A Christian Science Monitor editorial has no love for corn-based ethanol.
One problem, according to a report this month from the National Research Council, is that the projected increases in the use of corn to produce ethanol could cause considerable harm to water quality and supply. Pushing corn production into drier regions could drain aquifers and compete with other needs for water such as hydropower and fish habitat. The heavy use of nitrogen needed to fertilize corn crops could harm the quality of groundwater, rivers, and coastal waters, causing “dead zones.” A single corn-ethanol refinery that produces 100 million gallons a year would use enough water to supply a town of 5,000 people, the study concluded.
My fear is that corn-based ethanol, while it would be good for Midwest corn farmers, will actually set back the push for truly workable alternative forms of fuel and energy. Here’s why: If, thanks to generous government subsidies, we greatly increase our production and use of corn-based ethanol, and large numbers of Americans purchase vehicles designed to run on ethanol, and yet corn-based ethanol is actually worse for the environment than old-fashioned gasoline made from oil, we risk the public becoming cynical about the next proposed alternative that comes along to replace ethanol.
Plus, we’ll have spent billions and wasted years on switching to ethanol, time and money that ought to be devoted to developing cellulosic and algae ethanol, hydrogen fuel cells, and other better technologies.
Wanna help the corn farmers? Eat more corn on the cob, cornflakes and cornbread.
