Ethanol and the Iowa Senate Race
by Paul Deaton“It seems impossible to have an
unbiased public discussion over how to most efficiently convert the
sun’s energy to provide transportation and produce electricity without
polluting the world on which we live.”
Iowa’s U. S. Senators both support corn ethanol and that is that. Last week the issue of ethanol subsidies came to light in the Iowa Press forum and ensuing exchange between the three Democratic primary candidates running for the United States Senate. Candidate Tom Fiegen of Clarence differentiated himself from competitors Bob Krause and Roxanne Conlin by saying, “as the junior senator from Iowa one of the things I'll say to the other senators in terms of deficit reduction, I'm willing to step away from (subsidies of ethanol and bio-diesel), I'm willing to reduce that to prove to you that I'm serious about deficit reduction.” We believe Fiegen is serious, but the vast majority of Iowans support corn ethanol and the winner of the 2010 U. S. Senate campaign will too. That is pretty much that.
Nearly every Iowan has a dog in the fight over ethanol. If there is something more politicized than the debate over the conversion of light from the sun to heat, the author does not know what it is. Each aspect of the production of ethanol has been the subject of debate. It seems impossible to have an unbiased public discussion over how to most efficiently convert the sun’s energy to provide transportation and produce electricity without polluting the world on which we live. This won’t happen during the 2010 election cycle and seems unlikely to happen in our lifetime. For progressives, a couple of aspects of the ethanol debate are important.
Ethanol subsidies help large corporations more than farmers. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the U. S. government pays about $20 billion per year in direct subsidies to farmers. The majority of these subsidies are for corn, cotton, soybeans, wheat and tobacco. These subsidies were created as a reaction to the Great Depression and have become a traditional aspect of farm life. Over time, subsidies have served to stabilize the price paid to farmers for production of certain fungible crops and enable a steady supply of the commodities despite low market prices. Market prices have often been below the cost of production. Beneficiaries of low market prices are companies that buy a lot of the field corn like Cargill and ADM. Ethanol subsidies also go to oil companies to blend and market the product.
If field corn is a food, then converting food to fuel remains a troubling aspect of ethanol production. Today there are roughly 6.8 billion people in the world, many of whom do not have enough to eat. In some parts of the world today there are food shortages severe enough to cause food riots. The world’s population is expected
to reach 9.0 billion between the years 2040 and 2050. Add another two billion people in our lifetime and expect the shortages to intensify. Both Senators Grassley and Harkin favor moving ethanol production from corn to other feedstocks and support development of cellulosic ethanol. The barrier to using cellulosic feedstocks is locating an enzyme that can metabolize the starches of corn stover and other non-food biomass. Who is working on these enzymes? Familiar companies like Monsanto and DuPont. In a cellulosic ethanol world, big companies will win again.
If all of the annual corn crop were converted to ethanol production, it would serve to replace roughly 16% of the oil we use in the United States. The idea that corn ethanol represents a solution to reducing our reliance on foreign oil is erroneous. Yes, every bit helps. Corn ethanol is a transitional fuel along the path towards energy independence because of the political infrastructure that grew up around it. At the same time, there must be better ways of converting sunlight to heat to power our vehicles than growing corn for this purpose. At some point we will run into the constraint of acreage upon which to grow row crops. More importantly, the current ethanol production process is energy inefficient, using a substantial amount of energy to grow, harvest, distill, distribute and burn it in our vehicles. There must be a better way.
In the 2010 United States Senate race, the winner will support corn ethanol. The smart money will be on the candidate who can articulate a way to move Iowa quickly and efficiently to a better way to convert sunlight to heat in Iowa, thereby fueling job growth and crop diversity in a way that makes life better for every Iowan. Senator Grassley has had his chance. Our hope rests with the Democrats.
~Paul
Deaton is a native Iowan living in rural Johnson County and weekend
editor of Blog for Iowa. E-mail Paul
Deaton
Blog For Iowa 
