Ethanol. Right. Now.

The growing impacts of the oil spill

It is now estimated that 5,000 barrels of oil per day are being spilled into the Gulf of Mexico, five times more than originally thought.  Some other sobering facts out today on the impact of the oil spill:

• As of this afternoon, the spill is 3 miles from land and 25 miles from the nearest populated area.  The company is spending $6 million per day in cleanup costs, and the total cost of cleanup could reach $8 billion.  Eleven-hundred people are working on the cleanup effort.

• The growing spill may cost the insurance industry up to $1.5 billion in claims.  Experts estimate that it may take 90 days to stop the leak in the well that's located 5,000 feet under water.

• The Louisiana Governor today declared a state of emergency, and Administration officials are calling it a "spill of national significance," allowing them to draw down resources from other areas to combat it.

Our nation's entire system of relying on oil has been an emergency waiting to happen, actually, but not so much about oil spills.  It has more to do with the length we'll go to for oil supplies and the really dirty environmental tradeoffs we're willing to accept so we don't have to change.

Posted by: Ron Lamberty

Why are environmental groups quiet on the oil spill?

As was the case a couple weeks ago when an oil tanker was gashed open trying to take a shortcut through the Great Barrier Reef, the silence of environmental groups has been deafening following the explosion and oil spill off the coast of Louisiana.

Even with a thousand barrels of oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico each day, even with an oil slick on the water the size of West Virginia, we're hearing nothing from the self-appointed defenders of the Earth.  Not a word.  This photo from NASA shows the slick when it was only half that size, closing in on two National Wildlife Refuges.  And not a word from any of the environmental groups.

Now they're evening talking about getting rid of the oil by burning it off.  That's right -- set the ocean on fire and get rid of the pollution in the water by turning it into air pollution.  No response from those groups that were created out of concern for clean water and clean air.

Perhaps we're a bit worked up about the environmental groups' lack of response to these environmental disasters because of all the energy they've spent lately condemning ethanol -- the cleanest motor fuel available today.  But when you look at who they've joined forces with recently, that lack of alarm over the oil spills starts to make more sense.

Last month a letter was written to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency urging them NOT to approve a 5% increase in the allowable ethanol content per gallon of gas, from E10 to E15.  In this letter, the Center for Coastal Conservation, Environmental Working Group, Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club signed the very same advocacy letter as the American Petroleum Institute and the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, the two largest oil industry groups in the U.S.

These environmental groups dislike ethanol because they've bought into the "indirect effects" arguments against ethanol, an unproven theory that suggests U.S. ethanol production might somehow possibly maybe indirectly cause more deforestation in the Amazon.  They know emissions from cars that burn ethanol are lower than emissions from cars that don't, and they know tailpipe emissions would be even lower if gas had 15% ethanol in it instead of 10%.  But they keep coming back to that rainforest theory, which, in the real world (not the anti-agriculture fuzzy-math world) is clearly disproven because actual deforestation rates have consistently dropped as the production of ethanol in the U.S. has increased.

All this focus on "indirect effects" and yet they are giving the very direct effects of oil a free pass.  How is it ok to ignore a 28,000-square-mile oil slick in the Gulf while devoting members' time and money to lobby against increasing the availability of the only alternative to that oil?  It makes no sense, and it's completely counterproductive to their efforts to protect the environment. 

People who consider themselves environmentalists should take a closer look at the organizations they support and what those organizations are really supporting.  No, ethanol is not perfect, but it is here today as a clean, renewable alternative to oil.  In fact, ethanol is the only viable alternative to gasoline today.  The bottom line is this: if you're not for more ethanol, you're for more oil.

Posted by: Ron Lamberty

Make "Earth Day" choices every day at the pump

It's good to recognize April 22 as "Earth Day," but it's even better if the attitude of caring for our Earth can be carried through in our actions every day of the year.  To me, one of the simplest ways to protect the planet is the choices we make at the gas pump.

It's a simple choice -- ethanol or oil.  And the reality is that ethanol is clean and getting cleaner, and oil is dirty and getting dirtier.  Consider these facts:

The efficiency of corn-based ethanol in the United States is improving nearly every day.  For example, between 2001 and 2008:

• Ethanol yield per bushel of corn increased by 6.4%
• Total energy use (fossil fuel and electricity) decreased 21.8%
• Grid electricity use decreased 15.7%
• Water consumption decreased 26.6%

(Source: Argonne National Laboratory)

The corn used as today's ethanol feedstock is becoming more environmentally friendly as well.  For example, between 1987 and 2007, corn's impacts dropped across all these categories:

• 37% less land needed to produce one bushel of corn
• 69% less soil loss per bushel
• 27% less irrigation water use per bushel
• 37% less energy used to produce one bushel
• 30% fewer emissions per bushel

(Source: National Corn Growers Association)

And as new sources of ethanol, like cellulosic ethanol, come online, the environmental benefits will be even better.  Corn-based ethanol today represents a 48% to 59% reduction in direct greenhouse gas emissions over gasoline, and cellulosic ethanol is expected to reduce emissions by twice again as much.  

In comparison, petroleum's profile is only getting worse.  As we use up the oil that's easy to get at, we must drill deeper and explore farther -- all at a greater cost to the environment.  Take the Canadian oil sands, for example. 

These photos from National Geographic speak a thousand words about where our oil is now coming from and the huge toll it has on the environment.  A few photo captions worth sharing:

"Canada's oil sands are layers of sticky, tarlike bitumen mixed with sand, clay, and water.  Around a hundred feet of oil must be stripped off to reach many deposits."

"About two tons of bitumen-laden sand are required to produce a single barrel of oil, but it's no straight line from the mine to the gas tank. After being separated from its sandy matrix in a hot water wash, bitumen is transferred to upgrading facilities like Syncrude's, where it is heated and processed in order to break its long, heavy chain of hydrocarbon molecules. Carbon is removed, hydrogen is added, and the new, lighter product is transformed into synthetic crude oil. From there the oil can be further refined into gasoline or jet fuel."

All of this before the oil is even turned into gasoline.  What kind of fuel do you want in your tank?  Think "Earth Day" next time you fill up, and choose ethanol-blended fuel.

Posted by: Kristin Brekke

The ethanol tax credit must be extended

A bill was introduced today in the U.S. Senate by Senators Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) to extend VEETC -- the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit -- for five years at the current rate of 45 cents per gallon.  Called the GREEN Jobs Act of 2010 ("Grow Renewable Energy from Ethanol Naturally"), the bill mirrors its U.S. House companion bill, introduced on March 25 by Congressmen Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) and John Shimkus (R-IL). 

In his press release, Senator Grassley used the biodiesel tax credit as an example, stating that its expiration at the end of 2009 cost 29,000 clean-energy jobs and put 23,000 more at risk in America's biodiesel industry.

"We can't risk a repeat performance with ethanol, where 112,000 jobs are at stake," Grassley said.

Senator Conrad said, "Our country is in serious danger because of skyrocketing energy costs. This growing crisis demands urgent action. We must be committed to coming together in a bipartisan way to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, while aggressively pursuing alternative sources of energy such as biofuels. Extending these tax credits is a step in the right direction."

Brian Jennings of the American Coalition for Ethanol cited ethanol's direct benefits to Americans.

"The American people directly benefit from ethanol through the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs and by saving money on a clean, renewable product at the pump. If it is a priority to save these high-skill, high-wage jobs in the U.S. and provide consumers with affordable fuel, it is imperative that these ethanol tax credits are renewed this year."

If you support the extension of these important tax credits for ethanol, please contact your Members of Congress and urge their support of these bills.  ACE hosts a Legislative Action Center where you can send a message to your representatives in Congress in less than one minute's time: www.capwiz.com/ethanol.

Posted by: Kristin Brekke