skip to main |
skip to sidebar
As Corn Devours U.S. Prairies, Greens Reconsider Biofuel Mandate
By Jennifer A Dlouhy of Bloomberg. Excerpt:
"Environmentalists who once championed biofuels as a way to cut
pollution are now turning against a U.S. program that puts renewable
fuels in cars, citing higher-than-expected carbon dioxide emissions and
reduced wildlife habitat.
More than a decade after
conservationists helped persuade Congress to require adding corn-based
ethanol and other biofuels to gasoline, some groups regret the resulting
agricultural runoff in waterways and conversion of prairies to cropland
-- improving the odds that lawmakers might seek changes to the program
next year.
"The big green groups that got invested in biofuels are
tacitly realizing the blunder," said John DeCicco, a research professor
at the University of Michigan Energy Institute who previously focused
on automotive strategies at the Environmental Defense Fund. "It’s really
hard for the people who really -- shall we say -- hate oil viscerally,
to think that this alternative that we’ve been promoting is today worse
than oil."
The green backlash
could give a boost to long-stalled congressional efforts to overhaul
the Renewable Fuel Standard, including proposals to limit the amount of
traditional, corn-based ethanol that counts toward the mandate, as
environmentalists side with anti-hunger groups and even the oil industry
in calling for change. The RFS forces refiners to blend steadily
escalating amounts of biofuel into the gas supply. Most of the mandate
is currently fulfilled by corn-based ethanol, which makes up nearly 10
percent of U.S. gasoline and provides oxygen that helps the fuel burn
cleaner.
Broken Promise
The Natural Resources Defense Council used a 96-page report in
2004 to proclaim boundless biofuel benefits: slashed global warming
emissions, improved air quality and more wildlife habitat.
Instead,
farmers plowed millions of acres of prairie grasses to grow corn for
making ethanol, with fertilizer runoff contributing to a dead zone in
the Gulf of Mexico. Scientists warned that carbon dioxide emissions
associated with corn-based ethanol were higher than expected. And
alternatives using switchgrass, algae and other non-edible plant
materials have been slow to penetrate the market.
"The ethanol policy was sold to environmentalists as something that
was going to clean up the environment, and it’s done anything but," said
Democratic Representative Peter Welch of Vermont, who is co-sponsoring
legislation to revamp the RFS. "It’s truly been a flop. The
environmental promise has been transformed into an environmental
detriment."
‘Unintended Consequences’
The Environmental
Working Group, Clean Air Task Force and Friends of the Earth argue that
the program has propelled corn-based ethanol without delivering a
similar boost to advanced biofuels with potentially bigger climate
benefits.
Collin O’Mara, president of the National Wildlife Federation, told
a House committee last month that the RFS program, created with "good
intentions," has instead wreaked "severe, unintended consequences,"
including the loss of prairie land and water-supply damage that
threatens wildlife.
Even the NRDC that once lobbied for the RFS bemoans
that "the bulk of today’s conventional corn ethanol carries grave risks
to the climate, wildlife, waterways and food security." In NRDC’s
"OnEarth" magazine, an essay
headlined "Played for a Fuel" argues that corn-based ethanol isn’t
sustainable because it requires "huge amounts" of water, fertilizer and
land.
NRDC spokesman Ed Chen said the group continues to monitor
the RFS "because low-carbon cellulosic biofuels can play an important
role in reducing transportation pollution,” but added that the
organization is “far more focused” on other carbon-cutting strategies
with more immediate climate payoffs."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.