Fuel Standard finally enacted did not include such language.

The report from the National Research Council, a branch of the National Academies of Sciences, concludes that achieving the renewable fuel standard mandate is likely to increase federal spending while further damaging the economy and environment, particularly soil and water.

The report, requested by Congress, concludes that ethanol increases greenhouse gas emissions, pollutes water and uses more water in its production than gasoline. It says that cellulosic ethanol is very unlikely to meet its Renewable Fuel Standard mandates by 2022. Indirect land use changes due to biofuels production will zero out any potential benefits of lower greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels and may actually increase them in both the short- and long-term.

To date taxpayers have spent $23 billion between 2005 and 2010, or $6 billion a year, subsidizing corn-based ethanol without significantly reducing reduction in America’s use of fossil fuels. The report is yet another reminder that significant reforms to the renewable fuel standard are critical, including the addition of strict and enforceable environmental safeguards.

“The Renewable Fuel Standard has always been about corn, corn and more corn,” Karpf said. “The fact is, it won’t bring energy independence, protect our air or combat global warming. As our country faces record national debt, it is time to put American taxpayers and our soil and water ahead of entrenched special interests.”

American farmers have diverted 40 percent of corn production from food and feed to fuel. Land once used for soybean production has been converted to corn to meet the demand for biofuels set out in the RFS. The new report provides more evidence that corn ethanol production continues to raise food prices around the world and harms the planet by releasing more greenhouse gases than regular gasoline.

Link to report:

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=13105 [1]

**Hear more from EWG’s Sheila Karpf on the biofuels mandate and the ethanol lobby's dwindling support in Congress at 11am (EST) today on The Diane Rehm Show.

Published on Environmental Working Group (http://www.ewg.org)


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: climatechange; co2; corn; environment; ethanol; fuel; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax

1 posted on 10/16/2011 6:20:18 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

Ethanol is money in the bank for farmers and their Senators and Congress critters know it.
It keeps them in office, while we pay the price.

If you wish to know the reason behind anything the Congress and the President of the United States does always follow the money and the votes.

Patriotism died years ago, Money and votes runs this country.


2 posted on 10/16/2011 6:25:56 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

Ethanol was used to increase thier stockpile, waterdown the gas, charge the same price, and reap the rewards. Much like solyndra and the solar scam today which is in your face and right out in front for all to see. This has nothing to do with your health or the enviroment just another “look how we are taking care of the American people” moment while thier turning your pockets inside out.


3 posted on 10/16/2011 6:26:14 AM PDT by ronnie raygun (V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

I told my neighboring farmers when this crap first started under Bush that it wouldn’t do squat for fuel availability or fuel prices and would drive up the cost of chicken, pork and beef prices in addition to cereals, etc. Hay fields were also converted to corn, driving up the cost of hay as availability declined, which in turn forced me to raise my rates ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
My neighboring farmers agreed with my assessment. It ain’t rocket surgery.


4 posted on 10/16/2011 6:28:36 AM PDT by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ronnie raygun

Met a farmer last year....Said all he grows NOW is one crop....corn for the ethanol plant. At the same time, he plays the market and with the subsidies, he can retire in two years instead of 15.


5 posted on 10/16/2011 6:29:37 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo
American farmers have diverted 40 percent of corn production from food and feed to fuel.

Not true. American farmers and agribusinesses have increased average yields by a quarter or more in the past 15 years or so thanks to massive investment in seed and precision production technologies. Yields are expected to continue to increase and may double within the next 20 years. This investment would not have happened without the demand pull of the ethanol buildout. You cannot look at the current production base, take it as a given, and forget how and why it was built.

Also remember that, in terms of nutritional value, a third of the corn that goes to ethanol returns to the feed market as DDGS.

6 posted on 10/16/2011 6:39:56 AM PDT by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

Everyone needs learn about this report. There have been hints of this for quite sometime.


7 posted on 10/16/2011 6:50:18 AM PDT by Techster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sphinx

8 posted on 10/16/2011 6:52:30 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

October 16, 2011

The Department of Food Subsidies

By Victor Davis Hanson

6/23/2011

The Department of Agriculture no longer serves as a lifeline to millions of struggling homestead farmers. Instead, it is a vast, self-perpetuating postmodern bureaucracy with an amorphous budget of some $130 billion — a sum far greater than the nation’s net farm income this year. In fact, the more the Agriculture Department has pontificated about family farmers, the more they have vanished — comprising now only about 1 percent of the American population.

Net farm income is expected in 2011 to reach its highest levels in more than three decades, as a rapidly growing and food-short world increasingly looks to the United States to provide it everything from soybeans and wheat to beef and fruit. Somebody should explain that good news to the Department of Agriculture: This year it will give a record $20 billion in various crop “supports” to the nation’s wealthiest farmers — with the richest 10 percent receiving over 70 percent of all the redistributive payouts. If farmers on their own are making handsome profits, why, with a $1.6 trillion annual federal deficit, is the Department of Agriculture borrowing unprecedented amounts to subsidize them? ....

Read:

http://townhall.com/columnists/victordavishanson/2011/06/23/the_department_of_food_subsidies/print


9 posted on 10/16/2011 6:54:24 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sphinx
That is correct, you can also believe those projected employment number for obummers jobs programs. Do I need a sac tag.
10 posted on 10/16/2011 6:56:46 AM PDT by org.whodat (Just another heartless American, hated by Perry and his fellow democrat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

The only viable green fuel source is growing rapeseed, and making bio diesel, but then you do not need a subsidy when doing that.


11 posted on 10/16/2011 6:59:22 AM PDT by org.whodat (Just another heartless American, hated by Perry and his fellow democrat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

The EPA will ban whiskey? Maybe then the Congress will wake up!


12 posted on 10/16/2011 7:21:35 AM PDT by Ex-Democrat Dean
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo
I went to see the "report" at the URL. NOT THERE.

We need a much better reference.

13 posted on 10/16/2011 7:25:41 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Sheila Karpf:
Google

14 posted on 10/16/2011 7:27:12 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (It's never a bad time to FReep this link -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Rurudyne; steelyourfaith; Tolerance Sucks Rocks; xcamel

Scientists’ Report Stresses Urgency of Limiting Greenhouse Gas Emissions
“...The report, by the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences...”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/13/science/earth/13climate.html

United States National Research Council
“...In 2001, the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions. This report explicitly endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s findings as representing the view of the scientific community...”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Research_Council


15 posted on 10/16/2011 7:31:10 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (It's never a bad time to FReep this link -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

There isn’t one, it’s just the same anti-carbon nonsense that the left regurgitates.


16 posted on 10/16/2011 7:33:36 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (It's never a bad time to FReep this link -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

Who could have imagined this??


17 posted on 10/16/2011 7:37:54 AM PDT by szweig (HYHEY!! (Have You Had Enough Yet))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo
It underscores just how misguided U.S. biofuels policy has become.

It's OK. What counts is the lefty nutcases' intent. They meant to do good. We have to keep doing this even if it kills everyone. We can't hurt their feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings -- that would be bigotry; and now that there's a black liberal advocating for ethanol, racist.

18 posted on 10/16/2011 7:39:28 AM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael (If modern America's Man on Horseback is out there, Get on the damn horse already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

Biodiesel is much more dependent on government subsidies than corn ethanol. Rapeseed is called ‘canola’ and while it’s a good biodiesel feedstock, it’s no closer to profitability.


19 posted on 10/16/2011 7:44:40 AM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

Biodiesel is much more dependent on government subsidies than corn ethanol. Rapeseed is called ‘canola’ and while it’s a good biodiesel feedstock, it’s no closer to profitability.


20 posted on 10/16/2011 7:44:59 AM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
So, finally, over use of hard narcotics shows its ugly side effect ~ the brain meltdown where you wrap the same old bromides and talking points with make-believe reports and studies by important organizations.

The Left is doomed

21 posted on 10/16/2011 7:45:14 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo; golux; SteamShovel; Bockscar; Thunder90; rdl6989; marvlus; Fractal Trader; Whenifhow; ...
 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

22 posted on 10/16/2011 7:48:31 AM PDT by steelyourfaith (If it's "green" ... it's crap !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
Thanx for the ping SunkenCiv !
23 posted on 10/16/2011 7:50:22 AM PDT by steelyourfaith (If it's "green" ... it's crap !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: steelyourfaith; muawiyah

It's the Obamacare, stupid!


One-half gallon of oil in the form of pesticides per bushel of corn would cost $2 to $3 per bushel. If this were true -- and it clearly isn't -- it should be enough to illustrate to literally anyone that the price of petroleum is quite literally the ONLY thing driving corn prices. And this idiotic piece of agitprop -- from a hydrogen "energy" advocacy site -- also shows the guy in the encounter suit spraying chemical fertilizer, a sight that I've never been privileged to see, what with me *growing up on a farm*.

Hydrogen Advocacy Group Anti-Ethanol Agitprop

24 posted on 10/16/2011 8:22:27 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (It's never a bad time to FReep this link -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Date: Oct. 4, 2011

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Certain Biofuel Mandates Unlikely to Be Met by 2022

Unless New Technologies, Policies Developed

Environmental Effects

.... However, air-quality modeling suggests that production and use of ethanol to displace gasoline is likely to increase air pollutants such as particulate matter, ozone, and sulfur oxides. In addition, published estimates of water use over the life cycle of corn-grain ethanol are higher than petroleum-based fuels.”

link to report here:

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=13105


25 posted on 10/16/2011 8:25:50 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jjotto

Try reading the per acre yield. LOL, and all you do is press the oil out, no billions of tons of sugar and no trillions of galions of water and after the process it is still animal feed. And guess what you can do it without a government check.


26 posted on 10/16/2011 8:48:54 AM PDT by org.whodat (Just another heartless American, hated by Perry and his fellow democrat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: jjotto

Try reading the per acre yield. LOL, and all you do is press the oil out, no billions of tons of sugar and no trillions of gallons of water and after the process it is still animal feed. And guess what you can do it without a government check.


27 posted on 10/16/2011 8:49:21 AM PDT by org.whodat (Just another heartless American, hated by Perry and his fellow democrat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

bttt


28 posted on 10/16/2011 8:49:29 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (Obamageddon, Barackalypse Now! Bam is "Debt Man Walking" in 2012 - Rush Limbaugh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

You have no idea how biodiesel is made, do you? Alcohol and a catalyst (lye is the simplest) are needed.

A typical acre of cropland will produce 5 times as much corn ethanol as rapeseed biodiesel.


29 posted on 10/16/2011 8:54:33 AM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

We knew it would turn out this way...


30 posted on 10/16/2011 9:03:46 AM PDT by GOPJ (Occupy Wall Street Zombies Lastest Chant: 'You Can Have Sex With Animals')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jjotto

LOL, you do not distill rapeseed, you press it and the little oils run out screaming that hurt. LOL, do you think everything involves a high engery distrillary. Simple process: http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/gmpr/biodiesel1.htm


31 posted on 10/16/2011 9:13:15 AM PDT by org.whodat (Just another heartless American, hated by Perry and his fellow democrat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

You have no clue. I do biodiesel research. Do the math.


32 posted on 10/16/2011 9:18:28 AM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

The main point is to remove tax payers money and the government out of the damn mandate market.


33 posted on 10/16/2011 9:20:09 AM PDT by org.whodat (Just another heartless American, hated by Perry and his fellow democrat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

File Not Found
You have requested a page that does not exist. The link you followed may be outdated or inaccurate. You can try to find similar information via our Search Engine, visit one of the sections listed below, or return to the homepage.


34 posted on 10/16/2011 1:40:54 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

...Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The extent to which using biofuels rather than petroleum will reduce greenhouse gas emissions is uncertain, the report says. How biofuels are produced and the changes in land use or land cover that occur in the process affect biofuels’ impact on such emissions. Dedicated energy crops will have to be grown to meet the mandate, which will probably require conversion of uncultivated land or the displacement of commodity crops and pastures. If the expanded production involves removing perennial vegetation on a piece of land and replacing it with an annual commodity crop, then the land-use change would incur a one-time greenhouse gas emission from biomass and soil that could be large enough to offset benefits gained by displacing petroleum-based fuels with biofuels over subsequent years. Such land conversion may disrupt any future potential for storing carbon in biomass and soil. In addition, the renewable fuel standard can neither prevent market-mediated effects nor control land-use or land-cover changes in other countries.

Economic Effects

Only in an economic environment characterized by high oil prices, technological breakthroughs, and a high implicit or actual carbon price would biofuels be cost-competitive with petroleum-based fuels, the committee concluded. The best cost estimates of cellulosic biofuel are not economical compared with fossil fuels when crude oil’s price is $111 per barrel. Furthermore, absent major increases in agricultural yields and improved efficiency in converting biomass to fuels, additional cropland will be required for growing cellulosic feedstock. This could create competition among different land uses and, in turn, raise cropland prices.

In addition, achieving the renewable fuel standard would increase the federal budget outlays, mostly as a result of increased spending on grants, loans, loan guarantees, and other payments to support the development of cellulosic biofuels and foregone revenue as a result of biofuel tax credits. Moreover, nutritional and other income assistance programs are often adjusted for changes in the general price level. If food retail prices go up, expenses could increase for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Special Supplemental Assistance Program for Women, Infants, and Children, as well as for much larger income assistance programs, such as Social Security, military and civilian retirement programs, and Supplemental Security Income Program. Nevertheless, given that biofuels are only one of many factors affecting food retail prices, it will be hard to attribute any future increases in program costs to the standard alone.

Environmental Effects

Although biofuels hold potential for providing net environmental benefits compared with using petroleum-based fuels, specific environmental outcomes from increasing biofuels production to meet the renewable fuel consumption mandate cannot be guaranteed. The type of feedstocks produced, management practices used, land-use changes that feedstock production might incur, and such site-specific details as prior land use and regional water availability will determine the mandate’s environmental effects, the report says. Biofuels production has been shown to have both positive and negative effects on water quality, soil, and biodiversity. However, air-quality modeling suggests that production and use of ethanol to displace gasoline is likely to increase air pollutants such as particulate matter, ozone, and sulfur oxides. In addition, published estimates of water use over the life cycle of corn-grain ethanol are higher than petroleum-based fuels...


35 posted on 10/16/2011 2:28:33 PM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

See post #25


36 posted on 10/16/2011 4:05:57 PM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo
That's all very good, but that's NOT THE REPORT ~ it is a NEWS story on a page called NEWS. When you hit the URL to go to "report" you get a page that doesn't identify anything as constituting "Ethanol Worsens".

I don't think I'm imagining this.

37 posted on 10/16/2011 4:22:48 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Renewable-Fuel-Standard-Final.pdf


38 posted on 10/16/2011 4:34:49 PM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo
Excellent ~ you could have provided that URL this morning.

Here's the problem ~ "The report’s authoring committee used the Biofuel Breakeven Model to evaluate the costs and feasibility of a local or regional market for cellulosic biofuel made using a variety of different feedstocks. The model estimates the minimum price that biomass producers would be willing to accept for a dry ton of biomass delivered to the biorefinery, and the maximum price that biorefineries would be willing to pay to at least break even.

A MODEL.

Just like Anthropogenic Global Warming.

This one even reads minds by imagining the minimum price biomass producers would be willing to..... blah,blah, blah.

So, let's assume a gigantic war in the Middle East with nuclear bombs being tossed around. Bet that's not even an issue in that model ~ but it should be!

Frankly, anything that starts with "estimate" followed by "would be" followed by "would be" in the same paragraph is probably not something I will necessarily believe.

Don't you imagine the guys who wrote up the report know that.

39 posted on 10/16/2011 4:48:20 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo; 11B40; A Balrog of Morgoth; A message; ACelt; Aeronaut; AFPhys; AlexW; America_Right; ...
DOOMAGE!

Global Warming PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

U.S. Scientists Confirm Trend: America Cooling For Last 15 Years, Warming Non-Existent

La Nina Throws Cold Water on Global Warming.

Bad News For Gore: Arctic Ice Growth Fastest On Record

Ultraviolet light shone on cold winter conundrum

Global Warming on Free Republic

Latest from Global Warming News Site

Latest from Greenie Watch

Latest from Real Climate

Latest from Climate Depot

40 posted on 10/16/2011 5:05:00 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Occupy DC General Assembly: We are Marxist tools. WE ARE MARXIST TOOLS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson