The article in the Globe and Mail on “
Climate change’s costs hit the plate” is a prime example of putting the cart before the horse. Its author, T. Homer-Dixon, blames the current rise in corn prices on global warming.
No doubt the recent drought throughout much of the North American continent has decreased anticipated agricultural yields. Some farm fields have shriveled away entirely, but why is a loss of-- say 10% of the average annual production of corn, such a problem that it causes prices to double in short order?
The Al Gore Cause
Al Gore promoted the idea of “growing fuel”, more specifically, planting more corn and converting it to ethanol for admixture to gasoline. The idea was to produce less carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuels and thereby mitigating global warming (supposedly caused by CO2). The U.S. and Canadian governments were willing listeners and enacted bio-ethanol mandates requiring initially a 5% and more recently a 10% bio-ethanol concentration in gasoline. The U.S. government is currently considering raising that level yet again to 15% bio-ethanol.
Where does this bio-ethanol come from? Currently, on this continent, almost exclusively from corn!
Even with the current level of 10% bio-ethanol in the gasoline, an estimated 40% of the continent’s corn production is being converted to this automotive fuel additive! The idea of “cellulosic” bio-ethanol-- that is ethanol produced from products like corn stalks and husks is just a technological pipe dream at this time.
Food Consequences
As a consequence of the corn-to-ethanol mandate, farmers planted corn in every nook and cranny possible. Previously fallow and marginal fields were all planted with corn. However, that increased acreage could not possibly compensate for the diversion to fuel.
The corn-to-ethanol mandate essentially reduced the corn available for the traditional food and feed purposes to 60% of what was the norm. Increasing the bio-ethanol level to 15% in fuel will only exacerbate the problem.
Automotive Consequences
The bio-ethanol mandate has automotive consequences as well, especially the planned increase to a level of 15% ethanol (E-85) in gasoline. The reasons are technical and chemical.
Ethanol is a great solvent. Many materials (even aluminum metal components in car engines) are slowly dissolved by it. That is why car manufacturers have warned that their existing warranties would become void if E-85 gasoline were to be used.
Energy Consequences
From a fuel-energy point of view, the ethanol mandate is doing just the opposite of what is being hoped for by the proponents of that idea. Instead of reducing overall fuel consumption, it will increase it, by more than the percent level of ethanol. The reason is that ethanol, chemically speaking, is already partially burnt gasoline. Therefore, if your vehicle requires a certain amount of horsepower to move your load at a given speed and terrain, it will consume much more of E-85 type gasoline than gasoline free of ethanol.
Apart from all the negative consequences noted above, the original idea of reducing the need for crude oil imports by converting corn to bio-ethanol for fuel is fatally flawed. A
study by UC Berkeley geo-engineering professor Tad W. Patzek in 2005 concluded that:
“Ethanol Production Consumes Six Units of Energy to Produce Just One”
As Alan Caruba noted in a
recent post in Canada Free Press, “it takes a long time to rid the world of a really bad idea.” The bio-ethanol mandate is just one of those really bad ideas. It was based on faulty energy analysis, political grand-standing and environmental group-think. Even
Al Gore has recognized it as a bad idea.
As to Dr. Homer-Dixon’s article, it requires a special globally-warmed-adaptive mind to blame the increased corn price solely on the current hot and dry weather and totally forget the much larger impact of the diversion of this staple to fuel.
