Is corn boom expanding Gulf of Mexico’s ‘dead zone’? Some fear an ethanol-fueled harvest in the Midwest may be behind the hard times for marine life at the other end of the Mississippi River
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on June 4, 2008 at 5:46 amFrom the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune:
Last fall, the farm fields of the Midwest yielded record profits and the greatest corn crop in recent history. But there may have been an unintended consequence hundreds of miles to the south: As the corn grew, so did the size of the “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico.
The dead zone is a low-oxygen area virtually uninhabitable by marine life. It emerges in the spring and summer, created in large part by high nitrogen levels and other nutrients such as phosphorus. Its size varies: Last year it was about as big as Massachusetts.
Recent studies suggest that a prime driver for the dead zone — or hypoxia — is farm-field runoff from the Mississippi River basin, although cities also play a role, contributing municipal, industrial and lawn and garden runoff.
Now, with the growing season underway, Congress late last month passed a major five-year farm bill over President Bush’s veto. It includes an increase in funds for conservation, which could keep some additional land out of production and rein in some runoff. Market conditions, however, appear to favor production.
Read more on this story from the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune by clicking here.
New trend in biofuels has new risks
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on May 21, 2008 at 6:01 amFrom the New York Times:
In the past year, as the diversion of food crops like corn and palm to make biofuels has helped to drive up food prices, investors and politicians have begun promoting newer, so-called second-generation biofuels as the next wave of green energy. These, made from non-food crops like reeds and wild grasses, would offer fuel without the risk of taking food off the table, they said.
But now, biologists and botanists are warning that they, too, may bring serious unintended consequences. Most of these newer crops are what scientists label invasive species — that is, weeds — that have an extraordinarily high potential to escape biofuel plantations, overrun adjacent farms and natural land, and create economic and ecological havoc in the process, they now say.
At a United Nations meeting in Bonn, Germany, on Tuesday, scientists from the Global Invasive Species Program, the Nature Conservancy and the International Union for Conservation of Nature, as well as other groups, presented a paper with a warning about invasive species.
“Some of the most commonly recommended species for biofuels production are also major invasive alien species,” the paper says, adding that these crops should be studied more thoroughly before being cultivated in new areas.
Controlling the spread of such plants could prove difficult, the experts said, producing “greater financial losses than gains.” The International Union for Conservation of Nature encapsulated the message like this: “Don’t let invasive biofuel crops attack your country.”
Some of these alternative plants can be as bad if not worse than corn. Case in point:
The European Union is funding a project to introduce the “giant reed, a high-yielding, non-food plant into Europe Union agriculture,” according to its proposal. The reed is environmentally friendly and a cost-effective crop, poised to become the “champion of biomass crops,” the proposal says. A proposed Florida biofuel plantation and plant, also using giant reed, has been greeted with enthusiasm by investors, its energy sold even before it is built.
But the project has been opposed by the Florida Native Plants Society and a number of scientists because of its proximity to the Everglades, where giant reed overgrowth could be dangerous, they said. The giant reed, previously used mostly in decorations and in making musical instruments — is a fast-growing, thirsty species that has drained wetlands and clogged drainage systems in other places where it has been planted. It is also highly flammable and increases the risk of fires.
Read the full text of this story from the New York Times by clicking here.
Is Ethanol Getting a Bum Rap? Corn-based fuel isn’t the villain critics contend, but shifting to other crops is critical
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on May 3, 2008 at 8:15 amFrom Business Week:
Ethanol is taking a tumble. Once hyped as a magic brew for reducing both oil addiction and global warming, alcohol made from corn kernels is now being accused both of triggering a global food crisis and doing more ecological harm than good. Ethanol critics, ranging from environmental groups to pig farmers facing high feed prices, blame mandates from Washington and Brussels stating that billions of gallons of fuel must come from ethanol or other plant-based fuels. These critics are now fighting to get those laws repealed. “What started as an energy policy is leading to spreading hunger and political instability around the world,” charges Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute. Companies are piling on, too. The Grocery Manufacturers of America has substantially stepped up its lobbying efforts to reduce the corn in gasoline.
There are grains of truth in this backlash, experts say. “There are bad biofuels and good biofuels,” says Daniel Sperling, director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California at Davis. Corn-based ethanol ranks as mediocre. Yet it is only a minor cause of high food prices, and better biofuels are on the horizon. The transition to these superior fuels will get a boost from policies now being developed, with California leading the way.
First, a reality check on corn ethanol, which isn’t quite the villain critics make it out to be. Last year, American farmers grew a record 13.1 billion bushels of corn on 85 million acres. Of that, 22% went to make about 7 billion gallons of ethanol. That still left enough corn to supply the domestic market, increase exports to record levels, and stockpile a 10% surplus. McKinsey principal Bill Caesar estimates farmers will be able to keep increasing corn-based ethanol production to 15 billion gallons in 2015 (a level of output mandated by federal policy) without reducing the amount going for food and feed, and without increasing acres planted. The secret: continuing improvements in yields.
Of course, it’s impossible to divert nearly one-quarter of the corn crop to fuel without causing prices to rise. Corn is now around $5.50 per bushel, more than double its price in 2005. But this has had a relatively small impact on the broader runup in global food prices. Higher corn costs add 2 cents to a box of corn flakes, or 11 cents to a gallon of milk from corn-fed cows. Corn prices have little to do with the increases in rice and wheat, and only a small connection to soybean price jumps. “Biofuels are a very, very small factor” in rising food costs, says David Morris, vice-president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a nonprofit group that tries to strengthen communities politically and economically around the world. Absent corn ethanol, food prices would still be up dramatically because of soaring global demand, fast-rising prices for oil and natural gas used to make fertilizer, and climatic factors such as Australia’s drought. It’s also worth noting that these high crop prices save taxpayers billions of dollars in reduced subsidies to farmers—far more than is spent to subsidize ethanol.
The one thing this article fails to mention is that corn is a very water-intensive plant, and with water shortages predicted in at least 36 states in the upcoming years, do we really want to be using water for this purpose? The main point of this article, however, is that there are better crops that can be used for biofuels: “the key is to speed up the transition from corn to crops that offer more benefits.”
The water issue regarding ethanol is rarely reported; click here for an article on ethanol production & water. Meanwhile, Bush recently defended his ethanol policy, saying “it makes sense for America to be growing energy.”
Read the full text of this article from Business Week by clicking here.
Smart biofuel policies and global warming: what California can learn from other states
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on April 1, 2008 at 5:31 amFrom the California Progress Report:
In the search for alternatives to oil, biofuels have emerged as a promising answer to wean us off our oil addiction. By some estimates, biofuels could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 1.7 billion tons per year, be cost competitive with gasoline and provide a major source of revenue for farmers.
However, not all biofuels are created equal and the rapid rush to develop biofuels is beginning to show some dangerous trends. Biofuel material is being grown on protected lands, fuel production is competing with food production, and recent data seems to indicate that almost all biofuels used today in the United States cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels when the full emissions costs of producing the biofuel is taken into account.
We now turn to some of the problems with biofuel production and how states can implement smart policy to ensure sustainable biofuel development.
Biofuels are a type of fuel made from plants and other forms of biomass. The two main forms of biofuels are ethanol and biodiesel. Ethanol is made from a variety of materials, including sugar cane, corn, trees, grass and even municipal solid waste. Cellulose, which makes up a majority of a plant’s structure, can be broken down into sugars, which can then be converted into ethanol.Most of the ethanol produced in the United States is from corn. According to the National Corn Grower’s Association, 1.8 billion bushels of corn were used to produce 4.9 billion gallons of renewable fuel. Ethanol production consumes 20% of the corn crop in the U.S. and the new federal energy legislation, which mandates a doubling of ethanol made from corn, is predicted to increase that amount to one third of the total corn crop. Yet, environmentalists are seriously concerned with the heavy dependence on corn-based ethanol.
The myopic focus on only developing corn-based ethanol is leading our alternative fuels into a bad direction. Corn-based ethanol is among the least efficient, most polluting, and overall least sustainable biofuel feedstock. In contrast, Brazil has been very successful in developing an efficient ethanol source from sugarcane, which, unlike corn in the U.S., has a higher energy return.
The author is not arguing against biofuels, but rather is recommending people take another look. A hastily crafted biofuel policy could cause more problems than it will fix. Some states have implemented sensible biofules policies, some have not. Find out more by reading the rest of this comprehensive article from the California Progress Report by clicking here.
The folly of biofuels: agribusiness and politicians could suck the country dry with biofuel mandates
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on March 24, 2008 at 6:15 am
From AlterNet:
With corn selling at record-high prices, Steve Albracht expects to have no trouble paying his electric bills this year. Albracht irrigates 1,000 acres of corn near the town of Hart in the Texas Panhandle and expects to shell out $180 to $240 per acre to run his pumps through the spring and summer. “In this area,” says Albracht, “the water table has dropped, but nobody’s cutting back on watering yet. There’s still plenty down there.”
Albracht won the 2005 National Corn Yield Contest in the “irrigated” category, producing a whopping 352 bushels per acre. In a region that gets an average of less than 18 inches of rain annually, Albracht and his neighbors apply anywhere from 28 inches to more than 3 feet of water to their corn each year. With the prospect of a highly profitable harvest, Albracht says he can afford to water generously this year. And he’ll need to, he says, “because it’s been a dry winter.”
For once, times are good in the High Plains. Corn and other grains are selling like precious metals, and there is every reason to believe that prices will stay high. At the heart of the boom is the U.S. government’s decision to rely on corn-based ethanol to meet a big part of the nation’s demand for “renewable” fuels.
Most recent controversy over ethanol has focused on the its poor energy return; in growing corn and turning it into ethanol, you have to burn three calories to get four. With prices of fuel and other inputs rising fast, corn farmers won’t be getting rich (except for those who happen to have oil wells on their property.) But selling their corn for such high prices, they can afford to sow more acres and burn more propane, diesel or electricity to pump more water than ever. A torrent of cash will be flowing through the nation’s corn-growing regions, but the biggest price will be paid in water.
Ethanol production burns three calories to make four; not a good return on investment. And while the price of corn is rising, farmers won’t necessarily get rich, but they’ll have money to sow more acres and buy the fuel that will pump ‘more water than ever’.
To hear agribusiness boosters and politicians tell it, corn-based ethanol is a miraculous solution to the nation’s hunger for liquid fuels. But as miracles go, it’s not all that impressive. When Jesus, according to Biblical reports, converted approximately 150 gallons of water into an equivalent quantity of wine, his conversion rate was about a cup of ethanol per gallon of water invested (given the typical alcohol content of wine). Compare that to current processes that use irrigated corn as their carbon source and get less than a teaspoon of ethanol for each gallon of water consumed.
In dry areas of the High Plains where irrigation is the most crucial to corn production and the ethanol-to-water ratio even lower, agriculture is dependent on a one-time drawing of groundwater that hasn’t seen daylight for 11,000 years or more. The vast Ogallala aquifer, stretching from not far south of Steve Albracht’s Texas farm all the way up into South Dakota, is being mined at a rate that, in some areas, will drain it sometime in the relatively near future — at least before the oil wells of the Persian Gulf run dry.
The Ogallala was trapped underneath the High Plains around the time of the last ice age. The formation holds enough ancient water to fill Lake Huron, the second-greatest of the Great Lakes — or at least it did before being exploited for agriculture. In the High Plains, raising a single bushel of irrigated corn slurps up 2,000 to 3,000 gallons of water, and more corn than ever is being raised there.
Read the rest of this story from AlterNet by clicking here.
Photo of corn plants by flickr photographer MarS.