|
Farm-State Lawmakers, Others
Want Congress to Require a Bigger Boost in Ethanol
April 19, 2005 — By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Corn-based ethanol is
being pumped into more gas tanks every year, and farm-state senators
and a majority of governors want an even greater flow. They say an
energy bill Republicans are pushing through the House this week does
not go far enough to replace foreign oil with homegrown ethanol. The
legislation would require refiners to use 5 billion gallons of
corn-based ethanol a year by 2012, about 20 percent more than the
industry expects to produce this year. But governors from 30 states,
in a recent letter to President Bush and members of Congress, urged
lawmakers to boost the requirement to 8 billion gallons a year and
provide tax breaks and other federal help to spur production from
non-corn sources including grasses, wood chips and even garbage.
Rising oil imports are a major risk to the nation's energy, economic
and environmental security, the governors wrote, adding that expansion
of ethanol would be "the safest and cheapest way to mitigate these
risks." Transportation accounts for more than half of the U.S. thirst
for oil, about 56 percent of which comes from imports; that portion is
expected to be well over 60 percent by 2012. Bills were introduced in
the Senate and House last week calling for refiners to use 8 billion
gallons of ethanol as a gasoline additive each year. An attempt is
expected to be made to change the energy bill to reflect the higher
number when it comes up for House debate Wednesday, although prospects
of doing so are uncertain. Almost all ethanol now produced comes from
corn. A federal mandate for refiners to more than double its use over
the next seven years would be a major boon to farmers. While non-corn
ethanol from various biomass sources is widely talked about, a
practical and cost-effective process for producing it is still years
away. A coalition representing farmers, petroleum and environmental
interests generally agree on language that would require refiners to
use more ethanol as a gasoline additive, replacing a petroleum-based
oxygenate, MTBE, which is being phased out because it has been found
to contaminate drinking water. New York, Connecticut and California
banned MTBE in early 2004, resulting in a surge in ethanol demand and
production. Ethanol production more than doubled during the last five
years with dozens of new plants being built. About 4 billion gallons
of ethanol are expected to be produced this year, compared with 1.4
billion gallons annually a decade ago, according to the industry.
"We've proven we can grow rapidly. We've proven we can supply the
market," says Monte Shaw, a spokesman for the Renewable Fuels
Association, which represents ethanol producers. The group has vowed
to push Congress to adopt "the most aggressive" ethanol proposal
possible in energy legislation. Ethanol prices have declined sharply
in recent months, largely because of the rapid growth in supply and
few new markets. Shaw maintains that refiners are ignoring ethanol and
keeping the additive out of some markets where it is readily
available. The wholesale price of a gallon of ethanol is now about
$1.20, compared with $1.75 in January, according to the National Corn
Growers' Association. A requirement for 8 billion gallons a year has
more than 20 sponsors in the Senate and about the same number in the
House. While ethanol has widespread support among both Republicans and
Democrats in Congress as well as at the White House, the corn-based
fuel also has its detractors, among them lawmakers from California and
the Northeast. They have argued a mandate to use ethanol isn't needed
because refiners can produce gasoline that meets clean-air
requirements without it or MTBE. They fear requiring ethanol, which is
largely produced in the Midwest, will add to fuel costs where it is
not widely produced. "It's nothing more than a giveaway ... nothing
more than a welfare program" for farmers, Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y.,
said as he tried to strip the ethanol mandate of 5 billion gallons
from the House energy bill in committee last week. His effort was
easily defeated. Increasing the requirement beyond 5 billion gallons a
year may be just as difficult. The higher number is opposed by both
Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Rep. Joe Barton, both of Texas. Barton
will manage the energy legislation on the House floor, beginning
Wednesday. The oil industry also has vowed to vehemently oppose any
requirement beyond what's already in the bill. "It will drive up
costs, have minimal effect on petroleum imports, and force ethanol
into areas where it is uneconomical to be used," Ed Murphy, director
of refining and marketing at the American Petroleum Institute, said in
an interview. Ethanol's traditional farm-state supporters, however,
have been joined by a number of national security advocates who see
the domestically produced fuel as a way to curtail the reliance on oil
imports. Former CIA Director James Woolsey, for example, has been a
big booster of developing ethanol from non-corn sources. ------ On the
Net: Renewable Fuels Association:
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/ Governors' Ethanol Coalition:
http://www.ethanol-gec.org/
Source: Associated Press
|
|
Ethanol has been said to be the greatest case of welfare to farmers in
agricultural history. In addition to the energy sink character, there
is an ethical consideration as well. As is evident in the UK,
the government wants to increase the use of biodiesel. In overlooking
the science, a government mandate would literally require no food
production in Britain. "Fuel for nought;
to run our cars and buses and lorries on biodiesel would require 25.9
million hectares. There are 5.7 million ha in the UK. Even the EU's
more modest target of 20% by 2020 would consume almost all our
cropland."
"The adoption of biofuels would be a humanitarian and environmental
disaster", George Monbiot, The Guardian
(UK), November 23, 2004.
Click
here to read the Guardian article |