In America’s long search for energy independence, ethanol has been hyped as its Holy Grail. Ethanol is a fuel that can be made from fermented corn kernels. It is an eco-friendly alternative at the pumps. States like Maryland have set up pumps where ethanol is 85 percent of the gas mixture. Legislation passed in June mandating the production of 8.5 billion gallons of ethanol by 2012. Although on the surface these actions seem to boost the American farming economy and rid the U.S. of its energy problems, the truth is far from it. The underlying implications are already being felt.
Corn is in higher demand than ever. This past year, production has increased 50 percent; demand has increased the cost of corn, sending the market out of balance. Livestock farmers depend on corn for animal feed, driving up the cost of milk and meat. So instead of Americans feeling the pinch at the pumps, they’ll now feel it at the local grocery market.
A limit also exists on the potential ethanol production. If half of the existing annual corn production was converted into ethanol, it would only meet 12 percent of our current energy need, and consumptions rise exponentially each year. Land set aside for farming corn has already grown 10 percent. There is simply not enough land to go around.
Also, pollution and nonrenewable resource consumption are not as reduced as it might appear. There is still gasoline burned in the ethanol production process to power the trackers and carry out the necessary combustions.
Alternative ethanols made out of wood, soybeans, and sugar cane still have the same inherent flaws.
In order for progress to be made, one must challenge the status quo by researching viable solutions instead of funding ones that clearly are not. Currently, solar panels are being improved with carbon nanotubes to harvest more sunlight. The sun provides the earth with all its energy; using the Earth’s original energy source to meet our energy needs would be the most efficient method.
However, there also needs to be change in behavior. To apply the Jevons Paradox, if you increase the efficiency of energy usage, consumers may begin to use more energy, meaning that there may be no net decrease in energy consumption. For example, someone buys a hybrid that gets double the gas mileage, but then drives it twice as often.
A tax on nonrenewable fuel, though controversial, could easily raise the funds for research in alternative energy while simultaneously curbing energy consumption.
Lastly, and most importantly, there is a need to diversify our energy supply. America is vulnerable because it depends on one energy source. It is not only dependence on nonrenewable fuels that creates this vulnerability. Imagine if ethanol were viable and the nation used it as its sole energy source. What would happen if the corn crop was killed by a virus or drought? This can be avoided by using multiple sources of energy.
Regardless of political party affiliation, the goal of obtaining a clean reusable energy source that bolsters the U.S. economy and establishes greater international political freedom is an ideal that most of us share; however, it is clear that a lot of work still remains in making this goal a reality.
Editor’s Note: “The Elephant’s Peanut Gallery” and “Liberal Bias” run biweekly and are opinion columns granted by the Editorial Board to the College Republicans and the College Democrats.
