[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 80 (Thursday, May 15, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4243-S4247]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SCAPEGOATING OF ETHANOL
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I come to the floor to rebut the
scapegoating of ethanol, which is part of the food versus fuel debate.
I do not do it for a one-way conversation. I hope I can encourage
conversation on this subject among my colleagues so we can look at this
from a scientific and economic point of view and avoid scapegoating.
[[Page S4244]]
For almost 30 years, I have been leading an effort with many of my
colleagues to promote policies to grow a domestic renewable fuels
industry. We have promoted homegrown renewable fuels as a way to lessen
our dependance on foreign oil and to improve our air quality.
For all these years, we have hardly heard anything negative about
these policies. Now, ethanol and other biofuels are being made a
scapegoat for a whole variety of problems. Never before in 30 years has
the virtuous benefits of ethanol and renewable fuels been so questioned
and so criticized.
The problem is, none of these criticisms are based on sound science,
sound economics, or for that matter even common sense. I had the
opportunity to hear an intelligent discussion of this, maybe it only
lasted a couple of minutes, on a program on Fox News Saturday night
called, ``The Beltway Boys.'' And these people are very intelligent
people.
I heard Mort Kondracke, a veteran journalist, falling prey to some of
the same erroneous talking points that I have heard over and over for
the past couple of weeks.
Mr. Kondracke is one-half of that intelligent duo on Fox News that I
referred to as ``The Beltway Boys.'' Maybe Mr. Kondracke has spent too
much time inside the beltway and could use a little real world
explanation from a family farmer like me from the Midwest.
Some of my colleagues in the Senate have also gotten involved in this
misinformation campaign, and that is why I did not come to the floor to
speak; I come to the floor to encourage dialogue with my colleagues on
this subject because it seems there is a ``group-think'' mentality when
it comes to scapegoating ethanol for everything from high gas prices,
global food shortages, global warming, and even deforestation.
But, as was recently reported, this anti-ethanol campaign is not a
coincidence. It has been well thought out, well programmed, and that
program is going on. It turns out that a $300,000, 6-month retainer of
a beltway public relations firm is behind the smear campaign against
ethanol. And they have been hired by a trade association referred to as
the Grocery Manufacturers Association. They have outlined their
strategy of using environmental, hunger, and food aid groups to
demonstrate their contrived crisis. And it is right here in a 26-page
document put out by the Glover Park Group, called ``The Food and Fuel
Campaign.'' They enlist the support of these other nonprofit groups
that are involved with environment and hunger.
I think it is important for policymakers and the American people to
know who is behind this effort. According to reports, downtown DC
lobbyists, the Glover Park Group, and the Dutko Worldwide are leading
the effort to undermine and denigrate the patriotic achievements of
American farmers to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, while also
providing a safe and affordable food environment.
The principal leaders behind the Glover Park Group's proposal reads
like a who's who of Democratic operatives. The effort is led by former
President Clinton's Press Secretary, Joe Lockhart. Another is 8-year
veteran of the Clinton-Gore White House, Michael Feldman.
Other leaders in this misinformation campaign include Carter Eskew,
Mike Donilon, Joel Johnson, and Susan Brophy, all of which proudly
display their ties to the Clinton-Gore White House and their
credentials of helping elect Democratic candidates.
This campaign against ethanol is more sophisticated than anything I
have seen put on by big oil over the last 30 years, as big oil has been
a constant fighter. I will show you how this is a well-sophisticated
political operation and public relations effort. For instance, the
media relations public affairs responsibility comes under the partners
in charge, Joe Lockhart and Michael Feldman. The advocacy and image
advertising comes under the leadership of partners in charge, Carter
Eskew and Mike Donilon. The legislative affairs part of it is directed
by partners in charge, Joel Johnson and Susan Brophy.
Now, these people are outstanding people. They are going to be able
to deliver what they have said they could do. That is why we have to
take it very seriously.
I suggest that Democrats in the Senate who claim to support our
Nation's drive toward energy independence should be alarmed by this
group's planned campaign and the tactics being used.
I happen to be one who fought President Clinton during his 8 years in
office at every turn when he tried to undermine our renewable fuels
industry. The outstanding example I remember is when California made
application to the EPA for a waiver under the Clean Air Act at the very
time that MTBE was being outlawed because it was poisoning the
groundwater. The only oxygenate that you could use in gasoline then was
ethanol. California sought an exemption. We were able to win that by
the Clinton administration not allowing it. Now, of course, we find
ourselves fighting President Clinton's former staff and staff who
worked for the Gore and Kerry Presidential campaigns, leading an effort
for the grocery manufacturers to smear ethanol, after 30 years of
developing an industry because people called for more renewable energy.
They wanted renewable, clean-burning energy. They didn't want to be
reliant upon dirty-burning petroleum. They didn't want to be relying
upon importing so much.
I imagine that they are leading this effort partly because they are
being paid well for doing so, but they maybe can't stand the fact that
President Bush has proved to be the best friend the renewable fuels
industry has had. Because their old boss failed miserably at crafting
policies to promote ethanol, they are doing everything they can to tear
down the success President George W. Bush has helped foster.
There are a lot of intelligent people who have been misled by this
campaign and are simply wrong. They are using in their speeches a lot
of the rhetoric that comes out of this effort. The facts don't back up
the argument. I invite my colleagues to look at the facts, challenge
me, have a dialog on this subject so we can use science as a basis for
what we are doing, and economics as well.
It is time to dispel the myths perpetuated by Mr. Kondracke, one of
the Beltway boys--he was probably reporting this misinformation because
he is a smart person--the Glover Park Group, and others.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association, I have come to the conclusion,
needs an excuse to gouge consumers of America with higher food prices,
and an easy scapegoat for increasing food prices is, of course,
ethanol. One myth that pops up again and again is that ethanol takes
more energy to produce than it provides. I heard Mr. Kondracke say
that. Let's look at the facts. In 2005, the Argonne National Laboratory
study concluded that it takes only seven-tenths of one unit of fossil
energy to make one unit of ethanol. That is a positive net energy
balance. In comparison, it takes 1.23 units of fossil energy to make
one unit of petroleum gasoline. So why aren't the grocery manufacturers
of America bringing up the point that petroleum processing into
gasoline is not energy positive? Because gasoline requires more than 1
Btu of energy to deliver 1 Btu to your car. That is a negative net
energy balance.
A 2004 U.S. Department of Agriculture study concluded that ethanol
yields 67 percent more energy than is used to grow and harvest the
grain and to process that grain into ethanol. These figures take into
account the energy required to not just process grain into ethanol, it
takes into consideration the energy the farmer takes to plant, to grow,
to harvest the corn, as well as the energy required to manufacture and
distribute the ethanol.
Of 15 different peer-review studies we have looked at and that have
been conducted on this issue, 12 of the 15 found that ethanol has a
positive net energy balance. Only a single individual from Cornell
University, who authored the other three studies, disagrees with this
analysis. The Cornell studies have consistently used old data, some
from 1979. Remember, in 1979, farmers weren't producing as much corn
per acre as they do today. Corn yields then were 91 bushels per acre.
It was at 137 bushels per acre in the year 2000. The average is now up
to 150 to 160 bushels per acre. The flawed studies also rely on 1979
figures for energy use to manufacture
[[Page S4245]]
ethanol. This energy consumption was cut in half between the years 1979
and 2000 and continues efficiency gains every year. I could quantify
that better than just using a broad sweep.
In the early 1980s, we were producing about 2.3 gallons of ethanol
from a bushel of corn. Today, we are producing 2.8 gallons of ethanol
per bushel. And pretty soon, the industry believes they might be able
to produce 3 gallons per bushel.
So these erroneous Cornell conclusions have been refuted by experts
from entities as diverse as the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the
Department of Energy, the Argonne National Laboratory, Michigan State
University, and the Colorado School of Mines. The fact is, studies
using old data overestimate energy use by not taking into account
efficiencies gained in agriculture, the greater use of fertilizer, and
ethanol production.
I don't understand how intelligent people, then, can continue to
argue that ethanol has a negative net energy balance. But that is what
I heard on television Saturday night from very intelligent people. That
is what I hear in this smear campaign. The net energy balance of
ethanol production continues to improve because ethanol production is
becoming more efficient. A March 2008 study by Argonne National
Laboratory found significant gains just since 2001. Ethanol production
since 2001 has reduced water use by 27 percent, reduced electricity use
by 16 percent, and reduced total energy use by 22 percent.
Another myth being perpetuated by opponents of a renewable fuels
effort and by Mr. Kondracke is that ethanol harms the environment and
contributes more in greenhouse gases than petroleum. This claim is
likewise hogwash. Science magazine and Time magazine made wildly
erroneous claims about corn ethanol that are now being used by these
detractors. They claim that ethanol production is the driving force
behind rain forest deforestation and grassland conversion to
agricultural production. This is an oversimplification to say the
least. How could intelligent people ignore the effects of a growing
global population? How can one simply ignore the surging global demands
for food from growing populations in China and India? Wouldn't urban
development and sprawl also be a contributor to the increased demand
for arable land?
Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer and Energy Secretary Sam Bodman
stated in a letter to Time magazine, when they ran this outrageous
story that was based on a Science magazine article, that it was ``one-
sided and scientifically uninformed.'' They further stated that the
Science magazine article had been ``thoroughly rebutted by leading
scientists at the Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory.''
In fact, Dr. Wang at the Argonne Laboratory stated:
There has been no indication that the U.S. corn ethanol
production has so far caused indirect land use changes in
other countries. No claim can be made that U.S. ethanol
production leads to the clearing of rain forests.
In fact, since 2002, U.S. corn exports increased by 60 percent. Even
with the growth in the ethanol industry, our corn exports have steadily
increased, meeting growing global demands. So when it comes to the
United States and food, we allow exports to other areas where they need
our overproduction.
But one of the things that is driving up the price of rice now is a
lot of prohibition in countries that produce rice to exports. So the
global trading system is not efficiently distributing rice to where it
is needed to feed hungry people. Think of that as a detraction, but
also think that in the whole world, 95 percent of all grain produced is
consumed and not made into something else.
While some claim that corn ethanol increases greenhouse gas emissions
because of land use changes around the globe, they need to think again.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, today's corn ethanol
produces about 20 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions on a life-
cycle basis. Ethanol blended fuel emits cleaner tailpipe emissions and,
unlike petroleum, ethanol doesn't harm the environment or groundwater
the way the petroleum-based product MTBE did for the 20 years it was
used in gasoline as an oxygenate, where ethanol can be used as an
oxygenate and it doesn't do that.
In recent weeks, a new argument has come forward about the effect of
corn ethanol on domestic and global food prices. Food prices are going
up. Of course, we all have to be sympathetic to that, whether it is in
America or abroad. People are struggling with higher prices for food is
not something we like to hear. But to put all the blame at the feet of
the U.S. ethanol industry is outrageous and misplaced, and that is what
this smear campaign is all about, just so the grocery manufacturers of
America can have an excuse to increase the price of food here.
Watching the news and listening to some of my colleagues, there was
even a hearing on this a couple weeks ago in the Senate. I have even
heard expressed in this hearing that the price of oranges was going up
because of ethanol. We have heard that the domestic ethanol industry
was blamed for shortages not only in oranges but apples, broccoli,
rice, wheat, lentils, peppers, even bananas.
Let's stop to think about the people who are saying: You are growing
more corn, so we are growing less wheat or rice. We don't make ethanol
out of wheat or rice. But for people to say that fruits are going up or
bananas are going up because we are growing more corn, well, let me
assure everybody I do not know of anybody who is plowing up and tearing
out an apple orchard, an orange orchard or a banana plantation to plant
corn for ethanol. But that is the ignorance about the people who are
making those mistakes, trying to make the argument that more land is
going into corn and less going into wheat, so the price of bread is
going up.
With regard to wheat, rice, and lentils, the global demand for food
from a growing middle class in China and India have the most impact is
what economists are telling us.
Weather trends, including a 100-year historic--how to say it--the
worst drought in 100 years in Australia and poor growing conditions in
Southeast Asia and Eastern Europe have had a much greater impact on the
supply of rice and wheat.
Many of these countries also have government production policies that
manipulate production, supply, and trading of these commodities. Think
of some of the dictators in Africa who want a cheap food policy.
Farmers cannot make enough producing food, so the farmers move to town
and live in the slums, when they could be producing something back
home, if the governments had policies that would encourage the
production. There is so much resource in Africa that there is no reason
to have anybody starving in Africa.
The fact is, the global demand and price for all commodities has
increased. Some of this could even be due to speculation. You read that
in the business papers in the United States quite regularly.
One of the biggest culprits behind rising food prices is the cost of
oil at $125 a barrel. We had a recent Texas A&M study concluding that
the biggest driving force behind the higher food costs is higher energy
costs. So if Texas A&M is saying that, let's look at what the Iowa
State University Center for Agriculture and Rural Development is saying
about ethanol's impact upon the price of gasoline and energy to move
food around. They say, without the ethanol we have, you would be paying
30 or 40 cents more for a gallon of gasoline. In turn, then, since
Texas A&M says energy is the biggest reason for the increased costs of
food, you would have yet higher food prices without having ethanol.
Joseph Glauber, chief economist at the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, recently testified that rising prices for corn and
soybeans have had little or no effect on the high price for wheat,
rice, and other food commodities.
Dr. Glauber cited the worldwide economic growth--that would be China
and India, as examples of a couple countries--global weather problems--
that would be the drought in Australia--rising marketing costs, and a
weak U.S. dollar as having a greater role than biofuels in the cost of
food being higher and even being scarce.
A U.N. official has recently referred to biofuels as ``a crime
against humanity.'' Mr. Ziegler, from the country of Switzerland, might
benefit from a review of European policies that ban or restrict the
growth and import of genetically modified crops.
Let me explain that genetically modified crops have had a great deal
to
[[Page S4246]]
do with the increased production of corn per acre, from 91 bushels per
acre in 1979, to 107 bushels per acre in 2000, to 150 to 160 bushels
per acre in 2007.
While U.S. farmers are taking great strides, through the use of
genetically modified grains, to feed the world, Europe is taking a step
backward--the same Europe that Mr. Ziegler lives in, who is saying that
biofuels is ``a crime against humanity.''
As a result, you have a ripple effect of the policies in Europe
because African countries are reluctant to grow genetically modified
grains, even though their production gains are great, because European
countries might restrict their imports from those African countries.
I might suggest Mr. Ziegler focus more of his efforts on
opportunities lost as to growing more grains in Europe and focus on
GMOs and their use in Europe than our biofuels policy.
U.S. farmers responded to these increased demands for grain and
produced a record corn crop in 2007. Now, we grew more acres of corn in
2007 than any year since 1944. We produced 2.6 billion more bushels of
corn in 2007 than 2006. Now, out of that 2.7 billion bushels, ethanol
only used 600 million of them. So for all the people complaining about
not having enough corn, are they going to use 2.1 billion bushels more
that we raised in the greatest acreage since 1944 that was not used for
ethanol? Are they going to take that into consideration or are they
going to still complain that there is not enough corn around?
Exports have grown as well. Our U.S. Department of Agriculture
estimates that this year's corn exports will be a record 2.5 billion
bushels--up 18 percent over last year. We are getting that surplus
production in the United States around the world, where it is needed.
One of the places it is needed is in China. They do not export corn
anymore. In the 1980s, the Chinese were eating 44 pounds of meat a
year; this year--while I guess the figures are for a couple years ago--
111 pounds of meat. They are going from rice to value-added food
products. They have to have some of our corn to do that, and we are
glad to sell it to them.
With these facts, it is hard for critics to argue that the domestic
ethanol industry is diverting corn from feed or food markets. Yet that
is what this smear campaign is saying.
It is also important to keep in mind that a tiny fraction of the cost
of retail food is the result of farm inputs. Would you think farmers
are getting rich because the price of food is going up?
First of all, let's look at all the income from farmers. They only
get back 19 cents
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, since I do not see any other
colleagues asking for time, I ask unanimous consent for an additional
10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Thank you, Madam President.
Out of $1 that you, as a consumer, spend for food, the farmer gets 19
cents. Look at a $5 box of corn flakes. For an interview here, I bought
a $5 box of corn flakes. I think I had to pay a little bit more because
I bought it on the Hill. But the family farmer's share of that $5 box
of corn flakes--and it happened to be a little bigger box than normal--
was about less than 10 cents. I think the real figure is about 8 cents.
That is what the farmer gets out of a box of corn flakes.
Yet the farmer is being blamed for the high price of food because we
grow some corn to make ethanol because the American people, 30 years
ago, were demanding that we go to a renewable, clean-burning fuel
instead of depending upon dirty-burning petroleum, putting more
CO2 into the air. The value of corn in a pound of beef or
pork is about 20 or 30 cents. Yet some have suggested we should suspend
our policies that promote the use of renewable fuels to help drive down
food prices.
If all the evidence suggests that biofuels have little, if any,
impact on the rising cost of food, what good can come from lifting our
biofuels policies? If people look at the facts, how can a public
relations firm of former Clinton employees get a $300,000 contract from
a very respectable organization such as the Grocery Manufacturers of
America, whose Members need an excuse to raise the price of food? How
do they get away with it? Well, they get away with it because nobody is
looking at the facts.
I was pleased to join 15 of my colleagues in signing a letter to the
Environmental Protection Agency, expressing our opposition to this
misguided idea. We had about that same number of Senators in this
body--some of them even voting for ethanol in the past years--sending a
letter down to the same EPA, saying we have to stop ethanol, probably
some of the very same people who are complaining about the dirty air we
have or the global warming.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record a copy of that letter.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, May 6, 2008.
Hon. Stephen Johnson,
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC.
Dear Administrator Johnson: We're writing to express our
strong opposition to any request to partially or completely
waive the Renewable Fuels Standard. We strongly disagree with
the assumption that the renewable fuels mandate is harming
the U.S. economy or that it's primarily responsible for the
global escalation of food costs.
We recognize that global food prices have seen a
significant increase in recent years. However, waiving the
RFS would not cause an immediate or near term reduction in
food prices. Ed Lazear, Chairman of the Council of Economic
Advisors, recently estimated that global food prices have
increased 43 percent since last year, and domestic food
inflation was 4.5 percent. Importantly, Chairman Lazear noted
that the increased production of ethanol accounted for only 3
percent of the 43 percent global increase and only a quarter
of one percent of the 4.5 percent increase in U.S. food
prices. This data is evidence that ethanol accounts for less
than 3 percent of the increase in global food prices.
There are many factors behind the rise in food costs. The
increased demand in emerging markets, increased cost of
energy inputs, weather conditions in Australia, China and
Eastern Europe, and export restrictions have all contributed
to the rising costs, according to Chairman Lazear.
Corn production and consumption in the United States has
very little or no impact at all on global rice, wheat or
lentil markets. Joseph Glauber, Chief Economist at the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, recently testified before Congress
that rising prices for corn and soybeans have had little
effect on the high prices for wheat, rice and other food
commodities. He indicated that many factors have a greater
role than biofuels, including worldwide economic growth,
global weather problems affecting wheat production, rising
marketing costs, and the weak U.S. dollar.
While we're all sympathetic to those struggling to cope
with the higher cost of food both domestically and
internationally, we must be intellectually honest about the
real causes behind the increases. Waiving the renewable fuels
mandate will have a negligible impact on corn and food
prices. A recent Texas A&M study concluded that relaxing the
Renewable Fuels Standard will not result in significantly
lower corn prices.
At a time when a barrel of crude oil costs nearly $120 and
gasoline prices are approaching $4 a gallon, the fuel
produced by the U.S. ethanol industry is helping to extend
our fuel supply and keep prices lower. A Merrill Lynch
analyst recently estimated that oil and gas prices would be
15 percent higher if biofuels weren't added to our nation's
fuel supply. According to Iowa State University's Center for
Agriculture and Rural Development, ethanol use has lowered
gas prices by 30 to 40 cents a gallon, while relaxing the
mandate would reduce corn prices by only 5 percent. The fact
is, reducing the amount of ethanol in our nation's fuel mix
will have little if any impact on food prices and will
actually increase prices at the pump for American's
consumers.
As world demand for biofuels and food increases in the
coming years, we will need to continue to develop
technologies and feedstocks that meet that demand in a
sustainable manner. We strongly support efforts to develop
alternative feedstocks and technologies that can satisfy this
global demand in a way that addresses the goals of energy
security and food security.
The U.S. renewable fuels industry has made tremendous
strides to produce a home-grown, alternative energy that is
improving our environment, reducing our dependence on foreign
oil and increasing our national security. America's farmers
are continuing to provide an ample supply of safe, affordable
food for the U.S. and global markets. Therefore, we strongly
urge you to reject any action that would reduce the
production and use of domestically produced renewable fuels.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley; John Thune; Norm Coleman; Kit Bond;
Tim Johnson; E. Benjamin Nelson; Amy Klobuchar; Byron
Dorgan; Richard G. Lugar; Ken Salazar; Kent Conrad; Jon
Tester; Claire McCaskill; Tom Harkin; Debbie Stabenow;
Evan Bayh.
[[Page S4247]]
Mr. GRASSLEY. An investment researcher with UBS recently said that
lifting the biofuels mandate will not ease corn or food prices because
energy costs and commodity speculation--speculation--are greater
factors. Lifting the renewable fuels mandate will not drive down the
cost of corn or the price of groceries. But it will increase our demand
for crude oil--dirty-burning crude oil. Big oil wins.
A Merrill Lynch analyst recently estimated that oil and gas prices
would be up 15 percent higher without biofuels. I have already spoken
to the Iowa State University study: 30 or 40 cents higher for gasoline
without having the ethanol industry.
Another economist estimated an even higher price, that gas would go
up $1.40 if we removed 50 percent of the ethanol scheduled to be used
this year--as these letters from my colleagues suggest that we do away
with half the mandate.
It is clear, then, reducing the amount of ethanol in our Nation's
fuel mix will have little, if any, impact on food prices and will
actually increase prices at the pump for all Americans.
So to the critics, let me say loudly and clearly: Ethanol is not the
cause of all that ails you. While it is easy to blame, it is
intellectually dishonest to make these claims. It is time for critics
to take an independent look at the facts. They have a responsibility to
brush aside this sort of ``herd mentality'' that is being encouraged by
the Grocery Manufacturers Association. It eventually gets taken over by
the pundits and talking heads on TV who claim that everything about
ethanol is bad. And it is getting louder. It is not only bad, but it is
bad, bad, bad.
I wish to tell you what is good, good, good about ethanol because the
truth is, ethanol is reducing our dependence upon foreign oil. Ethanol
has a significant net energy balance. The same cannot be said for
gasoline. Ethanol is reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. Ethanol is
not the culprit behind rising food and feed prices here at home or
abroad. Ethanol is lowering the price of crude oil and lowering the
price of gasoline. Ethanol is increasing our national security, helping
our balance of trade, reducing our dependence upon Middle East oil and
the whims of big oil.
It is time we clear the air, look at the facts, and recognize, once
again, that everything about our domestic renewable fuels is good,
good, good--good for agriculture; good for the refinery business,
providing jobs in rural America; good for the environment; good for
national defense; good for the balance of payments--good, good, good.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that ``Ethanol Myths and
Facts'' from the U.S. Department of Energy be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Ethanol Myths and Facts
Myth: Ethanol cannot be produced from corn in large enough
quantities to make a real difference without disrupting food
and feed supplies.
Fact: Corn is only one source of ethanol. As we develop
new, cost-effective methods for producing biofuels, a
significant amount of ethanol will be made from more abundant
cellulosic biomass sources.
Future ethanol will be produced increasingly from cellulose
found in crop residues (e.g, stalks, hulls), forestry
residues (e.g., from forest thinning), energy crops (e.g.,
switchgrass, sorghum), and sorted municipal wastes. Some
promising energy crops grow on marginal soils not suited for
traditional agriculture.
A high-protein animal feed, known as Distillers Dried
Grains with Solubles (DDGS), is produced in the process of
making corn ethanol.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA)
requires that U.S. transportation fuels contain at least 36
billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022. Of that quantity,
16 billion gallons must be cellulosic biofuels, while ethanol
from corn is capped at 15 billion gallons.
The U.S. Departments of Energy and Agriculture's Billion
Ton Study found that we can grow adequate biomass feedstocks
to displace about 30% of current gasoline use by 2030 on a
sustainable basis--with only modest changes in land use. It
determined that 1.3 billion tons of U.S. biomass feedstock is
potentially available for the production of biofuels-more
than enough biomass to meet the new renewable fuel standard
mandated by EISA.
Myth: In terms of emissions, ethanol pollutes the same as
gasoline or more.
Fact: Ethanol results in fewer greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions than gasoline and is fully biodegradable, unlike
some fuel additives.
Today, on a life cycle basis, corn ethanol produces about
20% fewer GHG emissions than gasoline. With improved
efficiency and use of renewable energy, this reduction could
reach 52%.
In the future, ethanol produced from cellulose has the
potential to cut life- cycle GHG emissions by up to 86%
relative to gasoline.
Ethanol-blended fuels currently in the market--whether E10
or E85--meet stringent tailpipe emission standards.
Ethanol readily biodegrades without harm to the environment
and is a safe, high-performance replacement for fuel
additives such as MTBE.
Myth: More energy goes into producing ethanol than it
delivers as a fuel.
Fact: In terms of fossil energy, each gallon of ethanol
produced from corn today delivers one third or more energy
than is used to produce it.
Ethanol has a positive energy balance that is, the energy
content of ethanol is greater than the fossil energy used to
produce it--and this balance is constantly improving with new
technologies.
Over the last 20 years, the amount of energy needed to
produce ethanol from corn has significantly decreased because
of improved farming techniques, more efficient use of
fertilizers and pesticides, higher-yielding crops, and more
energy-efficient conversion technology.
Most studies that claim a negative energy balance for
ethanol fail to take into account the energy contained in the
co-products.
Myth: Rainforests will be destroyed to create the new
croplands required to meet food, feed, and biofuels needs,
thus accelerating climate change and destroying valuable
ecosystems.
Fact: Biofuels have the potential to significantly reduce
global GHG emissions associated with transportation, but--as
with all types of development--controls are needed to protect
ecologically important lands.
In Brazil and elsewhere, laws have already slowed
deforestation, and for the past decade China has converted
marginal croplands to grasslands and forests to control
erosion.
Links between U.S. ethanol production and land use changes
elsewhere are uncertain. We cannot simply assume that
increases in U.S. ethanol production will lead to increased
crop production abroad. In fact, since 2002, during the
greatest period of ethanol growth, U.S. corn exports
increased by 60% and exports of Distillers Dried Grains
(DDGs) also increased steadily. In part, improvements in U.S.
corn yield (about 1.6% annually since 1980) have enabled
simultaneous growth in corn and ethanol production.
Greenhouse gas emissions will decrease dramatically as
biofuels of the future are increasingly made from cellulosic
feedstocks and as the associated farming, harvesting,
transport, and production processes increasingly use clean,
renewable energy sources.
Myth: Ethanol-gasoline blends can lower, fuel economy and
may harm your engine.
Fact: Most ethanol blends in use today have little impact
on fuel economy or vehicle performance.
While ethanol delivers less energy than gasoline on a
gallon-for-gallon basis, today's vehicles are designed to run
on gasoline blended with small amounts of ethanol (10% or
less) with no perceptible effect on fuel economy.
Flex-fuel vehicles designed to run on higher ethanol blends
(E85 or 85% ethanol) do experience reduced miles per gallon,
but show a significant gain in horsepower.
As a high-octane fuel additive and substitute for MTBE,
ethanol enhances engine performance and adds oxygen to meet
requirements for reformulated gasoline.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________