That is a very interesting article, thank you very much for posting it. And thank you for being one of the few here who rises above the emotional fray to focus on, ask about and comment on Climate Change issues rather than pandering to a political/ideological agenda, or simply engaging in character assassination.
Let me first comment that the area of southern Iowa highlighted in the article was home to my mother's family for over 150 years. My grandfather went to Corydon High School and my mother was born in Sewall. Ancestors as far back as my great great grandparents are buried in High Point cemetery, not far from Sturgeon Cemetery and also reached by crossing fields. So this article struck a very emotional note personally for me. I played there as a child, visiting my grandfather's and Uncle's farms. In addition, I'm from a farming family, grew up across the street from a view of farmland that stretched to the horizon, and for nearly half of my life have lived on a farm in Minnesota that has been in the family since I was six years old.
I have profited from agriculture, but never so much as since the Bush Ethanol Mandate was passed in 2007.
All that being said, large scale commodity farming, the way it is practiced on the majority of farms, is an environmental and ecological disaster and has been at least since the introduction of nitrogen based fertilizers. The Ethanol Mandate was not the first recent initiative to bring marginal, wetland and set aside ground into production; the Freedom to Farm Act of 1996 had a huge effect on land being pressed into commodity agriculture and both government policies created market volatility and impacted the environment. The 1996 bill brought commodity prices down and created more market surpluses, the 2007 mandate sent commodity prices, land rents and values skyrocketing.
I can't say with certainty what happened in southern Iowa and elsewhere that land was converted to agricultural use as a result of the 2007 mandate, but I suspect that it was not done with a lot of foresight in terms of environmental protection via use of the newest available technology and techniques. There is generally a rush to get the land producing and the equipment and skills needed to exploit the more environmentally friendly farming methods is not as available or employed as readily, and the local ecology suffers substantially, along with contributing to greater problems down stream- as the article highlights.
However, there are some elements of biofuel production that virtually every article I have read neglect to mention. I doubt that the articles are designed to go in depth into the economics and details, and depending on the editorial slant, explaining those elements tend to support the political agenda of the opposition. Between 2007 and 2009, it was the Bush Mandate being demonized, since-and obviously in the headline of the article you link to, it is Obama Administration policy. Here are just some of the facts that are worth noting:
1) Surpluses were large prior to 2007 and have been drawn down to 8% of production, the last I heard. So a lot of the biofuel production is from surpluses that are now being used. This tends to increase the price of the commodity being used.
2) Prior to 2007, corn prices were at or below the cost of production, especially when fuel and fertilizer prices peaked. This actually forced more farmers into low and no till practices as well as the use of technologies such as GPS fertilization. Both contribute to more stable topsoil and less fertilizer use and runoff as well as increased yields and profits for the farmer.
3) Distiller's grain is a byproduct of ethanol production, and facilities that make ethanol also make a large percentage of their profit from selling distiller's grain, which is good when used for up to 40% of livestock diets.
4) A doubling in price of a particular commodity doesn't affect food prices as much as the cost of packaging and distribution. For example, if the price of wheat per bushel doubles, the cost of a loaf of bread (in the U.S. at least) goes up by about a nickel. If there is an increase in the cost of fuel and plastic, this will affect food prices more than a similar increase in the price of the commodity itself.
Most people don't even want to hear that stuff-and more-because it gets too complex and the pluses and/or minuses don't support their agendas, and the media reports reflect this in their editorial position. My outlook is that corn-based ethanol is the (far) less than ideal way of getting into the biofuel business, especially compared to sugar cane, which initially was 8 times more efficient than ethanol produced by corn. Since, I have read, that efficiency differential has dropped to 5-6 times more efficient, sugar compared to corn, thanks to R&D. It does look as if the transition to other sources that existing ethanol facilities can use such as field waste, saw grass and algae is lagging and I have heard a little bit about that, and it does appear to be true that the government is soft-pedaling the delay, the timing and net benefit of ethanol and massaging numbers to keep the program alive in the most positive light possible. It can't be said that environmentally this is the best policy, but for a very large segment of the economy-agriculture is the number one contributor to GDP in the U.S. (directly and indirectly)-the government regardless of the politics of the current administration whether Republican or Democrat, will do just about anything necessary to keep agriculture chugging along. That's why both Bush and Obama push ethanol.
So to answer your question, not all biofuels are environmental disasters. Farming is an environmental disaster on its own and we are doing what we can to minimize the impact farming has on the environment, but it is such a big part of the economy and we are dependent upon it to feed the entire population of the world, so the environment is going to take a back seat even for the greenest liberal politician or most fiscally conservative administration. It will take a LONG time to improve the production of food and changing a lot of habits to achieve what needs to be done in agriculture in general. The way we are producing biofuels right now and the big push to convert land to corn production due to policies such as the 2007 mandate made things worse, to be sure.
Thanks again for a very interesting question and informative link.
Most technologies and agricultural production have the potential to cause environmental damage and so they can have disasterous consequences if not managed properly.
Interesting countervailing point about some biofuels is that their CO2 emissions can be captured more easily that those of hydrocarbon fuels.
Ethanol-based fuels come from food plants. Bio-fuels come from the same. The stupidity of using food for mechanical propulsion is one way to create more famine and less food for people to use for their own consumption and create biological energy.
It's been an absolute failure ever since some idiot invented the idea IMO.
Yes, bio-fuels an environmental disaster.
Even the EPA is starting to realize it --- and it's almost impossible to get those bone-heads to realize anything. http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/15/epa-sc...
-----------------------
NO= all non solids that rise into the upper atmoshere separate into nothingness by nature, since Global Warming has been turned off. Mike
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20131112/DAA11OTG2.html
