buis060209

On the homepage

Vikings

Out There

Crimefighting

Video advances are a big crime-solving aid

Mental health

A 'national crisis' of student suicide

Home | Opinion Exchange | Commentary

Tom Buis: Climate change debate needs facts

Set aside discredited theories, and it's clear that ethanol should be a big part of the effort to address climate change.

By TOM BUIS

Last update: June 1, 2009 - 7:36 PM

Print this story

Follow Opinion Exchange on Twitter

More from Commentary

Thomas Jefferson was once quoted as saying: "I can never fear that things will go far wrong where common sense has fair play."

While common sense is not a commodity often ascribed to Washington, D.C., Minnesotans can be proud to call House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson one of your own.

Peterson recently came under attack in the Star Tribune for his efforts to introduce fair play and common sense into the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) process of determining the environmental impact of different kinds of fuel.

Peterson is helping to lead a bipartisan effort to derail the use of a scheme known as "indirect land use change" (ILUC) that inflates the greenhouse gas emissions of corn-based ethanol.

According to this flawed scheme, corn used for ethanol displaces other crops, like soybeans, decreasing exports and causing farmers in developing countries like Brazil to cut down rainforests and grow soybeans to fill the demand.

Essentially, those who accept the ILUC theory believe that a farmer planting corn in Minnesota is somehow responsible for a tree being cut down in South America.

If that sounds crazy to you, it's because it is. What's more, the two main concepts that serve as the foundation of the scheme have been thoroughly debunked.

First, U.S. grain exports are up, not down. And, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture projections, exports for corn and soybeans are likely to remain steady or grow slightly through 2015.

Second, the ILUC theory claims that producing ethanol from corn drives deforestation in the Amazon. However, data from Brazil's National Institute of Space Research shows that even while U.S. ethanol production has dramatically increased, deforestation in the Amazon has significantly decreased.

So, not only does the ILUC theory fail to pass the "common sense" test, there is empirical evidence to show it's simply not true.

To make matters worse, some are proposing that the EPA only apply an indirect use penalty on corn-based ethanol -- and not to oil-based gasoline. Once again, hard-working farmers in Minnesota would be penalized while oil companies do irreparable environmental damage with impunity in places like the Canadian tar sands.

It's not just ethanol supporters who are questioning the ILUC theory. In fact, more than 100 scientists and academics signed a letter earlier this year criticizing this scheme.

When you set aside discredited theories like ILUC and look at actual science, it becomes very clear that ethanol should be a big part of President Obama's effort to address climate change.

The latest peer-reviewed research shows that, thanks to advancements in both corn farming and ethanol production, today's ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 59 percent over oil-based gasoline. And, according to that same study, future advances in ethanol could lead to a 90 percent decrease.

But ethanol is not only good for our environment -- it is also good for our ailing economy and reduces our dependency on foreign oil.

That's why Growth Energy has asked the EPA to allow gasoline to be blended with as much as 15 percent ethanol (E15). Currently, an outdated and arbitrary regulation limits the amount of ethanol blended with gasoline to no more than 10 percent per gallon (E10). Despite claims of preferential treatment by the government, today's federal policy actually caps ethanol usage and gives oil a 90 percent monopoly on our fuel supply.

According to a recent study, raising the allowable ethanol blend from 10 percent to 15 percent will create more than 136,000 new green-collar jobs and inject $24.4 billion into the American economy annually. Minnesota stands to gain 3,095 jobs and a $586 million boost to the economy if the EPA allows E15.

And, increasing the blend level from E10 to E15 will avoid the importation of 7 billion gallons of gasoline. Reducing dependence on imported oil not only makes good environmental and economic sense, but it also will make us less reliant on unstable and often unfriendly countries for our fuel supply.

Those who dislike ethanol have expressed concerns that higher blends of ethanol would negatively impact engine performance. The good news is that science overwhelming shows there is no need for such concerns. In the past two years alone, a range of independent experts have spent thousands of hours testing the effects of higher ethanol blends on a wide range of vehicles of different ages.

In fact, there has been more testing on E15 than on any other fuel additive in the history of the EPA waiver process.

Ethanol producers and corn farmers aren't looking for any special treatment. All we are asking for is a little common sense and fair play. Thankfully, Collin Peterson is fighting for just that.

Tom Buis is the CEO of Growth Energy.

Recent Commentary stories

Dave Churchill: Airport noise (and I don't mean planes) - June 1, 2009

Dave Churchill: Airport noise (and I don't mean planes) - To walk through almost any terminal is to be bombarded by amplification. More

Comment on this story | Read all 24 comments | Hide reader comments

New ideas for the public sector

THERE'S NEVER BEEN A BETTER TIME to create a more efficient Minnesota. Facing large budget deficits at the state, county and local levels, Minnesotans are seeing with new clarity that the public sector must adapt to new economic realities. Only the smartest, most strategic reinvention will ensure that our tax dollars are spent on the best programs and services. Read more

About Opinion Exchange

Opinion Exchange is produced by the Editorial Department, which is dedicated to hosting the discussion on a range of issues of interest to Star Tribune readers online and in print. In its new format, it's our hope that Opinion Exhange will create a more dynamic dialogue between Star Tribune readers and the Editorial Board. Many individual posts will be written and signed by members of the Editorial Board and will reflect their own opinions. Daily editorials will continue to represent the institutional voice of the newspaper and be researched and written by the Editorial Department, which is independent of the newsroom.

Subscribe to RSS|Learn more about RSS