05 March 2007
The Ethanol Revolution
by J-lo
With President Bush traveling to Brazil this Thursday to discuss with Brazilian President Lula the opportunities of an international market for ethanol, we are left to wonder when the ethanol revolution will make its appearance before citizens of the US and furthermore, will it truly make an environmental difference.
For over a quarter of a century, Brazil has been processing sugar cane to produce ethanol, a viable alternative to petroleum, that in recent years has nearly equaled petroleum as a source of automobile fuel for Brazilian commuters. Yet, if the United States were to import and produce sufficient ethanol to compensate 20% of our petroleum consumption like Bush is proposing, will countries like Brazil, and farmers like Old MacDonald be able to keep stride? According to studies the US currently consumes over 250 BILLION gallons of fuel in transit alone. How is it that something like corn or sugar cane can even approach that number when current corn ethanol production is a meager 5.58 billion gallons per year or 2.6 billion bushels?
I'm not arguing that ethanol is not a viable alternative to petroleum since it's been proven to produce less CO2 than current petroleum emissions, and offers struggling campesinos and local US farmers the opportunity to access a new and growing market. Ethanol may provide the answer to how countries in Central and South America can further develop and expand there economies, and lastly can assure some energy security and permit the U.S.A to slowly break ties with OPEC while strengthening relationships with several Latin American nations.
Yet does driving a flex-fuel automobile make one more environmentally friendly or more American? We've all heard about the wonders of biofuels, but have we ignored the fact that 20% of current petroleum consumption would require the equivalent of 50 billion gallons of corn or cane ethanol (how many acres of monoculture farming would that require)? Considering current agricultural techniques there is no possible way a farmer could sustainably cultivate a monoculture farm of solely corn and be heavily dependent on petroleum derived fertilizers and hazardous pesticides. Something has to give. Turning our attention to Brazil, we can already witness the impact of ethanol based crops in the destruction of virgin forests and contamination of watersheds solely to meet national demand for ethanol (please note Brazil is currently unable to export ethanol due to extraordinary high US tariffs).
With President Bush traveling to Brazil this Thursday to discuss with Brazilian President Lula the opportunities of an international market for ethanol, we are left to wonder when the ethanol revolution will make its appearance before citizens of the US and furthermore, will it truly make an environmental difference.
For over a quarter of a century, Brazil has been processing sugar cane to produce ethanol, a viable alternative to petroleum, that in recent years has nearly equaled petroleum as a source of automobile fuel for Brazilian commuters. Yet, if the United States were to import and produce sufficient ethanol to compensate 20% of our petroleum consumption like Bush is proposing, will countries like Brazil, and farmers like Old MacDonald be able to keep stride? According to studies the US currently consumes over 250 BILLION gallons of fuel in transit alone. How is it that something like corn or sugar cane can even approach that number when current corn ethanol production is a meager 5.58 billion gallons per year or 2.6 billion bushels?
I'm not arguing that ethanol is not a viable alternative to petroleum since it's been proven to produce less CO2 than current petroleum emissions, and offers struggling campesinos and local US farmers the opportunity to access a new and growing market. Ethanol may provide the answer to how countries in Central and South America can further develop and expand there economies, and lastly can assure some energy security and permit the U.S.A to slowly break ties with OPEC while strengthening relationships with several Latin American nations.
Yet does driving a flex-fuel automobile make one more environmentally friendly or more American? We've all heard about the wonders of biofuels, but have we ignored the fact that 20% of current petroleum consumption would require the equivalent of 50 billion gallons of corn or cane ethanol (how many acres of monoculture farming would that require)? Considering current agricultural techniques there is no possible way a farmer could sustainably cultivate a monoculture farm of solely corn and be heavily dependent on petroleum derived fertilizers and hazardous pesticides. Something has to give. Turning our attention to Brazil, we can already witness the impact of ethanol based crops in the destruction of virgin forests and contamination of watersheds solely to meet national demand for ethanol (please note Brazil is currently unable to export ethanol due to extraordinary high US tariffs).
"Some of the cane plantations are the size of European states, these vast monocultures have replaced important eco-systems," he said. "If you see the size of the plantations in the state of Sao Paolo they are oceans of sugar cane. In order to harvest you must burn the plantations which creates a serious air pollution problem in the city."The debate over ethanol as a sustainable U.S. energy supply can continue for months by bringing into question the food versus fuel debate and "the tortilla crisis" that subsequently sparked protests in Mexico City. In summary ethanol is good but not good enough to save the Earth and the atmosphere. I agree with Bush and Lula that an international market for ethanol is necessary; however, it must be done sustainably and in a manner that will not destroy necessary food systems, and social and ecological environments. Ethanol, perhaps, is only a temporary solution to our present predicament of oil dependency and global warming and not as some would state the future of automotive fuel. The President and Congress must continue pushing for more research and development into alternative renewable sources such as hydrogen fuel cell and electric and discuss opportunities for designing cheaper versions of the sporty $100k Tesla!
Labels: ethanol, global warming, politics
¶ 8:50 PM
