On these pages and in numerous meetings and hearings before Congress and the EPA, I have routinely criticized the EPA, the state of California, and others in the environmental community for failing to create a level playing field when it comes to accounting of carbon emissions from biofuels and petroleum. Specifically, I have argued, based on the facts available, that biofuels are unfairly penalized for perceived future indirect carbon emissions from indirect land use change while petroleum gets a free pass -- especially where marginal sources of petroleum, like Canadian tar sands, are concerned.
But you don't have to take my word for it.
Global Forest Watch Canada has calculated the expected direct and indirect land use impacts from the development of tar sands petroleum in Canada. The group estimates that the land area that will be disrupted as a result of tar sands extraction would be "1,613,887 [hectares] of natural ecosystems (20 times the size of the City of Calgary, 40 times the size of the City of Denver, 17 times the size of East/West Berlin) that are or will potentially be changed by bitumen surface mining and in situ operations."
Such a land area is approximately 4 million acres, or roughly the same amount of new land EPA estimates must be found to meet the requirements of the expanded Renewable Fuels Standard for grain-based ethanol. (It goes without saying i believe, along with a number of experts, that EPA is grossly overestimating this number given improvements in crop yields, ethanol efficiencies, and on farm practices).
Traditional sources of petroleum are not immune to serious environmental impacts. A report from the federal Minerals Management Service shed some light on the detrimental environmental impact oil development, processing, and shipping has had on the Gulf Coast region. In particular, it details the destruction of coastal wetlands critical for a number of reasons, including mitigating the impacts of hurricanes.
This past summer, the Renewable Fuels Association depicted the impacts of petroleum on the environment in a slideshow. Now, someone with true artistic talent has given the issue the exposure it deserves. Currently on display at the Corcoran Art Gallery in Washington, DC, photographer Edward Burtynsky takes a look deep into the oil industry and the environmental costs associated with our addiction.
It tells a story that only pictures can, and calls into questions statements that only biofuels present significant direct and indirect emissions of carbon.
All of this is meant to underscore how unstable the foundation EPA, the state of California, and others are using when applying unproven theories such as indirect land use change. It is inconceivable that an honest and transparent accounting of the carbon emissions of petroleum when compared to those of ethanol would somehow be lower. It defies logic, reason, and most of all, facts.
Follow Bob Dinneen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ethanolbob
Raymond J. Learsy: Citigroup Returns to Banking by Divesting Its Oil Trading Arm
It is scandalous that those in government vested with the responsibility of financial oversight have permitted a culture of "heads they win, tails we lose" to take hold and to grow into a financial Frankenstein.
Your link says:
"To be honest, I have no idea how one could sum up these estimates"
and makes no mention of ten dollars a gallon.
A Friends of the Earth study says oil is subsidized to the tune of 13 cents per gallon.
A Greenpeace study says oil is subsidized to the tune of 13 cents per gallon
An Earth Track study says oil is subsidized to the tune of 15 cents per gallon
None of these come close to the subsidies per gallon being received by corn ethanol and soy biodiesel.
On the other hand, if you want to consider the cost of the Iraq war (say, a trillion dollars a year) as one giant subsidy to oil then we are paying about 1000/8.5 = $118 per gallon of oil shipped from Iraq.
You can of course continue to play number games like this to get just about any number you want. Corn ethanol has no impact on military budgets.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/full/461472a.html
"..Now, largely because of a rapidly growing reliance on fossil fuels and industrialized forms of agriculture, human activities have reached a level that could damage the systems that keep Earth in the desirable Holocene state..."
Fossil fuels and industrialized forms of agriculture are the two main culprits. Corn ethanol is based on industrializedFor agriculture.
http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/oil-gas-crude/461
Ethanol is the only alternative fuel available - right now - that truly is a competitor to gasoline/diesel. Ethanol from corn, sugar cane, sugar beets, wood chips and wast products will continue to steadily replace gasoline. All to the benefit of our economy, national security & environmental protection.
The solar panels on my roof produce enough power to recharge my electric car and provide half of the power to run my house.
No oil, corn, land, or water is used up in this process. There is no pollution or CO2 produced.
Even before this report came out, tar sand oil did not qualify as a low carbon fuel. Because it releases so much carbon, it has been illegal for the federal government to purchase oil made from Canadian tar sands since 2007. It isn't illegal for private parties to buy it. If Dinneen is suggesting that we make purchasing oil made from tar sands illegal for all Americans I might support him, as long as he also calls for corn ethanol to be illegal as well. He won't do that of course because his strategy is to eliminate one of corn ethanol's competitors, liquid fuel produced in North America--Canadian tar sand oil. Coincidentally, corn ethanol and Canadian tar oil both provide roughly the same percentage of America's gasoline supply.
GHG release from land use change is a fact for both tar sand oil and corn ethanol. Two wrongs don't make a right. As fuels, they are both worse than conventional oil.
Just the fermentation step wastes half (actually 49%) the energy in the corn starch. No kidding, if you start with 180 pounds of carbohydrate 88 pounds is lost as beer fizz (CO2) when you run it through the fermentation process.
Don't you think there is a better use for all that corn?
180 pounds of carbohydrate ---> 92 pounds of ethanol + 88 pounds of carbon dioxide (beer fizz)
stated as a chemical equation:
1 glucose molecule ---> 2 ethanol molecules + 2 carbon dioxide molecules
or
C6H12O6 → 2C2H5OH + 2CO2
Ethanol is not the answer. Ethanol is what lobbying by huge corporate agriculture gets you. Biodiesel and fuel from algae have potential. Possibly ethanol from switchgrass. But corn fed ethanol is as ridiculous as corn fed cows (read Michael Pollen(sp?)).