California's rules, Salazar said, will scare off investors and the investments needed to make biofuels viable, causing more use of oil. To continue advancements towards cellulosic ethanol – which reduces greenhouse emissions by 90% compared to gasoline – and make it more cost competitive, continued investment in corn ethanol is necessary, he said.
"You can't really get to the ultimate goal of cellulosic without this corn ethanol bridge," he said.
Hill countered that the ethanol industry has grown so fast that it has outpaced the science. The need for precaution is necessary, he said.
"If we are going to have policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the burden of proof should be on the fuels to fulfill that policy," Hill said.
"Right now, there is no clear data that shows corn ethanol has the effect of reducing greenhouse gas emission."
This article originally appeared at The Daily Climate, the climate change news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.
See what we're tweeting about
37 Comments
Add CommentCorn ethanol has been a political boondoggle from day 1. I find it even more amazing that the acknowledgment has finally come.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, the lights need to go on that fighting "Climate Change" is an even bigger boondoggle, waste of time and distraction.
This article is actually quite ironic: by forcing the PRO-AGW movement to look at hard numbers, they find that they have been misleading themselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAh, Derrrr!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt will be interesting to watch Monsanto fight this with every government official it owns.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou don't have to go as far as "indirect land-use effects" to show that corn ethanol is an abominable fuel from an environmental standpoint. Between fertilization, transportation, and processing, more petroleum products go into the production of corn ethanol than the resulting ethanol can offset. For example, the nitrogen fertilizer that is needed to grow corn (in the unfortunate way that it is grown in this country) is made from natural gas. It would be more efficient make electricity with that natural gas than to turn it into fertilizer to grow corn to turn into ethanol to burn to make electricity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCommenter Shoshin, I had assumed that once we took of the kid gloves (still worn on the right hand of this article) and removed the greenwashing from the ag industry (Happy Phil has it right), the science remaining would make some lights go on for people like you that we "Pro-AGW" people are scientists, that climate change is not a boondoggle. We have gotten rid of a bad apple, and you think the good apples are rottener? Where is your proof, or proposal for observation and analysis that will lead to your inference? I like neither unintentional nor intentional hyperbole, whether it comes from the corn lobby, or from individuals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow do you reconcile the fact that I lean Pro AGW but never accepted corn as a solution? I was never misleading myself on that.
it takes more than one gallon of gasoline to produce and deliver one gallon of ethanol. Google "Pimentel Ethanol" and read David Pimentel's (Cornell) analysis. Easy to understand. When all costs are acknowledged, including the federal subsidies ethanol enjoys, it seems like a no-brainer that ethanol is actually a net contributor to climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInquiringconstuctivist:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAGW is so wrong it is not even almost right. The British are now giving up on it.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/scarewatch/wet_office.pdf
Now, also please don't make the mistake that you accuse me of and assume that because I view AGW as a Grand Illusion that I don't care about the environment.
Because one rotten apple has been found, the light should go on to check for more, and be diligent, not accepting of what the supposed "experts" are telling us as they are clearly influenced by more worldly concerns, such as there research grants.
Nulius Verba (Don't take anyone's word for it; see for yourself).
shoshin: I just checked out your link. The author, christopher monckton, is a British neo-conservative nutcase with no scientific credentials whatsoever. He has a degree in journalism and has been a writer and editor for several tabloid newspapers. If this is your idea of an 'expert' it's easy to see why you are so confused on the subject of AGW.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisanother good reason we shall go with solar energy solution
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.dmsolar.com/
It's funny to read all of the climate change deniers jump to their feet yelling when they can twist any article into supporting their idiomatic and wrongheaded biases. But all this means is that the whole picture has to be considered. No mention is made of ethanol being a negative impactor on climate change, only that because farmers everywhere will jump on the bandwagon, that greenhouse sinks like rainforest might be destroyed. This is a failure of human nature, not of any climate change model I've ever seen. It does affirm that the world climate as a whole has to be considered and actions one place offset actions elsewhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is one instance where a carbon trading system would make it more economically viable to keep the rainforest than burn it. So there is an easy solution.
Why is this a surprise? Left-leaning Consumer Reports did a report a year or two ago, on the front cover no less, called "The Ethanol Myth". Lefties are still trying to get a square peg into a round hole and screaming at anyone who says it doesn't fit that they must be on the payroll of an oil company or just hates the environment, etc...I shall enjoy watching you lefties get your comeuppance, with the poor leading the way, because you've raised food prices with this foolishness for no benefit other than your control over others..aka tyranny...wow, leftists and tyranny going hand-in-hand yet again! Who'd a thunk it?!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCommenter Shoshin, I never assumed you don't care about the environment...You care enough to read about it, and that is good enough for me to consider your proposals. Where in my comment did I "assume that you don't care about the environment"? Scientific thinking helps remove such paranoia by reconciling one's thoughts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNext, commenter Mithremakor may be right about the bent of the author of the reference, but what is more important to us as scientists is that the argument in the "wet office" paper is laughingly simplistic and cherry-picking. I really love (in a pitying way) the "hey look, there were two slopes pre WWI that matched post WWII" argument; I think my high school students would do better than that. To show that I am fair, I will show a pro-AGW argument that is equally tenuous in the use of colored lines as telling trends, using the exact same graph of annual mean temperatures since 1850:
http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/global-temperature.html
Careful scientific analysis has only recently brought to high confidence the fact that anthropogenic forcings are not the only forcings but are a necessary part to explain the total warming. Non-anthropogenic forcings do exist, and Shoshin's references seem to be so simplistic that they can only accept one or the other in the world, as if humans could only do things that nature couldn't and vice versa. We can see from much more careful models that both nature and humans can change the world side by side.
Also, the article referenced by Shoshin serves to frighten its readers by confusing 1) the conclusion that past warming was anthropogenic with 2) the prediction that future warming will be catastrophic and 3) that humans will contribute to that future warming. All three are separate hypotheses, but rabid people on either side will conflate them. The first is now settled to very high confidence. The second and third are very reasonable. All are independent, not to be conflated.
This is brilliant! It only took them something like fifteen years more or less to come to the conclusion that was obvious, and that most unbiased scientists were telling them, back when the idea was first being seriously considered.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat really gets my goad is that they came to this conclusion for the wrong reason(s)! According to them, If increased production of corn-based ethanol in the U.S. raises corn prices and accelerates the conversion of rainforests and conservations lands to farmland worldwide, greenhouse emissions and loss of the carbon sink associated with such deforestation and disruption must be counted towards the biofuel's total emissions. Although I am sure this is at least in part true, the fact is that if you consider the total process of making corn ethanol and factoring in the lower BTU of it compared to gasoline, it actually creates more, Greenhouse Gases, than the production and use of gasoline does without even taking into consideration the factors mentioned in this article.
This is brilliant! It only took them something like fifteen years more or less to come to the conclusion that was obvious, and that most unbiased scientists were telling them, back when the idea was first being seriously considered.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat really gets my goad is that they came to this conclusion for the wrong reason(s)! According to them, “If increased production of corn-based ethanol in the U.S. raises corn prices and accelerates the conversion of rainforests and conservations lands to farmland worldwide, greenhouse emissions and loss of the carbon sink associated with such deforestation and disruption must be counted towards the biofuel's total emissions.” Although I am sure this is at least in part true, the fact is that if you consider the total process of making corn ethanol and factoring in the lower BTU of it compared to gasoline, it actually creates more, ‘Greenhouse Gases’, than the production and use of gasoline does without even taking into consideration the factors mentioned in this article.
Weird, on second reading of the article referenced in comment 8 by Shoshin, I notice that the article proposes anthropogenic global warming, just that it isn't going to be catastrophic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy did Shoshin imply that the reference shows that the British are "giving up" on AGW, when the author of the article clearly agrees with the British meteorological officer's assertion that the scientific evidence for AGW is "overwhelming"?
I realize we make all sorts of confused comments here, and now I won't trust any of them even to represent the thoughts of the commenters themselves.
Mithremakor:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNobody said the the author conducted the research. He just reported it, as journalists are supposed to do.
As to your slurs upon his character, I find those tactics typical of an eco-fascist reactionary. Not that I'm saying that you are an eco-fascist reactionary intent on muzzling and discrediting anyone who disagrees with you. I just find that eco-fascists do that type of thing.
InquiringConstructivist:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI noticed those lines as well. I found them disconcerting, but not for the reason of the obvious contradiction.
What bothered me the most is that the first part of the article states strongly and without reservation that global warming effects are blown out of proportion. The last lines struck me as a disclaimer, designed to get the author back onside with politics. Chilling.
The issue is not whether global warming occurs (it does, has and will again) as does global cooling (which also does, has and will again). The issue is whether it is part of a natural cycle or whether it is being blown out of proportion into a political movement where science is manipulated and abused for the sake of ideology.
I think that article makes the strong case that politics and dogma have replaced reason.
I have a couple of questions for you members of the church of Global Warming:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1.) What is the best(corret) temperature for the Earth?
2.) Is this temperature alos the best for the human species?
3.) At what point in the history of the Earth (pre-human industry) was this best temperature ever maintained for a sigificant period of time?
Thanks for your informed responses,
James
Sorry to rain on your parade, but the "solar energy solution" is just as much pie-in-the-sky as the
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbio-mass solution";
We got no choice but to (1) start a massive program to construct nuclear reactors and convert all static (non-moving) energy users to electric, (2) convert all short-haul vehicles ("station cars", etc.) to electric, (3) convert all railway trains to electric and, finally, (4) start seriously limiting population growth, with the goal of reversing in as soon as possible...
If we don't embrace artificial population control we'll get the "natural" kind: famine, disease, war...
JamesF:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am a Conservative that does not buy into this global warming hoax, but I will answer your questions with a question.
What does any of your questions have to do with global warming or whether and how much corn ethanol contributes to it?
Also a comment:
Learn how to spell.
California happens to be illuminating a key aspect of the legislative process here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany laws are crafted based on the "known" evils of some item or circumstance and attempt to enforce particular remedies. In most cases these remedies have not been widely adopted. Since the solutions are not in wide-spread use, the effectiveness, or efficacy, of the solution has never been accurately determined. Not only may the cure not actually cure the disease, but in some cases the cure could actually be worse than the disease. This is the essence of the law of unintended consequences.
This should be the primary argument against the government ever doing anything "fast". If people individually make a rash decision, they suffer the consequences. If a government makes rash decisions, we all suffer.
I apologize for mis-spelling two words. I am sure most posters using a keyboard have never had a typo...I guess that makes my questions invalid?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as what do my questions have to do with corn ethanol...if the fundemental reason for even discussing the subject is, as you said, a "hoax", then that makes the whole conversation pointless. These are questions that every global warming believer should be made to answer in every forum possible.
As far as what these questions have to do with global warming ... if, as I believe, there is not a correct temperature for Earth, then why is there all of this hysteria surrounding a change in the temperature? Many parts of the world would actually welcome an increase in temperature, as it would lengthen the growing season, and increase the farmable area.
Er... Scientific American? This article keeps saying "biofuel" but only talks about corn ethanol. FYI: "biofuel" is a broad category. It does not equal corn ethanol. I think you know that. I wonder why nobody in your editing process caught it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf this subject concerns you be sure to read this too:http://www.goveg.com/environment-globalWarming.asp
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Animal agriculture is the leading source of methane and nitrous oxide emissions, whichcombined with carbon dioxidecauses the vast majority of global warming."
You don't have to become a vegetarian but you should know the facts, which may lead you to consider it...
Some things look green, but are in fact dark (not a racist comment, of course)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisshoshin: The author not only reported the research, he drew his own conclusions and formatted the data to support them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is not a good sign that it took this long for people to figure it out. Just because we can make biofuel, it doesn't mean we should. The reality is that we will be fueling the same inefficient internal combustion engine. No matter how you fuel the internal combustion engine, at least %60 of the energy will be converted to heat, not motion. To paraphrase an old adage, we can't see the corn field for the kernel. To all the biofuel enthusiasts out there I have one question, "What is the power source for the corn field?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe SUN dammit!
Skip the middle man and go to the source. The formula is so simple, the sun hits the solar panel, the solar panel converts photons to electrons, electrons are transported at the speed of light to an electric motor with one moving part where 90% of those electrons are translated into useful motion. I know that there are other steps in this process but this is essentially correct.
The only reason this is being debated is because of special interest groups not human interest groups. In this case, the squeaky wheel really does get the grease.
Solar Energy is not a pie-in-the-sky in the sky solution. Going nuclear means that we are tied to a centralized grid not a distributed grid. It also means that we will continue being tied to absurd energy conglomerates. Solar production has improved dramatically with a new "thin film printing process" for manufacturing panels. Solar panel efficiency has past 40% conversion. Forget solar farms, think solar roof tops. We cannot ignore 130 watts/sq ft of sunlight hitting the earth as a viable energy solution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the last century, science has been hard pressed to find an alternative to fossil fuel. It was readily available and cost effective from the start. It also has the greatest energy density by volume than any other fuel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlthough there are alternatives, they fall well short of the potential of petrol. Solar for instance, so called free energy, is not free by any stretch of the imagination. The cells themselves are initially expensive and are not nearly as efficient as we really need them to be. They also have a relatively short life expectancy as well. Then there are the peripheral components that are required to condition, store and ultimately deliver the power. All of which create losses as well.
Even though we often hear of new breakthroughs in technology making the cells more efficient and capable of delivering more power per square meter, the product will take much time to get to market.
Wind energy, although viable in some places as a supplement, again faces the same problems of loss through peripheral management and delivery systems and initial cost versus time of return. It is further hindered by being sporadic.
As I see it we as a global community must first do away with the stigma of electric vehicles as being inferior and realize that the majority of our driving is to and from work and the grocer. Look at any major street or highway during commuter hours. You can plainly see that there are more single occupancy vehicles toting people to and from, than carpoolers or people taking mass transit.
Which brings me to my next point of contention.
The bus, in the U.S. public transportation is appallingly inadequate in all but the largest cities. Many areas only offer services that go to shopping centers and entirely neglect getting people to work! I could rant further, but I will refrain.
To sum up, I believe we need pebble bed reactors compounded with all current alternative energy sources and better public transportation to really make a true difference in the amount of petrol we use.
mithremakor:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, I see, an author who comments on something should be muzzled as well. Thanks for clarifying your position.
A number of states mandated the use of ethanol in gasoline. Now we “suddenly” find out it wasn’t so smart for the environment or the consumer, although rudimentary analysis at the time clearly showed the flaws. However, the politicians figure they could get themselves re-elected by pandering to “greens” and lobbyists. Now these same self serving politicians are mandating the use of renewable energy (particularly wind) to bale out an industry that can not compete and only marginally deals with greenhouse gases. Take a look at wind generation and energy consumption as a function of time. In most places, not so smart a choice if you are required to use wind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems That the corn lobby has always been involved in accelerating the production and bringing to market the product of corn ethanol, Never mind the return on energy invested.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the faster we move towards creating a decentralized electric grid , one where end line consumers can also become producers, the sooner we'll see an environmental revolution by way of economies of scale. Lots of small producers uploading energy, which is used locally first, and then distributed beyond the local grid on an open market place. Imagine the possibility of trading energy with efficiency being rewarded and transmission line loss being accounted for in that transaction! Imagine all the equipment that GE could sell to the average consumer. The smart grid could be a lot smarter if it opened an energy marketplace.
Finally, someone willing to speak about an alternative to corn based biofule alternative. I also noted no comments were provided regarding the DIRECT cost of food of continued use of corn and the anticipated increase of ethanol percentage in gasoline.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince extremists have managed, or soon will manage to have carbon dioxide declared a polutant, I'm wondering if we humans will have to wear meters to monitor or exhaled carbon imprint.
Al Gore does not that, or any other credential.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGore, one who lamblasts profit making at every opportunity and made a nice mountain of profits from his efforts.
Funny how this forum so quickly degenerated into an AGW vs. skeptics mud slinging. I'm a skeptic myself but I also run my house on solar and wind power and drive an LPG car. For me, the overriding issue is the world's still growing dependence on fossil fuels((which are going to run out)and the addiction to technologies which rely on petroleum. If we take the idea of global warming out of the equation momentarily, the are still compelling reasons to develop alternative, clean technologies that don't produce the many other pollutants that an internal combustion engine does. Ethanol won't change that much. Regardless of the DEBATE, alternative, renewable technologies that significantly reduce total pollutants can only be a positive thing for us. This article shows me that someone is finally taking this issue seriously by taking the whole picture into account. Arny seems to be on the nose politically but as far as I'm concerned, He's the one showing real leadership in the quest for greener energy solutions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany in science did not support the use of corn--a FOOD CROP--to produce fuel. Wrong plant, but the corn market needed a boost, so many jumped on the ethanol bandwagon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNative switchgrass is a rational crop to use for fuel in North America....can in parts of So. America.
We have wasted way too much time already!
And folks like Shoshin hold everyone back from recognizing realities and seeking solutions.