The Feb. 3 editorial “The Midwest’s favorite subsidy” serves only to perpetuate myths about ethanol and renewable fuels. The assertion that “ethanol production consumes more energy than the ethanol provides” is entirely false. In a 2002 study, the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that ethanol generates at least 34 percent more energy than it takes to produce it. And there’s plenty of up-to-date credible research supporting the USDA’s findings. The USDA currently is working on a study, using Cornell University agricultural scientist David Pimentel’s (who was referenced in the editorial) own methodology, suggesting the ethanol energy balance may actually be much higher.
The editorial omitted other facts proving the value of ethanol to our environment and economy: the American Lung Association of Chicago says ethanol-blended reformulated gasoline has reduced smog-forming emissions by 25 percent since 1990; the Argonne National Laboratory says ethanol produces 32 percent fewer emissions of greenhouse gases than gasoline for the same distance traveled; economic data show demand for grain to be used in ethanol production increases net farm income more than $1.2 billion per year; and ethanol production is responsible for more than 40,000 jobs, many of which are in Illinois.
Contrary to the claims of Pimentel and University of California geoengineering professor Tad W. Patzek, passage of the energy bill, which includes a 5-billion-gallon renewable fuel standard, would dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Ethanol has already proven its worth as an ecologically responsible commodity that provides economic development in both rural and urban areas and strengthens U.S. energy security. Why must we keep defending ethanol?
