The Dangers of Alcohol

Several weeks ago (Fat and Happy blog) we learned that the state of food production in the world today is amazing and getting even better. I have many relatives in the rich farmland of central Illinois. In years past, we’ve often visited these relatives at Thanksgiving when the harvest is pouring in from the fields. The harvest is so plentiful that it’s a common sight to drive by grain elevators with literally mountains of corn. My paternal grandparents were farmers who experienced first hand the astonishing transformation of agricultural production over their lifetimes. It’s nothing less than a modern day miracle that we are able to feed the 7.8 billion inhabitants of this planet – with plenty to spare.

Crop production in the United States has dramatically increased over the last 100 years, thanks in large part to the mechanization of farming, the widespread use of nitrogen based fertilizers and the use of irrigation. We must remember that these advances have come thanks to fossil fuels. Our massive modern tractors and combines are powered by diesel fuel. Natural gas is the key component for making fertilizer. Irrigation pumps are powered by electricity from coal or diesel powered generators.

The use of modern equipment has allowed farmers to perform far, far more labor in a single day than they ever could with draft animals. The consequences of this productivity revolution have been far-reaching for our entire society. Two hundred years ago, the vast majority of America’s population were farmers. Most of the population had to commit themselves to the intense labor of farming just to feed themselves. But the fossil fuel powered mechanization of farming required fewer farmers to put food on the table. The graph below shows how the percentage of the American workforce required for agriculture has drastically fallen over the years. It has been estimated that in 1800, 90% of the US population lived and worked on farms. Today, farmers and ranchers only account for 1.3% of the US workforce! As one writer quipped, “The share of the workforce laboring on farms has fallen from almost everyone to nearly no one.” Yet this merry band of US farmers not only feeds 330 million Americans but many millions abroad as well. More than 20% of US agricultural produce is exported. The preposterous productivity of our farmers has freed the other 98.7% of American workers to produce the many other goods and services we enjoy today. So we should be very grateful for our farmers and for the fossil fuels that power our machines, fertilize our crops and water our fields.

Despite what climate alarmists have been claiming for more than 50 years, there is absolutely no reason to believe we are heading towards a “Mad Max” like scenario of scarcity and starvation. The reality is in fact exactly the opposite. There is every reason to be tremendously optimistic. Slightly warmer temperatures will improve crop yields by lengthen growing seasons. Remember also that plants breathe carbon dioxide. Rising carbon dioxide levels have already boosted food production through the CO2 fertilization effect, and many studies demonstrate that CO2 fertilization will continue to improve crop yields in the future. Additionally, higher CO2 levels will lead to healthier trees and forests, thereby benefiting wildlife. The future is bright!

Despite all this fantastic news, all is not well. Misguided environmental policies threaten the world’s food supply. Climate alarmists who oppose fossil fuel use often attempt to craft policies which would deny people in developing nations the same blessings that we have experienced. Today, African nations are those most at risk for famine. If we desire to provide Africans with greater food security, we must help African farmers improve their crop yields. This goal will only be achieved by using the same high-yield techniques that have been so spectacularly successful in the United States and other developed countries. What African farmers need first and foremost is mechanization – that is, tractors powered by cheap, reliable fossil fuels. They also should be using nitrogen based fertilizers made from natural gas rather than just organic (manure) fertilizer. In more arid regions, they should be irrigating their fields with water pumps driven by coal or diesel power.

Such high-yield agriculture doesn’t just provide abundant food supplies, it actually protects our environment. By producing huge amounts of food on small amounts of land, high-yield agriculture allows us to maximize the preservation of forests, wetlands and prairies. The protection of these habitats allows wildlife to flourish. Many people have in their heads romantic notions of organic, subsistence farming. But such farming requires much more land yet produces less food. Policies which promote organic farming end up diminishing our food supply while promoting deforestation and other environmental damage.

Sadly, organizations such as the World Bank (funded by rich nations like the US) are designating more and more aid to poor nations as “climate aid.” Such policies demand that developing nations use only inefficient and unreliable solar and wind energy. Many wealthy folks in the United States have the luxury of wasting resources on wind turbines and solar panels, as long as fossil fuels are doing the real work of powering our society. Poor people in much of the world have no such luxury. Foolish policies which deny others the miracle of cheap, reliable fossil fuel energy condemn the world’s poor to remain in poverty and hunger. If we really love the world’s poor and seek their flourishing, we will do everything in our power to provide them with the inexpensive, reliable power that fossil fuels (or nuclear power) provide. If you want to keep people in misery, by all means just tell them to use solar panels.

There is one particular aspect of the modern agricultural revolution which is especially fascinating. I refer to the use of biofuels, especially ethanol. Ethanol is of course a form of alcohol (ethyl alcohol) which is combustible and therefore can be used as fuel. Ethanol can be made from a number organic sources but is produced in the US mainly from corn. We’ve already noted the spectacular rise in corn production over the last century. When most folks think about the nation’s farming produce, they imagine all this abundance heading to our dinner tables. And it is true that much of the corn harvest is either allocated directly towards human food or to feed the animals that provide our beef, poultry, pork, milk, butter, eggs and more. What most people don’t realize is that over the last 15 years a large and growing portion of the nation’s corn crop has gone into our gas tanks. Check out the chart below. Total corn production over time has increased, exceeding 15 billion bushels in 2016. However, since 2000, more and more of the corn crop has been devoted to making ethanol fuel. Today, about 40% of US corn harvest – more than 5 billion bushels – is used to power our vehicles.

The idea of using ethanol to supplement the nation’s fuel supply began in during the oil shortages of the 1970s. It seemed like a good way for America to buffer itself from dependency upon foreign oil from the volatile Middle East. But ethanol truly sprang to life in 2005 with the creation of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The RFS is a government mandate that requires that a certain amount of the nation’s fuel be produced from corn ethanol. This legislation enjoyed broad bipartisan support and was signed into law by President George W. Bush. In addition to energy independence from foreign oil, the motivation for the RFS included the desire to lower carbon emissions. Because of the RFS, virtually all the gasoline we put into our cars today contains 10% ethanol – referred to as E10. Ethanol producers constantly lobby the government to increase the mandate to 15% ethanol or more.

Seems like everybody wins with ethanol, right? We can produce fuel from corn grown right here in the United States, providing income for our farmers and high paying jobs at ethanol plants all while reducing our carbon emissions. What’s not to like? Well, it turns out than ethanol has a whole laundry list of serious problems.

First, ethanol makes very little economic sense. The economics of ethanol obviously depend on the constantly changing price of corn and oil. But studies have shown that from a pure cost perspective, ethanol can only compete if gas prices reach about $5 per gallon. With gas prices of only 2 – 3$ per gallon, ethanol requires heavy government subsidies and mandates to compete. Second, a gallon of ethanol contains significantly (about 30%) less potential energy than a gallon of gasoline. This means a drop in fuel efficiency. For the E10 blends we’re putting in our cars now, the result is 3-4% less miles per gallon. Higher ethanol blends will result in proportionally higher losses of fuel efficiency. Third, ethanol use can result in damage to engines and fuel systems. Since the implementation of the RFS, automakers have tried to design newer cars resistant to the deleterious effects of ethanol, but they warn that any further increase in ethanol concentration will be harmful to the nations’ car fleet.

But what about carbon emissions? Surely renewable fuels like ethanol have a big advantage over fossil fuels right? Well, not so much. The whole concept of biofuel like ethanol is that as the corn grows, it absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. When the ethanol fuel is burned, this CO2 is released but on balance the carbon emitted is less than with fossil fuels. Unfortunately, that’s not the whole story. As we’ve learned, it takes a lot of fossil fuels to produce the vast amounts of corn used for ethanol. Again, tractors, fertilizer, and irrigation all require substantial fossil fuel power. Additionally, there are land use considerations. The ethanol mandate gave farmers strong financial incentive to grow more corn. As the result, native prairie and wetlands were plowed under in order to plant corn. Destroying prairies and wetlands not only deprives wildlife of natural habitat, it also releases large amounts of carbon previously stored in the native grasses and plants. Now it’s not easy to keep track of all these factors, but many studies have concluded that when everything is taken into account the carbon advantage of ethanol is negligible. Some researchers even think ethanol might be worse than fossil fuels for carbon emissions.

There is one especially poignant reason to be very concerned about ethanol: food prices. The government mandate to use ethanol increased the demand for corn, driving up the price. But it wasn’t just the price of corn that went up. Farmers planted less of other crops like wheat. Also remember that corn is used to feed the animals which provide us with beef, poultry, pork, milk, butter, and eggs. Mario Loyola of the Competitive Enterprise Institute writes, “Few Americans realize that to subsidize corn-ethanol production, they are paying almost twice as much for ground beef as they did before the RFS was created. The supermarket price of both flour and rice jumped about 50% after the RFS was created, and never fell back.” The overall increase in food prices is especially bad news for the poor. Poor Americans must allocate a greater percentage of their income in order to buy food. And because the United States is the largest exporter of food, prices have been driven higher all around the world. In 2008, Herr Jean Ziegler, the United Nation’s Rapporteur for the Right to Food, declared, “to divert land from food production to biofuels is a crime against humanity.”

Those who promoted the use of ethanol no doubt had good intentions, but mandatory ethanol policies must end. Ethanol has driven up food prices around the world, especially afflicting the poor. It hurts the environment and consumers. It’s long past time to end the government ethanol mandate. The tale of worldwide food production is an amazing success story – as long as we’re not putting it in our gas tanks.