-------------------------------------
Ethanol: Politics vs. Porridge
-------------------------------------
Todd L. Petersen
September 27, 2008
The United States is intoxicated by ethanol, or rather over what it is supposed to achieve. Over the course of the past few years ethanol has been sold like a bill of goods to the American public as a panacea for fixing the energy crises. It is fitting that it should be, because in fact ethanol is snake oil and the politicians and lobbyists that promote it are just as honest as any snake oil salesman, though perhaps with the best of intentions.
Over the course of the past few years, ethanol has been promoted as a substance that; a) will decrease our reliance on foreign oil, b) is good for the environment, and c) will raise the price of grain for American farmers. In fact it increases consumption of gasoline and diesel fuel, which decreases supply and contributes to rising fuel prices. Ethanol is not Ògood for the environmentÓ, it is not a Òclean burning fuelÓ, in fact it increases Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emissions, has almost a 100% larger carbon footprint than conventional gasoline, and it dispenses carcinogens into the environment.
It has indeed caused increases in the price of corn but by doing so it has contributed to a food crises, which most heavily impacts the worlds poor. The World Bank attributes 75% of the rise in global food prices to biofuels[1], and the UN has gone so far as to characterize biofuels as a crime against humanity.[2] [3]
Most citizens of the United States however believe ethanol production might only increase the cost of cornflakes by 2 cents. We believe this because itÕs what the ethanol lobby and the government tells us and wants us to believe. ItÕs an example of both the disinformation campaign ethanol proponents have been waging, and the ignorance with which a gullible American public has lapped it up.
When the country was being talked into the use of ethanol there were three primary reasons given for why it was essential for us to begin its unfettered use. This paper will examine all three and will explain why two of the three are outright falsehoods, and the unintended consequences of reason three, which turns out to be the only one of the three that actually accomplished what ethanol proponents claimed it would. The consequences however are completely unacceptable to anyone except the morally bankrupt.
A) ÒIt will decrease our reliance on foreign oilÓ.
Adding 10% ethanol to gasoline to create E-10 cannot possibly decrease our reliance on foreign oil, in fact it makes us more dependent. It looks good at first glance because the math is easy. Add 10% ethanol and youÕve saved 10% on gasoline and hence used 10% less foreign oil. The math is not so easy when you start looking at the amount of energy it takes to manufacture ethanol from corn or the efficiency of E-10 as opposed to the conventional gasoline it is replacing.
Ethanol plants consume vast amounts of energy. A typical 40 million gallon per year plant consumes 30,000,000 kilowatts of electricity. This is equivalent to over 17,500 barrels of crude oil.[4][5] As of October 2007 there were 131 ethanol plants in the US with 72 others under construction. Once theyÕre all up and running that totals the equivalent of 3,583,559 barrels of oil just to manufacture the ethanol. This does not include the petroleum required to grow the corn.
Corn ethanol is simply too expensive to compete in the marketplace. This is why it requires extensive tax credits and subsidies from the federal government without which it would never have been viable. Without the help of the federal government ethanol would never have been more than a novelty.[6]
As is true with any industry, when the cost of the raw material goes up then the price of the end product goes up. When todayÕs ethanol plants were first proposed, corn was selling for around $2.00 per bushel. As of this writing during the fall of 2008 itÕs between $5.00 and $6.00. How high must the price of corn become before it presents an untenable position for ethanol producers? What happens when the ethanol plants become even more unprofitable? The chief ally of ethanol will most likely come to the rescue. The Federal government will have to pick up the tab if they expect to keep the ethanol steamroller going. If it does not, then the industry collapses and all the money spent to date goes right down the drain. ItÕs a spiral into which the federal government will have to pour increasing amounts of money in order to keep it all afloat. It canÕt last, not with corn at record prices unless the price of crude climbs and remains at historically high levels. Otherwise at some point the bubble has to burst and when it does everyone will be screaming about all the lost jobs in the Corn Belt.[7]
Some may argue that the energy used to grow the corn shouldnÕt be figured in but thatÕs not necessarily true. Corn farmers across the country in 2008 planted maximum amounts of acreage into corn, an additional 12,000,000 acres, in order to take advantage of the high prices ethanol has created. This extra corn acreage must be considered, otherwise it would be in beans or another crop, any of which are less energy intensive than corn. Corn requires more passes through the field than virtually any other crop. This adds to demand for diesel, which in turn contributes to higher diesel fuel prices for everyone. Corn requires more fertilizer than comparable crops, much of which comes from natural
gas. Corn requires more water than comparable crops, water that has to be pumped except during exceptional years. This consumes yet more diesel or electricity. ItÕs all energy that has to come from somewhere.[8] [9]
There is a further loss of energy with ethanol; a loss of mileage that every motorist will notice. A gallon of gas containing ethanol contains less power than a gallon of conventional gas because ethanol has fewer BTUÕs per gallon. Therefore gas mileage is reduced. Mileage can drop between 3% - 10% depending on whose figures you believe. DonÕt take anyone elseÕs word for it; test it in your car. ItÕs a fundamental flaw in the whole concept of using ethanol to replace gasoline. Ethanol blended gasoline forces the consumer to buy yet more gas in order to go the same distance. ItÕs robbing Peter to pay Paul and it puts pressure on the market, that is, it lessens supply (youÕre buying more) creating more demand which makes prices go up. The ethanol lobby is fond of saying that gas prices would be even higher today if we werenÕt adding ethanol. They have that backwards, adding ethanol contributes to higher gas prices. ItÕs not responsible for all of it of course, but it is a contributing factor. The production of ethanol adds to energy demand for several reasons. We make it from corn, and corn is very energy intensive. The cost of transporting it is high because it is moved by railcar, as opposed to through pipelines. Then when itÕs added to your cars tank you end up getting 10% less mileage. You then buy gas again sooner than you would have had to otherwise, increasing demand for gasoline. In a year (2008) wherein more ethanol has been produced than ever, gasoline and diesel prices have also gone higher than ever. Ethanol isnÕt the answer to high gasoline prices itÕs one of the reasons for them.[10] [11] [12] [13]
When they feel themselves to be under attack, the Ethanol lobby disingenuously points fingers at the oil companies. Indeed the oil companies fought ethanol for many years, now however theyÕve been taken into the fold by virtue of the tax credits they receive for blending it. Whoever blends the ethanol into gasoline receives 45-cents per gallon (of ethanol), and there are billions of gallons to be blended to comply with Federal law. Make no mistake, oil companies like ethanol now because it enables them to begin distribution of sub-octane gasoline counting on ethanol to bring it up to the octane rating it must ultimately have. Sub-octane gas costs oil companies less to produce. So now they can make a much cheaper product, receive the same price for it at the pump, plus they receive a hefty check from the Federal government for doing so. They canÕt lose. TheyÕre making not millions but billions of dollars on this deal, all of which comes from American taxpayers. Up to $4 billion a year by 2012.[14]
B) ÒItÕs good for the environmentÓ
The environmental benefits of ethanol are one of the cornerstones of the rationale used to justify imposing this ÒfuelÓ upon the citizens of the US. ÒClean Burning FuelÓ, ÒGood for the EnvironmentÓ, ÒCuts down on greenhouse gassesÓ. These phrases were bounced around by the ethanol industry to gain support from the masses, the government, and the environmentalists. The fact that none of it was true made no difference. It was all about sound bites and catchy phrases, carefully delivered at a time when the citizens were in need of some ÒgoodÓ energy news, and it worked. Everyone bought in. At both the state and federal level, government embraced ethanol despite reports and studies that prove ethanol gives serious emissions of its own, both when it is manufactured and when it is consumed. Many analysts go so far as to consider corn ethanol to be ÒuselessÓ when it comes to decreasing carbon dioxide emissions. Of course the ethanol lobby doesnÕt want you to know that. [15]
The most damaging environmental evidence against ethanol is a study published online in the journal Science on February 7, 2008 which concludes that the use of biofuels in Europe and the US can translate into significant land use changes elsewhere, particularly in the Amazon. These land use changes result in a ÒhugeÓ impact on greenhouse emissions.[16]
When farmers in the US decide to grow more corn and fewer beans someone somewhere has to take up the slack and grow more beans if people are going to continue to eat as they did before. Brazil is that place. When a Brazilian soybean grower decides to obtain more land for beans he gets it from and hence displaces, the people who are grazing cattle. When the cattle grazer is displaced, he gets more land from the Amazon rain forest. The result is that the use of corn based ethanol Òmakes global warming worseÓ, by contributing to the destruction of rain forests. [17] [18] [19] [20]
Time magazine, when reporting on the Science article, pointedly declared that when Congress was figuring out how ethanol was going to benefit the environment, they got the math completely wrong. They got it wrong because they did not consider land use in the Amazon. When this is figured in, the carbon footprint of gasoline with 10% ethanol is 93% higher than a conventional gallon of gasoline.[21] It cannot therefore be said that ethanol benefits the environment in any way when in fact it leaves a bigger carbon footprint, by almost 100% than straight gasoline.
If using ethanol actually had anything to do with the environment then we would be buying it from Brazil. Brazilian ethanol is derived from sugar cane where the process is much more efficient than using corn. It takes six to eight times the energy to produce a gallon of ethanol from corn than it does from sugar cane. The federal government however imposes a 54-cent per gallon tariff on imported ethanol to protect the domestic ethanol industry.[22] So what it boils down to is that weÕre spending billions of dollars of tax money to support the most inefficient means of production possible, to create a product that gives less performance and more emissions than the conventional gasoline it replaces. ItÕs a perfect example of how meddling by the Federal government results in wasteful spending and unintended negative consequences.
To be fair, Congress and the Administration didnÕt know about this study until 2008 but there were other earlier studies, which clearly showed that ethanol was not a magical elixir for the environment. At least as early as 1996 studies had been made public indicating that ethanol had very real air quality issues. For the most part though these are not greenhouse gasses, hence they donÕt register. Burning E-10 can result in excessive emissions of aldehydes, especially acetaldehyde, a suspected carcinogen. Furthermore studies done as early as 1991 by Dr. Donald Stedman of the University of Colorado showed that tuning the emissions systems of those cars that emitted the most pollutants was far more economical than forcing reformulated fuels on the entire fleet. [23] [24] [25]
Additionally, gasoline ethanol blends give higher evaporative emissions than conventional gasoline, by as much as 50-65% even when the makeup of the gasoline is altered to keep Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) the same. Ethanol gasoline blends have given boat owners nightmares with materials compatibility and water issues. Thousands of pilots across the US have been forced to use the only leaded gasoline still sold in the US, 100LL aviation gasoline because ethanol gasoline blends cannot be used in airplanes. 100LL gasoline contains twice as much lead per gallon as leaded automotive gasoline, which was banned twenty years ago. Corrosion, phase separation and materials compatibility were never an issue with MTBE, the oxygenate ethanol replaced.[26] MTBE had its own problem, it persisted in the environment. However it did not melt down fiberglass tanks in boats or attack fuel systems of older cars or airplanes. MTBE got into the environment in the first place because of the use of two stroke marine engines. The problem could have been resolved by banning these engines. Doing so however would not have enriched politicians or campaign contributors. So instead of that simple solution, everyone in the country is forced to further subsidize farmers and deal with the effects of using ethanol in fuel systems never designed for it.
The Congressmen, Governors and State Legislatures that have imposed ethanol upon us had all of that knowledge available to them when they were debating the merits of ethanol. The Bush administration had this knowledge as well. Indeed in 1996 the World Bank stated that the potential for alternative fuels, including ethanol gasoline blends Òhave been greatly overstatedÓ.[27] Never let it be said that good science will prevent our government from throwing away billions of dollars. Things are different however in Europe. When the Germans recognized the emissions issue and the connection between ethanol and the rise in global food prices, they yanked the subsidies. Their ethanol program, at least in respect to gasoline, was largely abandoned. France and England also appear to be backing away from bio-fuels in general. The effect it has on the world food supply is only one of the reasons.[28] [29] [30]
Of course our government doesnÕt have a monopoly on
stupidity. Brazils alcohol program
is often pointed to as an example of how ethanol can successfully power a
nation. Even though Brazil has the
ability to produce ethanol out of sugar cane, which is much more efficient than
making it out of corn, it has required massive government subsidies on the
order of a billion dollars a year to keep the program running. When Brazil attempted to reduce the
amount of money spent on ethanol by cutting direct subsidies, sales of
ethanol-powered cars fell to less than 1% in 1996.[31] If it takes billions of dollars from
the Brazilian government to maintain an ethanol program theyÕve been working on
for close to forty years, then certainly it will require much more money in the
US where our domestic ethanol industry has only just been started in
earnest.
Given the record ethanol has when it comes to emissions, it
seems clear enough that our use of it has nothing to do with helping the
environment. There must therefore,
be other reasons for the flurry of legislation requiring increasing amounts of
ethanol in our gas; reasons that trump the environment.[32]
C) ÒIt will raise the price of grain for AmericaÕs
farmersÓ
Indeed it has. Before ethanol, farmers struggled to receive $2.00 for a bushel of corn. By the fall of 2008 the price is triple that. Between the standard subsidies corn farmers have always received, ($51 billion between 1995 and 2005)[33] and the increased price of corn due to its diversion to ethanol, corn farmers today are doing very well indeed. Cattle, hog, and chicken feeders are taking a big hit however because they need corn for feed and now itÕs costing them dearly. This is one way the diversion of corn to ethanol production increases food prices in general.
The price of food and what has happened to it between 2006 and 2008 is in fact the most significant result of our countryÕs swing toward gasoline ethanol blends. The ethanol lobby continues to run disinformation campaigns designed to mislead the public when it comes to food prices, which are very much a concern to everyone. Having relatively cheap abundant food is a great national asset. No country ever achieved or maintained greatness without a cheap and abundant food supply. Diverting grain to ethanol production increases food prices nationally and globally but the ethanol lobby doesnÕt want anyone to think so. An advertisement run in Midwestern newspapers in the spring of 2008 says that the increase in the price of food will only amount to an extra 2 cents for a box of cornflakes.[34] How nice. We can all sleep well knowing our cornflakes are safe.
In the US we can afford 2 cents extra for a box of cornflakes. We could afford $1 extra for a box of cornflakes if we had too, but people in third world countries do not buy cornflakes, they buy tortillas or make bread and other basic foodstuffs from corn or from other crops that have been displaced by the increased demand for corn. It is all interconnected. The ethanol people say, we use yellow corn, not white corn and white corn is what tortillas are made of. This vast over simplification misses the point and misleads the public. It is a good example of the disinformation campaign being driven by the ethanol lobby. If the price of yellow corn goes through the roof, then what are farmers going to plant, white corn or yellow corn? They will, of course, plant yellow corn. So if less white corn is planted the price of it will go up; itÕs simple supply and demand. Hence the use of yellow corn for ethanol raises the price of white corn, and hence tortillas in Mexico.
Ethanol proponents point to China and India as the culprits behind the rise in the price of food globally. Officially the US government says ethanol only raises the price of food by 3%, a figure that was harshly ridiculed at a summit in Rome in June 2008.[35] An internal report from the World Bank claims that biofuels are responsible for an astonishing 75% of the rise in global food prices. Not surprisingly the report was suppressed to keep from embarrassing the Bush Administration.[36] Many European countries are rethinking their biofuels policies and reducing or removing previously set biofuels requirements in light of rising food prices.[37]
One of the first food demonstrations related to the rise in commodity prices took place in Mexico City in May of 2006. 50,000 people marched that day protesting the rising cost of tortillas. Higher priced food however is not just a problem in Mexico. It affects everyone, from beef or turkey consumers in the US to consumers of porridge in Mozambique. WeÕre just better able to afford it hence itÕs more difficult for us to grasp the significance. If you work all day in order to afford food, and then the price of that food increases by 1/3 that means all of a sudden youÕre eating two meals a day instead of three. Or if two was all you could afford before, now you can only afford one. It is just that grim for the worldÕs poor, and not just in Mexico.[38] [39] [40] The recent rise in global food prices has left an additional 100 million people without enough food to eat.[41] Riots and demonstrations have broken out since May of 2006 in Turkmenistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Burkina Faso, Haiti, Mozambique, Italy, Mexico, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Mauritania and Senegal. In Haiti it almost forced a change in government.[42] When you have people that are starving or on the brink of starvation you end up with strife, violence, insurrection and revolution. And when the reason for the increased price of food is because of policies of the US government you have a prescription for more anti-American feeling and rhetoric. ItÕs indefensible.
Corn ethanol is the primary reason for the increase in the price of food.[43] When ground used for beans, or other crops is diverted to corn ethanol production it increases the price of the crop that has been displaced because there will be less of it. This increases the price of food in general.[44] [45] In short, AmericaÕs farmers and ethanol producers are getting wealthy on the backs of the poorest of the worlds poor.[46] This is something that not just the people in the Corn Belt that are profiting from ethanol should be ashamed of, but all Americans should be ashamed because we allowed our government to create this monster. Instead Americans are in denial primarily due to advertisements like the one mentioned previously about a very modest price increase of 2 cents for box of cornflakes. Disinformation is what that is. The ethanol lobby has become expert at disseminating such drivel.
Americans are being force-fed something that very few of us actually want. If Americans wanted ethanol they would have been buying it years ago but we didnÕt. It took massive government intervention to make it possible for ethanol to compete and as the price of corn goes up either the ethanol plants will become unprofitable and fold or the government will have to step in with ever increasing amounts of money to keep them afloat. Until the next election nothing will change. After that we may see the mandates not eliminated but perhaps rolled back, if weÕre lucky. States that have passed their own laws requiring ethanol however will continue to have only ethanol gasoline blends regardless of what happens in the election. Much depends on whether the price of corn continues to rise. If ethanol plants start shutting down because theyÕve become unprofitable then we may see a return to conventional gasoline in some places but further support by the Federal government is more likely. The only positive note to come out lately was during the first Presidential debate when Senator McCain suggested that ethanol subsidies be eliminated. This of course remains to be seen.
Boat, airplane, antique car, and motorcycle owners will all have to bear the brunt of the havoc ethanol creates in fuel systems designed for conventional gasoline. Burning it in a modern car is one thing. They have been built with components that tolerate ethanol. It is not so easy to put these components into boats or airplanes that may date back forty years. Even if you could, in the case of airplanes there are a host of performance issues that need to be addressed before the FAA would grant approval to use it.
Why did our government get us into this mess? They did so because ethanol changes tax money into campaign contributions and because it gives the illusion that they (the government) are being proactive on energy. Campaign contributions, well placed and well timed were ultimately successful in extending pro ethanol legislation not just in Congress but at the State level as well. Government then extends subsidies to the ethanol industry and passes laws requiring the use of astronomical amounts of it. The effort expended on individual States became redundant with passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007). With the passage of this piece of legislation the Federal government saw to it that ethanol would be placed into almost every drop of gasoline in the country whether consumers wanted it or not. EISA 2007 doesnÕt ÒrequireÓ the use of ethanol, not in so many words but it accomplished the same thing by requiring the use of billions of gallon of Òrenewable fuelÓ. Nine billion gallons must be blended in 2008. This number steadily increases through 2022 when 36 billion gallons of Òrenewable fuelÓ must be blended into the countryÕs fuel supply.[47]
Another reason politicians liked ethanol were the bones that could be thrown to special interest groups. By embracing ethanol the government was able to appease environmentalists. This was only possible because environmentalists bought into ethanol too, which only happened because the ethanol industry cooked the books when it came to the environmental ramifications of producing and consuming it. It provided an immediate way to demonstrate that our government was really going to lick this whole energy mess we found ourselves in. The fact that it was an exercise in futility made no difference. Nor was it necessary for politicians to have legitimate reasons to embrace ethanol since they had so many dubious ones.
The bone thrown to the Corn Belt however was one that still had meat on it, and it has translated into a vast increase in farm income. Many jobs have been created in construction and operation of ethanol plants as well. These are very real benefits that must not be discounted. Jobs gained in the ethanol industry within the Corn Belt however have meant lost jobs in other agricultural sectors. Feeding operations have been hit with the high cost of grain. Turkey farms, chicken farms, cattle and hog feeders are all suffering from the high cost of feed. The question is whether the sacrifices made by the rest of the country and the poor in other countries is worth the benefits bestowed upon a select few in the US. Politicians, farmers, investors, and construction companies have all done very well due to ethanol. Oil companies will soon be doing equally well by manufacturing sub-octane gasoline, which costs them less to make, and then blending in ethanol to achieve the proper octane plus a 45-cent per gallon handout from the Federal government for doing so. Consumers and taxpayers are the ones who have to pay through the nose.
Many in the US are finally recognizing that ethanol is not all that it has been cracked up to be. Doing away with legislation and EPA policy however is not as easy as instituting that policy in the first place.
Now that the use of E-10 has been imposed upon us, all that can be done to try and reverse it is to send a constant stream of letters to our legislators, for whatever thatÕs worth, pointing out the difficulties ethanol has created, not only for ourselves but for the worlds poor and what that does for Americas image across the globe. It would be one thing if it only affected the price of cornflakes in America. Creating hardship, if not starvation in third world countries is entirely different. It changes the dynamics against us geopolitically, and sets us on a morally reprehensible course not easily reversed.
----------------------------
Copyright © Todd L. Petersen, 2008.
All rights are reserved by the author, except that this
document may be freely reproduced in full (not in part) in any form, and may be
quoted from provided that i) the quotation is attributed to "Todd L.
Petersen, 2008", and ii) the quotation is only used in the context
established by the rest of this document.
[1] Ethanol is the most widely produced and consumed of
all biofuels.
[2] Charles Hawley,Ó Is the EU turning its back on
biofuels?ÓÓ SPIEGELnet GmbH, 07/07/2008,Spiegel Online International,
9/14/08 <http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,564409,00.html>
[3] Aditya Chakrabortty, ÒSecret report: biofuel caused food crisisÓ, guardian.co.uk, 07/04/08, Guardian News and Media Limited, 08/10/08 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewableenergy>
[4] ÒExcerpt from a SB-2/A SEC Filing, filed by GOLDEN
GRAIN ENERGYÓ, 05/14/2003., .edgar-online.com,
7/15/08, EDGAR Online Inc., <http://sec.edgar-online.com/2003/05/14/0001144204-03-002330/Section12.asp>
[5] "ELEMENTS OF PHYSICS 5/E. by SHORTLEY/WILLIAMS, 1971. Adapted by permission of Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, N.J., & Adapted from U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric, and Alternative Fuels. Coal Data: A Reference: Washington, D.C. 1995. Quoted by KEEP Wisconsin, K-12 Energy Education Program. 7//16/08, <http://www.uwsp.edu/CNR/wcee/keep/Mod1/Whatis/energyresourcetables.htm>
[6]Chris Kinan, ÒCorn Ethanol Mandates Don't Make SenseÓ,
FreedomWorks.org 06/27/07, FreedomWorks, 7-16/08, <http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=2858>
[7] Jerry Taylor, ÒFor Now, Gasoline Is Our Only Cheap
FuelÓ, Arizona Republic, Cato.org,
05/07/06, CATO Institute, 07/17/08, <http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6391>
[8]
Molecules for the Media ÒBiofuels: The Science of Creating
Greener EnergyÓ, physicalsciences.ucsd.edu, 2005, Regents of the
University of California., San Diego, 07/17/08, <http://physicalsciences.ucsd.edu/molecules/multimedia/biofuels_multimedia.intro.html>
[9] Taylor.
[10] David Catanese, ÒMo. Corngrowers: Ethanol Repeal A
Political Scheme" ky3 Political Notebook, 07/02/08,
ky3blogspot.com, 07/17/08, <http://ky3.blogspot.com/2008/07/mo-corngrowers-ethanol-repeal-political.html>
[11] D.H. Stedman, ÒDirty-Car Tuneups Beat Oxy-Fuels by a
MileÓ, Wall Street Journal, Feb.,1990, Fuel Efficiency Automobile Test Data
Center, 03/17/08, University of Denver, 7/17/08, <http://www.feat.biochem.du.edu/assets/publications/Wall_Street_Journal_Feb_1990.pdf>
[12] Jeff Goodell, ÒThe Ethanol Scam: One of America's
Biggest Political BoondogglesÓ, RollingStone.com, 08/09/07, Rolling
Stone Magazine, 07/18/08, <http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15635751/the_ethanol_scam_one_of_americas_biggest_political_boondoggles/2>
[13] Brian Heap, ÒEthanol blended fuel hurts gas mileageÓ, myeyewitnessnews.com,
9/27/08, Newport Television LLC, 9/27/08, <http://www.myeyewitnessnews.com/
news/local/story.aspx?content_id=6a0db8d7-5b42-4907-86be-e0e5277863cf>
[14] Kinan,
[15] Roger Harrabin, ÒEU
rethinks biofuels guidelinesÓ, BBC News, 01/14/08, BBC, 7/20/08,
[16] ÒUse of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases
Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land Use ChangeÓ, sciencemag.org,
02/07/08, Science Magazine, 07/22/08, <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/
content/abstract/1151861v1?sa_campaign=Email/pap/7-February-2008/10.1126/science.1151861>
[17] ÒEnvironmentalists Debate
the Promise of BiofuelsÓ, NPR.org, 02/08/08. National Public Radio,
07/20/08, <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18800996>
[18] Michael Grunwald, ÒThe
Clean Energy ScamÓ, Time.com, 04/07/08, Time Magazine, 07/07/08, <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html>.
[19] Tom Meersman, ÒEthanol: More harm than good?Ó, StarTribune.com,
02/07/08, Minneapolis Star Tribune
07/19/08, <http://www.startribune.com/local/15403981.html>
[20] Elisabeth Rosenthal, ÒBiofuels Deemed a
Greenhouse ThreatÓ, NYTimes.com, 02/08/08, New York Times, 06/10/08,
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html?_r=1&oref=slogin>
[21] Grunwald.
[22] Kinan,
[23] Asif Faiz, Christopher S. Weaver, Michael P.Walsh,
ÒAir Pollution from Motor Vehicles, Standards and
Technologies for Controlling EmmisionsÓ, WorldBank.org, 1996, The
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank Washington D.C., 07/07/08, <http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1996/11/01/000009265_3970311120405/Rendered/INDEX/multi_page.txt>
[24] Ibid.
[25] Donald.H. Stedman and James.E. Peterson, :Find and
Fix the PollutersÓ, Chemtech January 1992., Fuel Efficiency Automobile Test
Data Center, University of Denver, 7/17/08, <http://www.feat.biochem.du.edu/assets/publications/Find_Fix_Polluters_Chemtech_1992.pdf>
[26] Asif Faiz et al.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Julio Godoy, ÒSubsidy loss
threatens German bio-fuel industryÓ, EnergyPublisher.com, 01/07/08,
Enerpub, 07/07/08, <http://www.energypublisher.com/article.asp?id=13410>
[29]EAC, ÒAre biofuels
sustainable?Ó HC 76-I, UK Parliament, First Report of Session 2007-08,
Environmental Audit Committee (EAC), Parliament.uk, 07/25/08, <http://www.parliament.uk/
parliamentary_committees/environmental_audit_committee/eac_210108.cfm>
[30] Harrabin.
[31] Faiz et al.
[32] Tom Doggett, ÒBush budget doesnÕt alter ethanol import
tariffÓ, UKReuters.com, 02/04/08, Reuters
UK, 08/12/08, <http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKN0434878020080204?
[33] Goodell.
[34] Minden (Nebraska) Courier, 06/11/08 Pg 7A
[35] Julian Borger and John Vidal, ÒNew study to force
ministers to review climate change planÓ, guardian.co.uk, 06/19/08,
Guardian News and Media Limited, 07/25/08, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/19/climatechange.biofuels>
[36] Chakrabortty
[37] Borger and Vidal.
[38] Moira Herbst,
"Ethanol's Growing List of Enemies", BusinessWeek.com,
03/19/07, McGraw-Hill, 08/10/08, <http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2007/
[39] Edith M. Lederer, "UN
Expert Calls Biofuel 'Crime Against Humanity'", Livescience.com,
10/27/07, Imaginova Corp. <http://www.livescience.com/environment/071027-ap-biofuel-crime.html>
[40] George O. Ndege, ÒCulture and Customs of MozambiqueÓ, books.google.com,
Greenwood Press, Westport, CT ,
2007,
[41] Borger and Vidal.
[42] ÒStuffed and StarvedÓ, democracynow.org,
04/08/08, Democracy Now, 7/5/08 <http://www.democracynow.org/2008/4/8/stuffed_and_starved_as_food_riots>
ÒRiots, instability
spread as food prices skyrocketÓ, cnn.com, 04/ 14/08, Cable News
Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. 09/18/08, <http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/04/14/world.food.crisis>
ÒWho is fighting over
food?Ó, guardian.co.uk, 04/09/08, Guardian News and Media Limited,
08/18/08 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2008/apr/09/foodriots>
ÒFood riots hit West
and Central AfricaÓ, bicusa.org,
03/13/08, Bank Information Center, 09/18/08<http://www.bicusa.org/en/Article.3702.aspx>
Monica Davis, ÒHow Far
is the US From Food Shortages and Food Riots?Ó, indybay.org, 04/12/08,
San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center, 09/18/08, <http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/04/12/18492403.php>
[43] Chakrabortty.
[44] Katarina Wahlberg, ÒAre We
Approaching a Global Food Crisis? Between Soaring Food Prices and Food Aid
ShortageÓ, globalpolicy.org, 03/03/08, Global Policy Forum:, 08/15/08,
<http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/hunger/general/2008/0303foodcrisis.htm>
[45] Alex Murphy , ÒCorn ethanol a possible, but
ineffective gasoline alternativeÓ, universityregister.org, 05/08/08, The
University Register, University of Minnesota, Morris, MN,, 09//11/08 <http://www.universityregister.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=524&Itemid=30>
[46] Marc Lacey, ÒAcross Globe, Empty Bellies Bring Rising
AngerÓ, NYTimes.com, 04/18/08, The New York Times Company, 07/17/08,
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/world/americas/
[47] ÒArmy Energy ProgramÓ, army-energy.hqda.pentagon.mil,
09/17/08, US Army, 09//25/08, <http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h6enr.txt.pdf>