Tom Daschle: food vs. fuel debate is a myth
If you were not persuaded by the purely emotional case for corn, prepare yourself for the hyper-logical case made by former Senator Tom Daschle in the September/October 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine. He says the food vs. fuel debate is a myth, that 95 percent of corn is not even used for food and most goes to feed live stock. Daschle believes there is no increase in the price of chicken, pork etc. due to the price of corn. Why? You can still make feed from ethanol coproducts (link is to pdf). In fact, for certain animals that feed is more nutritional.
Daschle says the market will adjust and has already increased supply. Biofuel plays a central role in responding to climate change, he says (remember, Daschle sits on the board of cellulosic ethanol company Mascoma). The predicted increased ethanol costs do not account for various schemes like carbon trading to support biofuels. Fossil fuel prices are also increasing, so it's likely that ethanol will be competitive far sooner than ten years from now as production processes become more efficient. There is reason for Daschle to be optimistic. In 1980, he heard the same food vs. fuel debate. After decades, doom sayers like Lester Brown were proven wrong.
Below the fold is a video of Tom talking about energy policy and biofuels. He says things have changed from ten years ago. People are increasingly starting to look at these policies as having impacts on countries all over the world, realizing this is no longer a local issue but a national security issue. We have to have a better understanding and become supportive of the changes that need to take place.
[Source: Foreign Affairs]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Ben K. 5:44PM (8/23/2007)
E85 is the best short term solution. I'm tired of the democrats using the CAFE proposals as a political football. The reason CAFE hasn't worked in the past, because it puts all the burden on only one industry! Airlines, railroads and the trucking industry aren't required to achieve comparable results. Smaller vehicles compromise occupant safety. At least alternative fuel vehicles don't force consumers to make a difficult choice of family safety vs. the enviroment. E85 cuts petroleum consumption considerably, even though mileage may be slighty less.
Reply
bioburner 8:17PM (8/23/2007)
The home air conditioning industry is also under the gun. They can't even manufacture a home AC unit with a SEER of less than 13.A handful of years ago it was 10. Funny they (the air conditioner manufactures) just complied with the regulations with out all the "baby like" crying we seem to get from the automotive industry.
Reply
MikeW 10:20AM (8/24/2007)
I want to know why the AKI rating of gasoline hasn't gone up as a result of the 10% ethanol. Did the oil companies cheap out and stop refining gasoline as much because they get their higher AKI from the 10% ethanol.
I want to see 95 RON / 90 AKI mid-grade.
If E100 is supposedly 116AKI, and E85 105?
Reply
DANIEL D MARTIN 11:29AM (11/10/2007)
I keep wondering about sugar cane growing in the Gulf states plus Hawaii and Puerto Rico.If we grow sugar cane directly for ethanol use and bagasse burning that could produce almost as much ethanol as corn and surplus electricity for the grid,besides creating a lot of good jobs ,yes good jobs,we must think of sugar cane production with mechanical cutting like in Australia not the old version of machete welding cutters long time left behind.We can also grow castor beans ,soy,peanuts ,jatropha and iol palms for biodiesel to power the farm machineries.Atotal win-win situation achieving independence from foreign oil,better economic growth and probably a balanced budget!
Reply