Energy Policy Affects Wildlife

BP Impacts Obvious – Others Not So Obvious

Energy policy definitely affects wildlife.  Ethanol made from corn is being pushed by the Federal government under pressure from a powerful industry lobby.  Following is the opinion of one conservation leader about using a food crop to run vehicles.

 President Obama popularized the phrase “putting lipstick on a pig” during the election, but the Washington ethanol lobby gave it substance.  However, no amount of lipstick can cover the negative impacts that corn-based ethanol has on America.

 Ethanol, a.k.a., ethyl alcohol, is produced through a fermentation or distillation process of sugar solutions.  The resulting liquid is a compound that can be burned as a fuel.  Ethanol can be made from corn, other grains or biomass sources such as sorghum, corn cobs, cornstalks, grasses and even wood chips.  Using these biomass sources, many of which are waste products, to satisfy America’s energy demand makes a lot of sense.  But converting a food source to a transportation fuel makes no sense.

 For the last dozen years, Federal legislators and the ethanol lobby have been busy in our nation’s capital smearing lipstick all over the corn to ethanol push.  Ethanol produced in America grew from 2 billion gallons in 2002 to over 6.5 billion gallons in 2007.  Federal mandate requires ethanol production at 35 billion gallons by 2017.  If we assume that all, or most, of that lofty goal will come from corn then we are going to witness some major changes to our rural landscape.

 In 2010 taxpayers paid $7.7 Billion in tax credits to the ethanol industry, while 41% of the American corn crop was diverted to make this fuel.  This increased meat and other food costs to the American consumer, and many argue increased food costs around the world.  The food riots in Mexico in 2008 were attributed to shortages of corn, a staple in the Mexican diet.  Pope Benedict called the conversion of food to a transportation fuel to be immoral. 

 Earth is home to 6.5 billion people, to be 8 billion by the next decade.  The world could have a hard time feeding itself in the future even if all arable land is put in production.  Add to that the burden of increased cost of food on the world’s poor.  Part of the move to topple the Egyptian government was caused by steep increases in the cost of food staples in a nation where half the people live on $2 a day.  Food costs will only go higher.

 All in Favor

 The ethanol lobby has a powerful core of support in D.C., but the lipstick is wearing off for most.  Senator John McCain (Arizona) recently said “Ethanol is a joke.”  Many on Wall Street feel the same way even though they make money from commodities like corn.  Meryl Witmer, General Partner, Eagle Capital Partners and a Wall Street guru was recently quoted in  Barron’s saying “ the federal ethanol mandate results in “more than 30% of our corn production being used for ethanol.  It is ‘a crazy policy’ that Congress could and should change.”

 In spite of growing opposition to ethanol subsidies in Washington, and throughout the nation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in January 2011 authorized the ethanol blend in gasoline to rise from 10% to 15% for vehicles 2001 and newer.  This appears to be a policy designed to help the ethanol industry to grow.  Push-back against the current ethanol policy is growing among deficit hawks and environmental interests.

 The Birds Weigh In

 Grassland birds, as a group our most threatened, vote no to corn ethanol according to recent research published by Dr. Bruce Robertson, MSU entomology professor and postdoctoral fellow at the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute Migratory Bird Center in Washington D.C.  He and collaborators learned from a Southern Michigan study that the environmental consequences of turning more acreage over to row crops for fuel are a serious concern.

 In the first such empirical comparison and the first to simultaneously study grassland bird communities across habitat scales, Dr. Robertson and colleagues found that bugs and the birds that feed on them thrive more in mixed prairie grasses than in corn.  Almost twice as many species made their homes in mixed grasses, while plots of switchgrass, a federally designated model fuel crop, fell between the two in their ability to sustain biodiversity.

 It is clear that wholesale loss of grasses and native prairie communities in the Midwest will have a serious impact on our grassland birds.

 Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Agriculture expects farmland to continue to leave the Conservation Reserve Program, an effort where farmers are paid to retire certain lands for a minimum of 10 years.  Much of this renewed productive acreage will convert from grassland to crops in the future.  The bottom line for wildlife is decidedly negative.

 What is the answer to this craziness?  Well, Larry Reed, of the Mackinac Center, the Midland based think tank, zeroed in on ethanol about 10 years ago when he wrote:

 “What we have here is not insanity, but an addiction.  Politicians get a ‘high’ from ethanol.  Vocal, moneyed special interests—the ‘pushers’ of the stuff, if you please—have hooked them on it.  What’s needed perhaps is a support group we might call ‘Ethanolics Anonymous’ to help weak and wayward politicians mend their ways and get back on the straight and narrow.”

 The Congress needs to stop taxpayer support for the destruction of America’s prairie and grassland ecosystems.

 Dennis Fijalkowski

[Return to Newsletter Index]