Green Options

Like this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and stay up to date.

One year, my father got my daughter a subscription to Your Big Backyard, published by the National Wildlife Federation. Unfortunately, this was at the height of her girly princess stage, and she barely gave the magazine any notice. The other day she found an old copy in the car, and she was very interested in it. Perhaps this newfound interest is from her ability to read or perhaps it is simply maturity, but she was excited to find a recipe in Your Big Backyard. She read me the entire recipe in the car, and Eco Dad made it on the weekend. It was very good corn chowder and easy to make. As always, we used organically grown ingredients.

Organic, Vegetarian Corn Chowder

Melt in a medium saucepan:

• 2 Tablespoons butter (use oil for a vegan version)

Add and cook until softened (about five minutes)

• 1 chopped large onion
• 1 chopped bell pepper
• 1/2 cup thinly sliced celery

Add and cook for another five minutes:

• 4 cups fresh or frozen corn
• 1/2 teaspoon basil
• 1/2 teaspoon rosemary
• 1/2 teaspoon salt
• pepper to taste

Biofuels are increasingly lumped into a single category of environmentally apocalyptic dead-end solutions. As the food vs. fuel debate rages on, it’s no wonder that the general public believes this.

But not all biofuels are created equal, as the chart above illustrates (click the image to see full size). It’s one of the best depictions I’ve seen of how each biofuel feedstock has completely different impacts on overall greenhouse gas emissions, water and pesticide use, and the energy required to produce the fuel. (Click on the chart for the full image)

Today’s post is by Dr. Bill Chameides, dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment and lead author of the forthcoming blog The Green Grok. This is the second post in a 2-part series on biofuels.

Last week’s topic was why corn ethanol is an environmental loser.

But are all biofuels losers? No. Some can be winners. One of those is called cellulosic ethanol.

What Is Cellulosic Ethanol?

All ethanol — whether it is corn or cellulosic — is the same chemical compound: C2H5OH. You might recall from elementary chemistry courses that the “OH” group at the end of the formula indicates that the compound is an “alcohol.” Alcohols can have varying numbers of carbon atoms. Alcohol with two carbon atoms is called “ethanol.” The other alcohols are generally too toxic to be ingested, and thus ethanol has been the libation of choice down through the ages. (Ethanol used as fuel is rendered nonpotable.)

So corn ethanol and cellulosic ethanol don’t signify different types of ethanol, but rather the different material (or feedstocks) used to produce them.

The U.S.’s rush to grow corn for fuel has already been blamed for rising food costs that are pricing the world’s poor into hunger and malnutrition. But the high cost of corn is having another unintended consequence: a plunge in biofuel plants’ profit margins.

About one-fourth of all corn grown in the U.S. is now cultivated for fuel rather than for food. Meanwhile, the growing demand for both food and fuel is driving commodity prices for crops like corn to record highs. That means, even with the federal government’s generous subsidies for ethanol production, today’s biofuel profits aren’t what they used to be.

Written by Dr. Bill Chameides, dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment and lead author of the forthcoming blog The Green Grok.
This post is Part 1 of a 2-part series on biofuels. Today’s post looks at corn; Part 2 will examine the most promising biofuels.

Who doesn’t want to be green? But beware of automobile ads claiming environmental benefits from home-grown ethanol. Almost all U.S. ethanol comes from corn and, as a fuel, corn just isn’t as “amaizing” as they say.

“What if we could live green by going yellow?” one TV spot asks. “What if we could lower greenhouse gas emissions,” it continues, promisingly, “with a fuel that grew back every year?” Sounds great doesn’t it? Sorry folks, it’s just not so.

Currently, the average price for a gallon of E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) is $2.67. That’s amazing if you think about it, since a gallon of ethanol requires about 16 lbs. of corn to produce.

Take a look at this interactive map to see what E85 costs in your area.

Via: gas2.org

Despite intense debate surrounding the growing global food crises, the European Union today defended expanding the use of biofuels in all 27 member countries. Part of the EU’s climate change package, the current proposal sets a target of meeting 10% of transportation fuel with biofuels by 2020.

As I reported last week, Europe’s EPA advised suspending the EU’s biofuel targets until a comprehensive environmental analysis could be completed. Barbara Helfferich, spokeswoman for EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, said no way is that going to happen:

“You can’t change a political objective without risking a debate on all the other objectives,” meaning that changing biofuels targets could lead to questioning the entire climate change package.

Adding to the ongoing discussion about biofuels affecting worldwide food prices (see Biodiesel Is Raising Food Prices), NPR’s Morning Addition briefly interviewed World Bank President Robert Zoellick last Friday.

Zoellick called it a “perfect storm of things coming together…” and listed 7 different issues contributing to the increasing cost of food, which led to rioting in Haiti and Egypt last week, along with a general strike in Burkina Faso:

Who knew Stephen King was a prophet?

No, I’m not talking about the demon-possessed hot rods (I think we all saw that coming). I’m talking about America’s zombie-like loyalty to a certain cash crop — one that has turned our entire nation into the children of the corn.

Lately, of course, you can’t watch, read, or listen to the news without someone touting the benefits of corn ethanol and how it’s the key to leading us on a path of energy independence.

There might be a *cough* kernel of truth to that argument, but… (sorry, I suffer from a cousin of Tourette’s that requires me to uncontrollably shout out useless puns)…

Seriously, corn is not the answer. It’s not even a major part of the answer. In fact, it’s a major part of the problem.

What do I mean? Well, lend me your *cough* ear (jeez, the medication is wearing off quicker)…

As I start to stockpile bourbon (it’s made from at least 50% corn) as an investment strategy, I wonder why we are doing this to ourselves.

You practically can’t read a newspaper or news magazine without someone condemning the use of corn as an alternative fuel source these days. And who wouldn’t. The ethanol boom has driven the price of corn up, which in turn makes everything that uses corn go up in price. Corn is in a lot of products.

Why are we investing so much in corn-based fuel?

I think the answer is fear. Fear of rising oil prices. Fear of global warming. Fear of our dependency on foreign oil.

The ethanol industry isn’t the only group up in arms about pervasive negative reporting on biofuels (see yesterday’s post: Ethanol Industry: Jobs Are Better Than Food?).

Two soybean growers’ groups have suspended $1.5 million in funding from the University of Minnesota, due to research showing that biofuels could worsen global warming:

The study, by University of Minnesota ecologist David Tilman and others, said that dedicating huge amounts of land to grow corn, soybeans, sugarcane and other food crops for fuel could drastically change the landscape and worsen global warming. Farmers in the U.S., Brazil, Indonesia and other countries will need to clear forests, grasslands and peat lands on a massive scale to grow more of those crops, according to the research, unleashing far more carbon dioxide from natural vegetation than is saved by the lower emissions of the biofuels.

Is anyone really surprised about this finding? Suspension of the funds appears to be only temporary, until the groups have a chance to meet with the Dean of agricultural science. Jim Palmer, the executive director of the two soybean groups, summed up the situation: “The university hurt the farmers’ feelings, OK? That’s probably the best way to say it.”