Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Corn-based ethanol: The negatives outweigh the positives

JEFFREY SIMPSON

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 10:21 PM EDT 03/08/08

Canada's governments have done something really stupid in subsidizing corn-based ethanol ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Peter Meldrum from Renfrew, Canada writes: Biofuels never were anything more than a political boondoggle and money grab by producers.

    Bad politics just produce more pollution, as Harper has proved.
  2. Will Hoaccio from Canada writes: Well, it's not like Harper is the only politician to be taken in by the great biofuel swindle (cough, McGuinty, every US politician in Washington cough). From a political standpoint, it is a winner. Funnel money into lazy farmers who have disproportionate voting rights AND save the environment. It really doesn't get much better...
  3. john chuckman from Canada writes: POLITICIANS MAKING FOOLS OF US ALL The Case of Ethanol as Motor Fuel John Chuckman Ethanol has always been a poor choice as a fuel, but the scientific and economic considerations behind that statement don't stop politicians from claiming otherwise. American use of ethanol blended into gasoline actually represents a hidden subsidy to corn farmers, a subsidy on top of other subsidies, because American corn production itself has long been subsidized. The American program, to be expanded now by a leader widely recognized for wisdom and insight, George Bush, subsidizes farmers hurt by the abundance of their own subsidized production. Subsidies plus the extent of Midwestern farmland suitable for its production are why America produces such an abundance of corn. Its use in motor fuel on any scale started as a way to stretch America's fuel supply in the face of Arab anger over foreign policy. But it does not really do this. Although numbers naturally change over time, ethanol has roughly 70% the energy content of gasoline, yet it costs about 40% more to produce and distribute. In order to deliver this economic bargain to motorists, the government forgoes taxes paid by the users of gasoline, taxes which, of course, pay for important government services. You don't need to study economics to appreciate that as a bad bargain. (cont'd)
  4. john chuckman from Canada writes: (Cont'd) In the years since the original strategic argument, arguments for the use of ethanol in fuel have developed around its being a benefit to the environment. It is no surprise that many embrace this at first hearing: growing something for fuel just sounds cleaner and healthier than using a minerals dug out of the ground. But this is a false argument, false at several levels. If you have a certain distance to drive, requiring a certain amount of energy, you will have to fuel up more often, and you will be paying the same or more for this privilege with ethanol as part of each fill-up. The motorist, re-fueling his or her car, will not be aware that significant amounts of petroleum products go into growing corn before any fuel is manufactured. Tractors, harvesters, trucks, and conveyor belts don't run on alcohol, and agricultural chemicals aren't derived from it. It will be the furthest thing from the motorist's mind that ethanol for fuel cannot be shipped by pipeline, the cheapest form of shipping liquids and gases, because ethanol picks up water on it way underground, so ethanol must use more expensive truck transport, and what do the trucks run on? The motorist also likely will not be aware that while burning some ethanol with gasoline reduces carbon dioxide emissions, if you account for the carbon dioxide emissions of the corn's production, there is almost no net gain. A recent, published finding that ethanol increases ozone in the lower atmosphere is also unlikely to drift through his or her thoughts while squeezing the pump handle. Ozone is a constituent of smog which affects those with respiratory problems. Ironically, ozone in the lower atmosphere is itself a greenhouse gas. (cont'd)
  5. john chuckman from Canada writes: (Cont'd) Now, corn is a staple food for many poor people, especially throughout the Americas, and it is a simple matter of supply and demand that if large quantities of corn go to fuel, poor Mexicans and others will be eating less because its bounty in the food supply will drop. In very small quantities, this effect is almost invisible, but in large quantities - and what is the use of such programs if they do not become large? - it will become painfully obvious. Canada's Conservative government , a government whose previous environmental minister became an international embarrassment to the country, is in a desperate search for some environmental goodness to smear on its face as political war-paint and has discovered the mumbo-jumbo of ethanol. Recently, it has run a television ad, over and over, done in fake cinema verité style showing vignettes of an odd little man with the sardonic smile of a skull asking citizens on the street about growing "our own fuel." It even features a scene of the would-be comic dancing spontaneously on the sidewalk with someone in celebration of growing your own fuel. It ends with another man announcing proudly to the astonished little man that his great hulking SUV actually uses ethanol. Will wonders never cease? Why do governments do this kind of thing? Well, ethanol as fuel allows you to brag about doing all kinds of good things - of course, the bragging is done by stating partial truths, but isn't that what all advertising is, partial truth? - while you dish out a new subsidy to some of your constituents. And you get to advertise what you are doing at the expense of your listeners. (cont'd)
  6. john chuckman from Canada writes: (End)

    Ethanol-as-fuel's other great attraction is that politicians get to hide for a while from the real solutions, such as simply raising vehicle efficiency standards, which require some courage. What a sweet scam.

    (written more than a year ago)
  7. Norm Albert from Canada writes: Jeffery, Jeffery, Jeffery(Mr. Simpson). While I totally agree with the entire artical lets face it... Who are we dealing with here?
    This is our political system playing by the same old rules. I truly beleive these people are tested for moronic tendencies prior to entering politics and then have to meet stupidity standards on a month by month bases.
    Subsidizing a program to solve a problem which generates far more problems than already existed is government mandated policy.
    What happens to Farmer Brown when the Biotech industry colapses
    leaving him/her holding the bag.
    This is not even a case of "good intentions"
    The House of Commons is a House of Cards and they should be dealt with accordingly.
    The technologies exist to produce Carbon Nuetral Energy. The problems intigrating them are all political. Save humanity or save my political A**.
  8. charlie brown from Canada writes: To John Chuckman (end). Thank God!!
  9. kevin brown from vancouver, Canada writes: Hey, wait a minute!

    Maybe ethanol is doing nothing for the environment; and maybe it is costing taxpayers a bundle, but this bad subsidy programme involved some political favours to the Harper gang, and it needs to be paid for now.

    Remember the cheesy TV ad campaign of a couple of years back, endlessly run by the Canadian ethanol producers' association, featuring Steve himself touting ethanol subsidies? This is an ad the Conservative Party didn't have to either pay for or account for to Elections Canada. If Canadians are dumb enough, it could even help to bring about a Conservative majority government, and so help to enable Steve and the boys to fiscally dismantle our federal government, and so turn Canada into a pale imitation of Bush's USA.

    For all of that free advertising in aid of the great Harper programme, corn ethanol subsidies are a small price to pay!
  10. Norm Albert from Canada writes: While Jeffery and John have pointed out the obvious for which I am greatful. There are also some issues overlooked. One of which is that this is not a partician issue. It spans all lines.
    Rather than coming together to produce a collective solution we argue about who has the better approach to a problem that we are still arguing about even exist. Ie Global warming/climate change.
    We can't breath the air,drink the water or eat the food, but we are not sure why. We are distroying our planet collectively by burying our collective heads in the sand.
    This country has all the elements naturally available to set an example
    to the rest of the world on how it could be done, should be done and will be done but lacks the intestinal fortitude and political will power to even attempt it. Time to step up to the plate- hold foot to fire and admit to a better way.
    Dion"s plan may not be a complete winner(not a Liberal) but it is bold enough so as to fall in the move in the right direction category. Knock it if you want. In the mean time come up with a better one.
    Voters do not have the final say in this. Voters are lied to on a daily bases. Only the loudest voices are heard. The voice of reason must be the loudest.
  11. Mike M from Toronto, Canada writes: As far as I am aware, there are exactly 2 groups that support corn based ethanol: 1) producers of corn who are reaping gazillions of dollars in taxpayer funded subsidies; and 2) virtually all Canadian politicians. I don't really blame the corn producers - after all, if the government was pouring endless money into my bank account I'd probably want that to continue. But the politicians - have they no shame? The case for corn based ethanol was shaky from the outset, and as far as I am aware no independent body has ever said that it was a good idea. The more this is looked at the more foolish it becomes. Has that caused a re-think from Canada's leaders? At the federal level, not at all. Doesn't matter how stupid it is, we're going to plow ahead. At the provincial level McGuinty, I suppose somewhat to his credit, has finally said that maybe someone somewhere should look at this a little bit more carefully. I suspect he has softened his support not as a result of a changed understanding of the utility of ethanol (it never really made much sense), but that his position was becoming so untenable he was embarrassed into sort of changing it. However, as far as I know the Ontario government hasn't stopped subsidizing ethanol production. So, ah, thanks very much for your hard work on this file, politicians of Canada.
  12. Bart Farquart from Carbon Central, Canada writes:
    Agree with Simpson (for once).

    Ethanol is a great example of the faddish behavior, tokenism, hypocrisy, and skewed priorities that afflict environmentalism.
  13. charlie brown from Canada writes: Miike. Good comments. Political parties (and journalists) of all stripes are too quick to jump aboard the zeitgeist of the day whether not they understand it or believe in it. Ethanol and Global Warming (and Cooling) are good examples. Hopefullly, not too much damage is done before the facts come out.
  14. V ADS from Canada writes: Windfarms are another ridiculous boondoggle, setting aside bat and bird kills, still touted by "green" touchy-feely types. They're horribly expensive, prone to mechanical failures, incredibly unproductive, require conventional (fossil fuels) power backup, etc, etc...

    Europe led the way on wind and is experiencing a nasty blowback. (The following is a quote from a BBC news-story, August, 2007).

    "On paper, wind power is a great proposition. Britain is the windiest nation in Europe. But despite the government having subsidised the wind industry by half-a-billion pounds so far, as yet it has failed to deliver a half of one per cent of our electricity needs; yet it is costing £90 a year per household."
  15. Michael Bednarski from Toronto, Canada writes: It's too bad we couldn't make bio-fuels with marijuana, heroine, and cocaine. These could help make our HIGH-brid vehicles run. Imagine watching people in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang bio-narc-vehicles high in the sky.
  16. Mike M from Toronto, Canada writes: Charlie,

    I didn't say anything about global warming. Unlike corn based ethanol, there is plenty of science to support some of the climate change claims. I don't disagree, however, that politicians will come up with a counterproductive and muddled response (see ethanol, for example).
  17. David Jenkins from Kelowna, Canada writes: Norm Albert - I have to agree with you. Canada has the climate & geography to be a natural laboratory for the research & development of sustainable technologies. We are still a relatively skilled people with the academic and research capabilities to make it happen. We have a diversified economy (just) that will allow us to commercialize and export these developments and be a world-leader in the next - sustainable - economy.

    But no: we'd rather piddle around with politically acceptable ideas like fuel ethanol that are a net energy consumer and polluter. There is one inescapable trend; the world population will double again in the next 20 - 30 years. Unless we find some way of handling this through existing and new technologies, Mother Nature will find solutions we don't even want to contemplate!
  18. gary wilson from Calgary, writes: Norm Albert: if the majority of voters looked at politics through the same lens you do, we'd have better government. Unfortunately, the voice of reason is rarely, if ever, the loudest. It's spoken with reason so it is by nature calm. Partisan attackers or defenders speak from passion, so those voices always drown out reason.

    Mike M: posts like yours are so encouraging. Gauging policies based on their merit or lack thereof, as opposed to based on which party rolled them out, is the kind of critical thinking we need more of.
  19. Squamish Mom from Canada writes: Wow... saving the planet for our children has now turned into propaganda and a way to look good to voters. Before we can change the world we need to change our selves... The people at the top of the ladder need to look at each and get honest, forget about money and work together. Because the way it all looks to me, beauty pageant contestants will be changing "world peace" to "save the planet"
  20. Random X from Canada writes: What no one has pointed out is that corn-based ethanol was heavily promoted by the environmentalists as what we need to do, and now that they realise what might happen if governments follow their recommendations, they're doing the old double-backtrack. This is a hit on the credibility of knee-jerk environmentalism, as well as the governments that quickly buy into it.
  21. Tom Beckett from Canada writes: Is the ethanol boondogle the type of program Stevie Harper said he would eliminate to make Canada stronger?
  22. morten qwigly from Canada writes: The only plant to use is the HEMP plant and the government knows.
  23. gary wilson from Calgary, writes: Random X: knee-jerk anything, environmentalism or otherwise, has no credibility to begin with. It can't take a hit.

    Be careful not to sweepingly indict environmentalists with a "knee-jerk" reaction to this article.
  24. Antonio San from Canada writes: Mr Simpson is as much responsible as anybody in the warmist camp for promoting fearmongering and carbon insanity through his book with Jaccard of Carbon Tax, BC. The ethanol fiasco would never have happen if those people had not brainwashed politicians with the GHGs. This is wasted resources and doesn't preclude well for the rest of the envy-ronment recommendations that him and his political friends are pressuring now. Funny how they take no responsibility while of course pounding an over eager Harper. Clearly both are guilty, one through political cowardice -just as BC's Campbell is- and the others through their half backed science promoted to a cult.
  25. The Work Farce from Canada writes: "Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! No...it's Capitalism. Ridin' to the rescue of the dole wham planet!" "Holy cornography, Batman! It's the invisible hand of the freemarketplace out to save money...er...save the planet. Great ethanol almighty! We're saved, Batman! Now we can quit work early, go back to the batcave and play scrabble." "Don't be a damn idiot, Robin! Biff! Bam! Whack! Now shut up and get in the Batmobile, Robin! Do you know what this means? The world's food supply is threatened! Some joker is making a huge profit burning up the corn supply to drive his SUV around the block to the convenience store! And there's only one force in the world that can stop him! Us, Robin! Just you and me, Robin!"
  26. Northern Dancer from Outside of Toronto, Canada writes: Mr. Simpson -- Ontario farmland is now blanketed with corn crops and why not at approx. 2x what it normally sells for.
  27. Jeff Kelly from Kitchener, Canada writes: morten qwigly - Sorry, not a great plan either. Any plan that calls for farmers to grow 'fuel' will simply take them away from a far more important task... Growing FOOD.

    Cellulosic ethanol is a far more promising technology. It's not yet commercially viable, true, but things are coming along. That will see WASTE products (corn husks/stalks, wood chips, straw, etc...) broken down by bacterial or chemical processes into useable fuel.

    Turning our garbage and waste into a useable product is win-win for everyone, since this is stuff we already have. If only we could speed that development up!
  28. Larry Nicholls from Ottawa, Canada writes: The right answer can be found at: www.algenolbiofuels.com
  29. D F from Canada writes: Let's not forgot to include the feed grain based ethanol our Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz is touting. His latest letter to the Western Producer proclaims grain ethanol "good for the environment", but then neglects to supply any info or research as to how he came to this obviously false proclamation. Unfortunately, the predominately creationist conservative cabinet knows that most science is lies, and should not be used to guide public policy. Scary!!
  30. Mike M from Toronto, Canada writes: Antonio San,

    As I pointed out above, there is a big difference between the science behind corn based ethanol and climate change. As far as I am aware, there is not a single indepenent (i.e. not directly funded by the corn lobby)study anywhere that has ever said corn based ethanol is a good idea.

    There are voluminous independent studies on climate change. There are a range of scientific opinions on this topic, but it is clear that there are an awful lot of scientists with no particular axe to grind who think that human caused climate change is a problem that needs to be addressed somehow. It is prudent for politicians to consider this evidence.

    What is not prudent is to adopt "sollutions" to the problem that in fact make the problem worse (and gost countless millions of dollars).
  31. Mike M from Toronto, Canada writes: I'm not sure if anyone need reply to this, but if The Work Farce is suggesting that "capitalism" is behind the ethanol boom, he or she is clearly mistaken. The only reason this problem exists is because the government has poured massive subsidies into it. It is the antithesis of the free market. Something this stupid would never happen under a free market (who in their right mind would use their own money to make a fuel where the fuel used to create the product is greater than the fuel coming out?)
  32. Do The Math from Edmonton, Canada writes: It's the politics, stupid. Both the One Tonne Challenge and bio-fuels subsidies are alike in having high costs, great political sex appeal and no actual benefit on improving GHG. I read through the entire multipage Greenshift platform paper recently where I found copious detail and numbers on tax give-backs but not a single estimate of actual CO2 reductions. Hmmmm... isn't that interesting?
  33. Sunny Daze from Ottawa, Canada writes: I think its interesting to note that Harper's new Director of Communications, Kory Teneycke, is the former Executive Director of Canadian Renewable Fuels Association (AKA the biggest biofuel lobby in Canada) so perhaps we shouldn't be so surprised that Harper is giving $1.5 billion to biofuels. Apparently farms aren't the only place you find pigs at the trough.

  34. gary wilson from Calgary, writes: Antonio San your passion and vehemence do not make up for your lack of accuracy. Nor do they mask the fact you do not know what you’re talking about. If you read Simpson&8217;s book, you&8217;d know the recommendations section is rooted in the carefully examined experience of other countries, and from meticulously collected data. Take the time to actually read their conclusions on ethanol.

    Simpson also dutifully points out those seemingly promising initiatives that carry the risk of no precedent (such as carbon sequester), and clearly recommends further investigation into those areas, not blindly jumping into policy. The heart of the book, as with BC&8217;s wisely devised carbon tax policy, is putting price on carbon. Again, there exists much data and successful precedent to judge this pursuit worthwhile. The debate exists in what structure and form.

    Your lack of knowledge and low depth of understanding of global warming, preclude you from speaking intelligently on the topic. You do better to exert your passion into more reading and research on how the science world operates and validates. Then you could bring more engaging material to the table.
  35. Doc B from Canada writes: Corn-based ethanol should be seen as a means to an end. Cellulosic ethanol would be a great end point. Ideally we could create fuel from municipal waste. Eventually we need to get away from our oil dependence. Most misinformation about ethanol is derived from those who would keep us burning gas like it's 1999.
  36. guy tozer from Saskatoon, Canada writes: If this was a new marketable drug, and the risks outweighed the benefits, it would be pulled asap!!. Same difference. So lets make the politicians get off the ethanol wagon. Of course we don't "pay "them like the lobbyists do, so it may be hard if not impossible.
  37. George BrownIII from Christmas Island writes: The lobbyists won. Again. At the tax payers expense.
  38. Tom Farmer from Chatham, Canada writes: First let's get some points clear, no corn farmer in Ontario anyways is making a killing, as corn a commodity rose in price, so did my inputs costs (also commodities) For example Nitrogen costs doubled over last year, potash, phosphates 2-3 times. Also receiving less coverage is the fact that corn prices have plummetted 26% in the last month. These markets are driven by speculators, (yes the same ones that have doubled your oil prices) Secondly let's examine where the ethanol subsidy's went did it go into farmers pockets no, it went in the form of corporate welfare to the construction of ethanol plants in Ontario. Did the government require these facilities to buy Ontario produced corn as part of the bargain, of course not. The result these companies buy all the unfairly subsidized US corn by the truckload, by the boatload, flooding the area with more corn, and driving local corn prices even lower. As a result I get paid $1 < then a US farmer < than 60mi away. Thirdly does corn ethanol make sense? Of course it doesn't, you only have to produce corn to realize that. When we plant we till the ground 3-4 times, then we spread fertilizer products that all require huge amounts of energy to produce, truck and spread, plant hybrid seed that needs to be specially breed, dried, processed, bagged, treated and trucked to my location, then I plant it, spray it with herbicides that need to be manufactured, processed and trucked to my farm, then I spray it again, then I put on even more fertilizer. Then I have to harvest the crop, truck it to an elevator where they process it and dry it out in grain dryers and then theoretically ship it to an ethanol plant, where it's rotted and turned into alcohol which is then shipped via truck to a refinery and then to a gas station near you so that you can burn it in your car. Does that process make any sense, of course not. But it does create lots of jobs to keep you city folk employed, which is really the whole point anyways, right?
  39. David Gibson from Hamilton, Canada writes: "Optics," Mr. Simpson? Thus do the chattering classes go on. "Optics is the field of science that describes the behavior and properties of light and the interaction of light with matter." .... However, about ethanol: the science leading to the policy was inadequately researched, and wrong. What is remarkable is how wrong the Western world could be about a matter of science, agriculture, industry, and social policy, and proceed down that path in such a short time. I'm not blaming anyone in particular [although the assembled partisans here will have enough blame to dish out to fill 20 universes] but it is rather scary to be right yesterday and wrong today, which, metaphorically speaking, is what happened. We have an exaggerated opinion of our own collective intelligence.
  40. aldyen donnelly from Canada writes: The crazy thing is that before the ethanol production incentives were in place, Canada was already the largest corn importer in the world. Even with the conversion of lots of Ontario acreage to corn production, we still import most of the corn Canadian humans and livestock eat and to make ethanol. Why did we introduce an ethanol mandate that is largely being met through increased feedstock imports (except in the provinces where it is being met by US ethanol imports). It also bugs me that the US does not allow free trade in ethanol, and Canada agreed to create a new market for US corn and ethanol, with our mandate, without playing hardball with the US regarding its trade barrier. The US charges two tariffs on our ethanol exports to them. A 2.5% ad valorum tax PLUS a second tax which the law says is officially supposed to reflect "the full value of all subsidies the exporting nation provides for producers". The US law allows Customs (under the direction of Commerce Department officials, in this case) to differentiate their ethanol import tax by country of origin, but at this time they do not and they take US$0.51/US gallon on special tariff on all imports, inlcuding those from Canada. This US law (which has been in place since the early 1980s) stipulates that 100% of the revenues from this second tariff must be remitted to US ethanol producers, pro-rated with their US production. Yes! Most of Canadian ethanol is made from US corn imports, Even so, if we export any of this ethanol to the US we deliver a subsidy to our US competitors theoretically equal to the Canadian subsidies! And we said "okay" to this.
  41. Darcy Meyer from Canada writes: It is a renewable, secure source of energy. And the technology is still in its infancy. Many of the current criticisms will be overcome by the second and third generation biofuels (cellulose/algae). But you don't get there without initial investment and regulation. It will prove to be a win-win strategy if you can see past next week. And the cost of food arguement is a little misleading, biofuel production has contributed far less to the rise in prices than the volatile (non-secure, non-renewable) oil prices.
  42. Canada First from Canada writes:

    John Chuckman,
    Good points. Thanks for the informative posts. One theme though that I would argue with you on -- or at least add to your thoughts -- is that the public is more to blame than the politicians themselves. With so many issues (i.e., not just ethanol), people aren't willing to learn all of the facts, think through the consequences of decisions and, in particular, to see that there are two sides (and many grey areas) to every issue.

    The politicians simply gave the public what they wanted to hear (most people, anyway). If someone claims that policy is "green" and will help reduce GHG, people will either accept it as gospel or, be too afraid to ask hard questions about it, because it might land them in the same label-camp as neocons, Bush supporters, Harper-lovers, global warming deniers, etc...

    We need far more useful dialogue (and far less partisanship) before we blindly introduce policy, just to make the public feel good about themselves.
  43. Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes:
    Excellent article, I couldn't agree more. Hopefully as more and more people recognize how bad of an idea corn-based ethanol fuel is it will cease to be such a popular political move to dump our tax dollars on.

    One point wasn't really touched on: growing corn all on it's own has major environmental effects. It spraying lots of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers that can leech into our water system. It involves burning lots of fuel for the planting, growing and harvesting, much of which is burned by equipment that is not required to meet the strict air pollution emission standards of road-going vehicles.

    When you add it up, kilometre for kilometre ethanol derived from corn is definitely no better and almost certainly WORSE environmentally than gasoline derived from petroleum. Not only should we not be providing subsidies for this industry, but indeed it should be taxed in the same way as gasoline, diesel and other fuels.
  44. The Middle Finger ..I.. from Canada writes: Is there any convertible energy in urine? You could fill your own tank. No refinery necessary. No pollution. Other benefits as well.
  45. Dennis sinneD from Calgary, Canada writes:

    Was it the politicians who failed us or was it all the scientists that said it was the way to go and all the greenies who hoisted this load on our collective shoulders?
  46. Darcy Meyer from Canada writes: Regarding fuel efficiency standards, a response from government:

    "on January 17, 2007, the Government of Canada released a document outlining Canada=s position and path forward towards developing fuel consumption standards. It was also announced that Canada would develop fuel consumption standards at least as stringent as the annual standards that will be developed by the United States to move its new vehicle fleet towards the 2020 goal of 35 miles per gallon. In its assessment of options for Canadian fuel consumption standards, the Government has also committed to assessing the impact of California=s proposed greenhouse gas emissions standards for comparative purposes.
    It is anticipated that the final regulations will be published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, by the end of 2008, sufficiently in advance to allow them to apply to 2011 model year vehicles."
  47. Mike M from Toronto, Canada writes: Dennis,

    As far as I know, no scientists ever said this was the way to go. I also think that the more respectable environmental groups were always a bit skeptical about corn based ethanol.

    That's what makes this all the more frustrating. There was never a good case for corn based ethanol. Without any real support from anyone, politicians packaged a farm subsidy program as a green program. And no matter how often and how conclusively they are shown that it is a terrible idea, they are going to stick with it.
  48. Western Science from Vancouver, Canada writes: I enjoy seeing how well the OPEC/Big Oil and Big Food lobby propaganda permiates the press with this ethanol takes away from food noise. Several facts regarding corn as a food. In summary, it goes like this. (I have always found this book to be factually accurate, and I have tried to find irregularities). 1. 10 lbs of corn makes about one-half gallon ethanol and 3 lbs of DDGS (Dried Distiller's Grain plus Solubles). 2. 3 lbs of DDGS or 10 lbs of corn makes about....over one pound of beef, so feed 33 pounds of DDGS to cattle instead of 100 pounds of corn, you get 14 to 17% more meat up to 30% faster, with a fraction of the veterinary costs. ..., in other words, pulling the carbohydrates out of corn prior to feeding to cows does not affect its usefulness as a cow feed) 3. 80% of corn grown in the US is fed to cows, 10% is exported (where it feeds more cows), 10% is human consumed (2002 numbers). If you So, fermenting the corn to alcohol results in more meat than if you fed the corn directly to cattle." Take the World Bank's much-quoted line: "The grain required to fill the tank of a sports utility vehicle with ethanol could feed one person for a year." But the DDGS by-product ends up producing more meat than if you fed the raw corn to the cattle directly, and it's much better for them too - and you get the ethanol as well.
  49. James Eaton from greener pastures, Cda, Canada writes: And as for V ADS claptrap about windfarms - just because one report from the UK suggests that their subsidy-driven wind program is in trouble, does not detract from the solid successes of windfarms in, among other places, Ireland, the Netherlands, Denmark and Japan - not to mention Ontario. I notice that coal prices have doubled, and my natural gas for next winter is up 30% - but the installed price of a wind turbine dropped 10% last year. Won't be long before wind is the cheapest option...
  50. aldyen donnelly from Canada writes: Dennis, I think the most sincere politician is going to have a terrible track record when it comes to picking new technologies and corporate champions. That is why governnments should regulate product standards/performance outcomes and leave it to the market to pick technologies. The US government first started subsidizing corn-based ethanol in 1978 and had paid out more than $25 billion in subsidies, 70% of it to 3 corporations, by the end of 2002. In the 70s, most of the developed world had agreed to phase lead out of gasoline. Most academics and government "experts" were certain that ethanol was the oxygenate the market would use to replace lead in gas. To give US corn producers a lead in the unleaded gasoline market, Congress put ethanol production subsidies in place. The good news, however, is that in 1981, when the US and Canada actually passed our laws phasing lead out of gasoline, those laws did not prescribe ethanol as an additive (as our more recent fuel standards do). Those law ruled lead out, but did not specify what would replace it. Competing to deliver lead-free product to the market at least cost, the refiners--to the "experts'" surprise--innovated and produced lead-free gasoline a different way and for a much lower price ($0.021/litre) increase than anyone ever imagined they would. While we in North America used product standards to get the lead out of gasoline, Europe elected to use a lead "differential" tax to use a market signal to achieve the elimination of lead. Europe's target elimination date was the same as ours: 1986. None of us made our target. Lead was essentially out of Canadian gasoline in 1988 and the US got there by 1990. Most European nations caved and in 1000 imposed full lead phase out mandates by 2003 (just as we originally did.) Lead was in every litre of petrol sold throughout Europe (except in Sweden) in 2003. It is out, now, except in 3 EU states that cannot afford to lose their ead differential tax revenues.
  51. Dennis sinneD from Calgary, Canada writes:

    Mike M from Toronto, Canada... that's interesting.

    I've never followed the path of biofuel. It just seemed to me that some pretty strong force must have presented it as a win-win somewhere along the line to get many governments around the world working to legislate it's use.

    I'll have to take some time this weekend to read up on it.

    Thanks!
  52. J Swede from Edmonton, Canada writes: Strange how none of you picked up on this bit of inaccuracy from Mr. Simpson.

    "For such money, Canadians might expect at least some decline in greenhouse gas emissions. They will be disappointed. There will be few reductions, and Mr. Auld estimates that these might cost $368 a tonne - way, way higher than other per-tonne costs for eliminating carbon dioxide, the main climate-warming gas."

    C02 is the main climate-warming gas?????? I don't think so. Apparently Mr. Simpson hasn't heard of water vapour (H2O)!! Misinformation like this, and the fact that no one here caught the error, leads me to believe that the AGW brainwashing has started to take effect. Scary times ahead.... better turn off the lights and shut the economy down to save mother earth from our 2% of the global CO2 production. That will make Al Gore and his clowns happy. In the meantime, China and the other major global polluters will continue pumping out pollution at escalating rates.
  53. aldyen donnelly from Canada writes: (Sorry about typos in my recent post.) I would like to suggest that the leaded gasoline history teaches us many lessons, including but not restricted to: 1. Most politicians need to feel certain that they know at least one technologyand one company that is going to succeed if they impose new product/market standards before they can muster the courage to impose those new standards. 2. The key to successful environmental improvement, however, is that they must resist the temptation to introduce policies and product standards that prescribe the technology or pick the company in whom they have confidence. When governments pick technologies and suppliers, competition is killed. The new product standards have to prescribe the removal of the polluting substance from the product or product supply chain, not the addition of a specific new substance to the supply chain. Then the politicians needs to step back and watch the private sector compete to supply products that comply with existing and new health, safety and environment standards to the market at least cost. 3. Canada and the US got lead out of gas over a period of less than 9 years for a gasoline price premium of $0.021/litre. But leaded petrol still dominated the European market in 2000 even though the lead tax averaged above CAD$0.50/litre. Tax measures are revenue generators. They never guarantee that the market will change the product formula to avoid the tax. There is no history of that happening, anywhere, because if no one innovates and all elect to pass through the tax, then everyone can pass through the tax and avoide the high risk associated with innovation. 4. When the plan is to tax and spend, companies have to negotiate governments' approval of the risks they are taking. This requirement hold innovation back. 5. Governments that become reliant on pollution tax revenues will maintain pollution tax rates at sub-optimal levels--and maintain pollution--to maintain revenues.
  54. Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes: Mike M from Toronto, Canada writes: "As far as I am aware, there are exactly 2 groups that support corn based ethanol: 1) producers of corn who are reaping gazillions of dollars in taxpayer funded subsidies; and 2) virtually all Canadian politicians."

    Interesting point of note from the last Ontario Provincial elections.

    3 of the 4 political parties in Ontario came out strongly in favour of ethanol subsidies. The Liberal plan is basically what we have now, 5% minimum content, massive subsidies. The PC plan, as with every other part of their plan, was a copy-n-paste job of the Liberal plan. The NDP actually even more massive subsidies and up to 10% minimum content rules.

    The only party that came out in opposition to corn ethanol subsidies and minimum content rules: The Ontario Green Party.
  55. Nick Belton from Owen Sound, Canada writes: Reminds me of Hydrogen, the next 'big green movement' to come. Just displace the emissions to the producer away from the consumer and BAM! its apparently green technology! Go electric already.
  56. Wayne Spitzer from Faywood, United States writes: I have an idea. Instead of trying to figure out how to move forward with ethanol, why don't we just sit on our hands and wait for a better idea.
  57. Don Mutala from Vancouver, Canada writes: Wayne;

    Ok here is a better idea. The Norwegians have an electric car called the OX that will travel 120-150 miles on a single charge. It recharges to 100% in 2 hours and 80% in 1 hour. Operational costs at today's prices are 1\10 to 1\5 the price of gasoline powered cars. There are plenty of ways to make electricity including wind and solar which will be free once the system is put in place.

    Ethanol is a joke. Its job creation and nothing more and is wasteful. It was supported by so nmany who jump on bandwagons but never actually think the process through because it appeared to be a bandaid solution and they could actually use the same distribution system as gas and keep charging us through the nose.

    All together now. Let's move to the future. Let's support renewable resources like solar and wind power and change the power structure in the world while we are at it.
  58. small c capitalist from wayoutwest, Canada writes: Maybe Canadians should look at long term importing of Brazilian ethanol, using some of our carbon taxes for that purpose. We could use it for blending or... ?

    Check out the following link:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanolfuelin_Brazil
  59. The Couillard Twins from Laval, Canada writes: But what ever happened to that goofy, gapped tooth guy on the commercials that bothers people at the gas pumps?

    http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=gYbucBYjsNs
  60. L Pratt from Canada writes: And don't forget the $1,000.00 cheque the feds will send to anyone who leases or purchases an E85 vehicle...more wasted tax dollars.
  61. Adam Tracey from Canada writes: aldyen donnelly : I couldn't agree with you more. Let the people who actually understand the technology inside and out make the decision on how to apply it, given (realistic) benchmarks that must be achieved which are provided by the (hopefully informed) government. As we slowly reach our goals, we set the bar higher and higher. Slow, steady, effective change, that remains market driven.

    I am exposed constantly to all kinds of innovative technology as a patent lawyer and I see no other way in which we are going to successfully address the many problems that are slowly creeping up on this and the next generation. Politicians should make laws; scientists, engineers et al. should be the ones deciding what technologies to apply and how to apply them to satisfy said laws. Simple as that.
  62. Montezuma 1 from Toronto, Canada writes: Governments doing something stupid! Say it ain't so!

    As an engineer who designs consumer products, it is a crying shame that so many great brains are wasted developing the software and hardware for things like iPod, Flat Screen TVs etc.

    With VCs pumping money into "Green" power technologies that unfortunate "waste" of talent may soon be a thing of the past.
  63. Ed Long from Canada writes: Here's the big problem.

    Alternative fuels and power generation require big subsidies during the incubation period.

    Photovoltaic, solar, company stocks soared last year based upon government subsidies across the globe, however as these subsidies are being frozen, re-examined or reduced ... the company stocks have declined 25-30%. And many of these companies are now attempting to raise venture capital to increase R & D or production to provide a economically rational power source. To date it is boutique, specific buildings or small developments.

    Nuclear is heavily subsidized worldwide and the amount of those subsidies has been a contentious point with Greens in Germany.

    The ugly truth is that conversion is not a painless one to one transaction. The technologies simply are not at significant levels to provide consistent emissions reductions on a mass market or power grid level.

    So .... everybody falls back on gasoline, oil, natural gas and coal OR we invest in the R & D for the most promising products and be prepared for a much longer time line.

    It is the same argument for transportation infrastructure. The investment is huge and timeline lengthy. Do we keep planning car dependent suburbs or start building LRT/rapid transit to service specified communities?

    Money and time .... the only commodities in life that really count.

    Immediate gratification and foot stomping will not get it done.
  64. V ADS from Canada writes: ."... does not detract from the solid successes of windfarms in, among other places, Ireland, the Netherlands, Denmark and Japan - not to mention Ontario."

    Tilting at windmills is worse than growing corn for gas. There are no "solid successes" of windfarms anywhere, least of all Ontario. Their real productivity versus rated capacity is abysmal, costs are astronomical even without factoring in all the hidden costs and bird and bat kills and their huge and ugly eco-footprints.
  65. Don Mutala from Vancouver, Canada writes: Ed Long;

    It's better to invest in sustainable long term technolgies like solar and wind than to waste our time, energy and resources on combustion.
    We must move forward. I know it's painful; but to support the short sighted special interest groups is what got us into the mess in the first place.
  66. aldyen donnelly from Canada writes: Ed Long, You are correct. Particularly in the power sector, the private sector often does not step up, for a number of reasons. We should step back, however, and ask: what is the best way for government to directly participate in the supply chain? In Germany and Denmark CAD$0.30/kWh (not including the VAT and transmission fees that are charged on top of this) is still NOT A HIGH ENOUGH PRICE to make solar, wind, PV, etc. viable, after 20 years of subsidies. 24 new coal plants have been approved. In Canada, we should be asking why that is so. Surely, even at this early stage, those technologies should be viable/competitive at that high price. In my view, CAD$0.30/kWh is not a high enough price for a number of reasons, not the least of which is much of the price consumers pay is used to finance government oversight and administration of the subsidy programmes. The US federal government, by comparison, owns 6 electric utilities to fill the power market void, the most famous of which is the Tennessee Valley Authority. These federal utilities, today, own and operate almost 20% of all US power generation and transmission capacity and build $10 - $20 billion of new capacity EVERY YEAR. They borrow money at below market rates and tolerate 20 years paybacks (instead of private sector-type 4 - 7 year paybacks). The key here, however, is that the US taxpayer owns equity. Even France demands equity in exchage for industry subsidies. France often derives a return on taxpayer subsidies by selling that equity many years after securing it. In Canada, our federal government hands out subsidies without any expectation that the taxpayer deserves equity. I think that is a mistake.
  67. Ed Long from Canada writes: Don Mutala .. The head of B.C. Hydro has said there are only four possible sources to supply power to the rapidly oversubscribed B.C. power grid ... hydro, natural gas, coal, nuclear.

    Take your pick because the technology is nowhere near to having alternative energy for mainline power grids.

    I agree invest, and forget that silly motherhood phrase sustainable. The amount of capital needed by one solar company, and there is an alliance of over twenty in just California, exceeds a billion USD (SunPower), with subsidies from partners, and producing power sources of 10-25Mw in sunny locations like Spain, Italy, Florida and Southern California.

    All very nice rhetoric, Don, but what is the applicable technology, the company involved, the revenues, the potential to produce power for a grid.

    In short cut the jingoism and deliver some facts.
  68. Glen Murtz from Vancouver, writes: Mr. Simpson's statement, "It's the classic case of subsidies distorting markets..." makes a leap of ignorance over the fundamental problem to make an ideological argument.
    This isn't about subsidies Jeff.
    It's about science.
    This is about the inputs required for output.
    In this case, the net energy input (invariably petroleum based) required to create the output (ethanol) is a net LOSER. It's EROI; Energy Returned on Investment and ethanol and all the others* are a losing proposition.

    Maybe the Globe and Mail could do Canadians a favor and show them how much energy goes into creating a gallon of *any     alternative fuel source. Then we can call on our political leaders to do the right thing and create better transit systems, better rail systems, etc etc..
  69. Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes: Dennis sinneD from Calgary, Canada writes: "Was it the politicians who failed us or was it all the scientists that said it was the way to go and all the greenies who hoisted this load on our collective shoulders?"

    It was first and foremost the politicians who failed us by buying into the load of BS the corn farming lobby sold them.

    The scientist have been saying for quite some time 'yeah you can do it, here is what is required, here are the trade-offs'. Economists have been putting out similar data from their perspective as well.

    As for environmentalists, they have generally fallen into three camps. 1. Those that support corn ethanol thinking it's an environmentally friend fuel due to their inability to understand (or possibly simple ignorance) of the facts that were widely available.

    2. Those that opposed corn ethanol as it was just furthering our dependence on fuel instead of conservation. Most of the extremist fall into this group, particularly those that are really more activists than environmentalists, ie Greenpeace, see:

    http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/ethanol-is-not-the-answer-sto

    3. Those that looked at the data and recognized ethanol from corn as the scam that it is; The Sierra Club falls into this category, expressing some cautious support for cellulosic ethanol from plants grown in an environmentally friendly manner but strongly opposed to corn ethanol. See:

    http://www.sierraclub.org/energysummer/3cars/becker.asp

    So really, while a few misguided 'environmentalists' are responsible for a small amount of the blame with ethanol, they have definitely NOT been the driving force.
  70. Darcy Meyer from Canada writes: "You see, what most folks don't realize is that corn ethanol is a means to get the infrastructure in place for second generation cellulosic biofuels made from the leaves, stems, and stalks of a plant."

    "crops are expected to yield up to 80 percent more energy than what's required to grow and convert them."

    Sheril R. Kirshenbaum
    ----------------------------
    You have to look beyond next week to see this is a win-win strategy over the long term.
  71. Some Guy from Canada writes: Ethanol is stupid? No kidding. That's what you get when democracy caters to lobbyists and scientifically uninformed but passionate voters. We need a government than works for the silent majority. -- the reasonable people who have other things to do in their lives.
  72. Ed Long from Canada writes: Aldyen .... As silly as it seemed, Iggy's proposal of a national power grid may not be far off the mark as we continue to use a patchwork of grids.

    I was not aware of twenty new coal fired plants in the EU but did read of the German reliance on soft and hard coals for over 50% of their power generation and now, they have access to Siberian natural gas.

    Does carbon sequestration, i.e. Boundary Dam, Sask., have a viable application to clean coal fired power or is this project more linked to oil extraction in the immediate area?
  73. Able Bodied Man from It's NOT 'VICTORIA' Island, Canada writes:
    I wonder if someone ought to let Jeffrey Simpson know that the G&M editors are providing him with leads from last weekend's National Post stories.
  74. Political Junkie from Canada writes: Facts for lovers of solar and wind power. And remember that when the wind is not blowing the output from wind farms is zero as is the solar power output every night or when the cells are covered with snow. We need to install nuclear or fossil fuel plants to supply the base load. A typical nuclear power plant produces 1,000 megawatts of electricity per hour. At 25 megawatts to 1500 acres for a nice wind farm of 60 to 70 turbines, you would need 60,000 acres and 2400 to 2800 wind turbines to equal 1,000 megawatts. Of course, that's only when the wind is blowing just right. That only happens about 25% of the time, so you really need four times as many wind turbines and four times as much space to produce, on average, 1,000 megawatts of electricity per hour. So that's, 240,000 acres and 9,600 to 11,200 turbines. 240,000 acres is 375 square miles. At 5 acres of solar panels per megawatt, you need 5,000 acres of solar panels to equal 1,000 megawatts of electricity. Those solar panels only work at peak power levels during the sunny times, so, on average, they only put out about 25% of their rated capacity. That means you really need 20,000 acres of solar panels to generate 1,000 megwatts of electricity per hour, on average. 20,000 acres is 31.25 square miles. We aren't going to put them anywhere. They are way too expensive and they don't provide a stable enough power supply to rely on. Anyplace with enough open spaces, enough wind or sun shine to be a good candidate is too far away from the east and west coasts where that power is needed most. Get real!
  75. Moe Unting from Calgary, Canada writes: There must be something that we have a lot of and dont need, that can be turned into fuel or used in a like manner. What about garbage into energy? Sewage?
  76. Able Bodied Man from It's NOT 'VICTORIA' Island, Canada writes:
    ARE YOU TIRED?

    I'm getting a tired of all this global warming-related stuff. Can't the legions of Global Warmalarmists move on to another alarm bell-ringing issue? Such as the excessive number of trees used to print newspapers? Or the increaisng amount of batter used in deep fried fish and chips?
  77. Jeff Booth from Kingston, Canada writes: Darcy Meyer: you can't get more energy out of something than you put in (law of conservation of energy). So that claim must be false.
  78. neil b from edmonton, Canada writes: I would like to see all the enviroMENTALists who demonstrated for ethanol, tried to embarrass the gov. and basically hijacked the media as they so well do ,stand up and show us who you are.

    C'mon, get out from under that rock and be accountable for your social engineering failure. Where are you? Explain to us why your activism, that cost you nothing, has hurt so many people in the general population.

    Still can't hear you!!! I thought so....spineless vermin.
  79. Jeff Booth from Kingston, Canada writes: Oh, and you could feed a person for a year with the corn required to produce one tank of ethanol (http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=7216688&story_id=10252015). That fact alone should be enough to cease corn ethanol production all together.
  80. S M from Canada writes: I think they should look into Bio Hazard Fuels.

    Then everyones car will run like s**t.
  81. Darcy Meyer from Canada writes: Jeff Booth .....The sun provides the energy and the plant converts it to cellulose/sugars/oil. The energy needed to convert that energy into a useful form is much less than the energy captured by the plants.
  82. Mike M from Toronto, Canada writes: Neil B,

    I don't think you've been reading the comments. Some environmentalists initially supported ethanol, but alot didn't. See Tony's excellent post above. The big pusher for ethanol has always been the agricultural industry.

    As to why governments (both federal and provincial) thought it was a great idea to take a lobby group at its word over the objections of scientists and many environmentalists - well I guess you'll have to ask your MP/MPP that question.