Urbana, Illinois
March 27, 2008
Not only do subsidies for
corn-based ethanol production create pressures on the food
supply, they fail to reduce the emissions that many feel
contribute to global warming, said a
University of Illinois
agricultural economist.
"We need to focus on policies that encourage energy conservation
and encourage a switch to more carbon-friendly fuels," said
Madhu Khanna, a professor in the Department of Agricultural and
Consumer Economics who specializes in conservation and energy
policy issues.
"We need policies that provide tax credits for fuels inversely
related to their carbon footprint. Such policies would encourage
the growth of alternative fuels that are environment-friendly."
Khanna said the increased use of corn-based ethanol as a fuel
additive since 2005 has led to a large increase in the
production of corn for ethanol production.
"In the United States, we are currently using about 15 percent
or so of our corn production for fuel production," she said.
"The federal mandate directs that by 2022 the United States
should be producing 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol per
year.
"If we do that, we'll be using one-half of the corn produced
each year in the United States currently just for ethanol
production."
Use of corn at that level for ethanol production rather than as
food or livestock feed significantly reduces the amount
available for export.
"Most of the increased acreage needed to produce this corn will
come from soybean and wheat acres, increasing soybean and wheat
prices and possibly reducing exports of those commodities as
well," she said.
"These developments will increase pressure on world food prices
and further raise the price of food."
Unable to import food, some of the developing countries may turn
to marginal lands or deforestation to gain the acres necessary
to feed their populations.
"Both of these options contribute to the problem that ethanol
production is believed by some to be alleviating--greenhouse
gases that contribute to global warming," she said.
"Even if the United States is able to meet the 2022 ethanol
production goal, it still will not make a significant dent in
gasoline consumption or build a meaningful independence from
foreign oil."
There are better alternatives, she said, to the tax subsidies
that support the corn-based ethanol industry.
"We need to develop biofuel technologies that will reduce the
competition for land for food versus fuel," she said. "Non-food
energy crops are also more effective in terms of the amount of
energy produced per acre. Crops such as miscanthus and
switchgrass could more than double or triple the number of
gallons produced per acre and can be grown on marginal lands
without many inputs.
"These crops are also perennials and need little tillage. They
can help alleviate soil erosion and also provide good wildlife
habitat. And, importantly, they sequester considerably more
carbon in the soil than corn, reducing the carbon emissions that
lead to greenhouse gases."
Use of such crops for energy production would also reduce
pressures on developing countries to replace the shortage of
food and feed by deforestation.
"We would be reducing the release of carbon back into the
atmosphere by tillage or the cutting of forests," she said.
In environmental terms, these crops have the advantage.
"Corn-based ethanol reduces carbon emissions only 15 to 20
percent per gallon relative to gasoline," she said. "The energy
crops could reduce emissions by 80 to 90 percent."
Additionally, the current energy policies are heavily focused on
increasing the supply of domestic liquid fuels and at
substantial costs in terms of subsidies plus tariffs on
sugarcane ethanol.
"These costs and these policies have unintended consequences.
They contribute to an increase of food and feed prices. They
cause the replacement of sugarcane ethanol by the more
carbon-intensive corn ethanol and can increase rather than
mitigate greenhouse gas emissions," she said.
by Bob Sampson |
|
