Unethical Ethanol

Colorado River from South Kaibab Trail - photo by JoAnn Sturman

by Mike Burnaugh

The United States Senate recently rejected an amendment by Tom Coburn of Oklahoma aimed at eliminating the Ethanol Blending Subsidy and the High Tariff on imported ethanol (from Brazil). Rumor has it the rejection was based half on actual support for ethanol from farm-staters, and half just because Coburn is a Republican.

Everyone who has been the least bit alert for the last twenty years is aware of the massive pilgrimage by politicians of both parties to the headquarters of ADM (Archer Daniels Midland), the people who give us high fructose corn syrup and ethanol. These people are dedicated to expanding the markets for corn and increasing the profitability of the entire corn production process, from farm to market. These goals are not immediately evident as harmful, unethical or senseless. More background is required before those allegations can be made.

Enter the late World War and its successor, the Cold War. With imports curtailed in World War Two, beet sugar growers here at home prospered, able to overcome the production efficiency advantages of, say, Cuba. Cane sugar has a higher sugar content than either beets or corn. It was cheaper for American business to import most of our sugar. When Castro was inflicted upon Cuba, imports were banned. Sugar prices rose and a forty year decline of American candy manufacturers ensued. Today, even the Hershey candy company has moved production to Mexico, which grows its own cane sugar and imports the rest from Cuba.

Coke and Pepsi searched for new sugar sources for their drinks. ADM was very much at work playing subsidy game even then. They became a dependable source of campaign money even as soft drink prices went up as the manufacturers used a less efficient sweetener.

Brazil began a massive shift to ethanol fuel to overcome its lack of oil. U.S. environmentalists were wildly enthusiastic at first. The arguments were these: ethanol will lower the price of gasoline, clean the environment and be good for farmers. Congress, after who knows how many campaign bribes, began requiring gasoline to contain blended ethanol. Currently at ten percent, the requirement rises to fifteen percent of a gallon of gas in the near future.

Here’s what we discovered along the way: Ethanol is monstrously inefficient, requiring more energy in its production than it contains. Corn is a nitrogen craver. It uses oil for fertilizer production, planting, harvesting, and processing. Ethanol lowers the mileage expected from a gallon of gas, and while it’s at it, destroys much of what it touches.Technically, it is described as an “aromatic” that eats plastic. As a small business owner, I now add about Five Dollars of additives to every two gallons of unleaded gasoline to attempt to extend the life of my equipment.

It just gets better. It produces more pollution in its total process than does gasoline. Congress, after requiring ethanol, discouraged the import of Brazilian ethanol with a fifty four cent a gallon tariff. Then, inexplicably, they paid a subsidy to fuel blenders that runs several billions a year. Forbes Magazine estimates ethanol adds $1.76 per gallon to the price of gasoline. Is anyone listening? Why is Congress investigating Oil Companies? Let them go look in a mirror to see the cause of high gasoline prices.

It is with growing concern and, yes, horror that we now note ethanol will consume forty percent of this year’s corn crop. Food prices are growing apace as cattle feed lots strive to compete for corn. Most ominous, poor countries are facing drastic cuts in food availability as U.S. demand raises their prices as well. Get this fact in your mind: we are paying the best farmers in the breadbasket of the world to cut off the food supply of the world. To the gentle people at ADM and in Washington, famine is just good business. Now I dare say it: ethanol is unethical.