by Jeff Gillman
The Political Dynamics
Corn-based ethanol’s status as the top dog in the renewable energy world is due in part to its merits relative to its competitors. It is a very flexible fuel that can power vehicles or run electric turbines. Corn is so abundant in the United States that many would argue that it is overproduced, which is why the government helps to create a market for it by turning it into ethanol. In contrast, the other crops commonly talked about in relation to biofuels—switchgrass or fast-growing trees for cellulosic ethanol, and vegetable oils and animal fats for biodiesel—wouldn’t be able to supply more than a fraction of the energy needs that corn can in the near future.
Corn-based ethanol’s advantage is also political. The Corn Belt runs across the upper Midwest, stretching roughly from Kansas to Ohio. It includes twelve states, several of which are frequently among the most competitive in presidential and congressional elections (Ohio, Iowa, Missouri, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota). More critically, the top corn- and ethanol-producing state is Iowa. The Iowa caucuses are the first event in the process of nominating presidential candidates for the Democratic and Republican parties. Candidates spend months in Iowa trying to win the favor of Iowa voters, hoping that the media coverage of their victory will provide them a critical boost of momentum to win primaries and caucuses in states that follow, paving the road for them to win their party’s nomination and then the presidency. The influence of Iowa takes on mythical proportions in the minds of presidential contenders. First, Iowa; next, Mount Rushmore. And since approximately 99 percent of U.S. senators think they are running for president on any given day (only a slight exaggeration), protecting the interests of Iowa corn farmers has a larger effect on the dynamics of U.S. energy, agricultural, and environmental policy than we might reasonably expect. Given the political dynamics of the Midwest in presidential and congressional campaigns, neither party is willing to risk offending corn farmers. Whatever its policy merits, ethanol has built-in political support that other alternative energy sources do not.
As Congress became more interested in finding additional sources of renewable fuels in the 2000s, it might have noted that the ethanol industry was growing rapidly, and therefore concluded that ethanol no longer needed government support. Yet Congress did not level the playing field between ethanol and its competitors by removing ethanol’s subsidies and tariff protections. The political rationale for protecting ethanol’s benefits was too strong. Instead, Congress solved the unfairness problem by providing subsidies to other renewable energies too. In the future, we will undoubtedly find that these subsidies are nearly impossible to get rid of, regardless of the success or failure of the energy source itself. If the fuels do not compete successfully in the market, their proponents will argue that the failure is because they have received insufficient government support or faced barriers that their competitors did not face, and thus they require even more support from government. Those fuels that succeed will develop significant bases of employment (producers, distributors, retailers) and consumers who rely on them and who can lobby members of Congress to maintain their benefits. To avoid alienating constituents who care intensely about their benefits, it’s easier to keep providing the goodies regardless of whether there is an economic rationale, especially since the savings from eliminating the subsidies from the federal budget would not be noticed by taxpayers. Whether or not new programs or subsidies are hard to create, they are nearly impossible to kill once they’ve started.
We all know that the more effective way of decreasing pollution or reducing our dependence on foreign oil is to use less fuel of any kind. Raising fuel efficiency standards or promoting conservation would achieve these goals efficiently. The problem is that Americans have traditionally favored dispersed residential patterns (dare we say “sprawl”?) and large vehicles to transport themselves (and their kids) to work and play. Until 2007, automobile fuel efficiency standards had not been raised since 1980, as the automakers were consistently able to persuade members of Congress that there would be a backlash if drivers thought they were being forced into smaller, less safe cars. And even in 2008, when consumers increased their purchases of smaller cars as gasoline rose above 3 a gallon, most of the political pressure focused on getting the price of gas down (“Drill, Baby, Drill” was the chant at the Republican National Convention in 2008).
MOST economists argue that it is more effective to tax things we don’t like (such as pollution) than to subsidize things we like (such as particular kinds of alternative energies). In 1993, the Clinton administration proposed a BTU tax (British thermal units are a measure of energy) on energy sources as a means of decreasing the budget deficit and encouraging energy conservation. This proposal was blocked by a few Democrats in Congress who represented oil-producing states and sought to protect jobs back home in alliance with Republicans who didn’t want tax increases. Members of Congress from competitive districts who voted for climate change legislation in the House of Representatives in 2009 were immediately attacked in radio commercials for voting to increase their constituents’ energy bills. Raising taxes is unpopular; giving someone a subsidy is popular among its recipients and nonrecipients usually aren’t aware of what’s going on. Thus, as a nation, we tend to choose the economically less efficient route.
Besides taxing energy, it would be more efficient economically to remove tariffs on foreign ethanol. This would lower the price of foreign ethanol and provide greater incentive for U.S. companies to use it as a gas additive. Foreign-produced ethanol is often based on sugarcane and sugar beets, which produce energy with greater efficiency than corn-based ethanol. But foreign ethanol producers and the farmers who supply them do not vote in the United States, whereas U.S. farmers and producers who benefit from the protectionist tariffs do.
There are many other sources of energy besides ethanol, of course, and various levels of government have been proactive in promoting them. For example, California implemented the Million Solar Roofs initiative to assist homeowners who installed solar cells to help power their houses. Without this subsidy it is unlikely that most homeowners who installed solar panels would have done so. After all, while solar energy can drastically reduce a power bill, the cost of solar panels for a 2,000-square-foot home would probably be over twenty thousand dollars if there were no rebates. (State and federal governments, in many cases, offer tax incentives and subsidies for using solar power.) Without subsidies it would take a decade or longer for the cells to pay for themselves, depending on the specific sunlight exposure and energy usage of the home.
The question isn’t whether we need alternative energy sources, but how soon we need to implement their usage; which energy sources we should pursue; and what, if anything, the government should do to facilitate the transition. Of course the free market could govern which alternative energy sources come out on top. Currently, the only alternative fuel that is close to fossil fuels in terms of cost to the consumer is ethanol from corn, and that’s largely because of government subsidies for corn growers. (Although if the free market truly reigned, we’d have to get rid of the tax breaks that oil companies get, too). Aside from ethanol, alternative sources of energy just can’t compete. We would certainly transition to alternative fuels over time, but it is likely that this would take significantly longer than if we offered subsidies for using these fuels.
Policy Option One: Leave Things as They Are
One of our country’s greatest weaknesses is our reliance on foreign oil. The power plants that supply electricity to our homes are driven, for the most part, by fossil fuels like coal and natural gas that come from United States soil, or, in some cases, from alternative power sources, such as nuclear power. Our transportation system, on the other hand, is absolutely dependent upon foreign oil, with domestic oil only providing about a third of our needs. Our first priority should continue to be finding a way to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Right now, in terms of alternative energy sources for vehicles, ethanol from corn is the answer.
Corn ethanol only costs between 1 and 2 per gallon to produce, which is competitive with the cost of gasoline when prices spike—a gallon of gas can cost anywhere from less than 1 to about 2 to produce. Gas prices have regularly been above 3 a gallon at the pump, and emissions from our cars are full of pollutants, so something needs to be done right now. There is no better cure for what ails us than ethanol from corn, which is why the government continues to provide subsidies and money for research. When the cost of gasoline gets too high, adding ethanol can bring the cost down, or even partially replace it.
The United States is already overproducing corn. In fact, roughly 20 percent of the corn that we grow is shipped to other countries. We can use a portion of this corn for making alcohol and decrease our dependence on foreign oil. And every little bit of ethanol that we use as a substitute for gasoline means that much less carbon dioxide in our air. Ethanol burns cleaner than gas and oil, which also means less air pollution.
Right-Wing Rating We’re split on this issue.
Economic conservatives Private companies are best able to determine which investments in alternative energies are worthwhile. Oil is king because it’s cheap. As it becomes more expensive and new technologies are developed by private industry, ethanol or other alternatives will take over. This is a perfect free market situation (except for the corn subsidies and, if it were politically feasible, we’d get rid of those too).
National security conservatives The United States sends lots of money to oil-rich dictators, some of whom fund terrorists. We don’t like government subsidies, but it’s a better alternative than the risk of dependence on foreign oil. At least the money stays in America.
Left-Wing Rating Corn-based ethanol is better than oil and coal, but isn’t as carbon neutral as its proponents would have us believe. Promoting other alternative fuels will provide incentives to develop technologies and distribution systems. This will be a boon to a new green economy.
Policy Option Two: Encourage Biofuels, but Reduce Dependence on Corn
We should concentrate our alternative energy efforts on replacing fuels used for transportation before we start to worry about powering our homes. Unfortunately, right now the only substitute that competes with oil is ethanol, and that’s because of subsidies paid to corn farmers. If the powers that be in the Middle East shut down oil exports to the United States tomorrow and we responded by using our entire corn crop to make ethanol, we still wouldn’t be able to meet the fuel needs of our society. Furthermore, if we were to convert all of our corn, or even a significantly greater portion of it, to producing ethanol, there would be serious consequences for the cost of food in the United States, as well as on exports of corn to other countries. Corn ethanol just doesn’t have the ability to meet our need for transportation fuel. Fortunately, corn is not the only crop from which we can acquire biofuels.
While the ultimate system for producing biofuels in terms of the quantity of energy produced per amount of energy expended is sugarcane, there aren’t many places in the United States where we can grow sugarcane efficiently, so it is really isn’t a reasonable replacement for corn. However, there are options for producing biofuels that, while not currently economically or technologically perfected, have the potential for replacing corn ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol, which uses otherwise unusable plant materials, and biodiesel from algae both cut into food production much less than corn ethanol, and are more efficient. We need to put money into developing these and other technologies.
Right-Wing Rating Any energy product that can be cheaply produced and provide us with energy is a good thing. But only corn is available in the quantities we need, so let’s not waste a lot of money on options that won’t give us much bang for our buck.
Left-Wing Rating This is much better than the corn option, but our government should put more money into energy sources that require less land. Calling forests renewable biofuel, for example, is not a step forward.
Policy Option Three: Concentrate on Truly Renewable Nontransportation Fuels and Conservation
We are misdirecting our efforts when we focus on biofuels to replace gasoline. Every resource that is being used for biofuels, including land and fertilizer, is at the expense of food production. This is true for everything from corn to algae. We need to aggressively develop truly renewable resources like solar and wind power, which will require generous funding. Once a solar cell or windmill is made it will produce power for decades; compare this with ethanol, which is burned up the moment it enters a car’s cylinder. Every time the spark plug fires, that’s a little bit more fertilizer, a little bit more pesticide, and a little bit more topsoil used up. The electrical energy that is produced from solar and wind sources can power a car as surely as gasoline can, we just haven’t yet had enough incentive to make electric cars a popular option.
From wind and solar to geothermal and tidal power, there are dozens of different options for renewable energy. Despite the fact that most of these options currently cost more per unit of power than coal, this won’t always be the case. Expanding research will drop the cost of these energy sources quickly. Different power sources make sense in different parts of the country: solar power in California, tidal power along the East Coast, wind power in the Midwest.
Simultaneously, we need to use less power in our daily lives. Reducing our demand for energy is the best way to conserve resources and spare the environment.
Right-Wing Rating Conservation is virtuous, but we need to develop energy sources to grow the economy. These alternate technologies for energy are becoming more competitive on their own, and consumers will shift to them when the price is right, without government assistance. When alternative technologies are viable, government may have to use its authority to site energy facilities in order to promote economic growth despite the not-in-my-backyard objections of local residents.
Left-Wing Rating Because of global food shortages, going in a direction other than biofuels is really the only reasonable choice. Conservation must be a big part of the solution because it doesn’t require any expense or cause environmental damage.
The Bottom Line
Despite the fact that our government is enamored with biofuels, we’re better off treating them as a short-term remedy, rather than a long-term solution. The world’s need for food will only increase over the coming decades. Meanwhile, as long as we believe that increasing carbon dioxide in our atmosphere isn’t good for us, we need to do what we can to decrease our emissions of this gas. Unfortunately, our alternative energy sources are not currently cost-effective enough to take over for fossil fuels, and so, if our government wants to inspire us to use alternatives, it must provide us with an incentive, or simply wait for the price of fossil fuels to rise naturally as we deplete that resource. Incentives could include lowering costs by subsidizing corn even more than we already do, by subsidizing other crops for biofuels, or by pouring money into other energy sources entirely. We could even increase the use of alternative energy by giving incentives directly to the consumer for purchasing these energies. The biggest incentives would determine which alternative energy sources dominate.
CHAPTER 6
Genetic Engineering: A Time
Bomb Waiting to Explode?
EARLY IN 2001, Dr. Elaine Ingham, then an Oregon State University researcher, was recruited by New Zealand’s Green Party to testify before New Zealand’s Royal Commission on Genetic Modification about a genetically altered bacterium she had worked with that seemed poised to end the world as we know it. Specifically, she claimed that “the likely effect of allowing the field trial . . . would have been to destroy terrestrial plants.” The press immediately latched onto this powerful statement. Headlines read: “GM Bacteria Could Kill All Life,” and Dr. Ingham’s statements resulted in further digging by reporters and politicians into the specific bacteria that Dr. Ingham had researched. This bacteria, it turns out, was created to convert waste plant material into alcohol. In Dr. Ingham’s laboratory tests, conducted in artificia
l conditions, these bacteria had indeed killed plants. Other researchers, however, strongly disagreed with Dr. Ingham’s conclusions—some of them believing that the bacteria probably wouldn’t survive for long in a natural setting—and they made their thoughts known. In March of 2001, Dr. Ingham and the Green Party apologized to the commission for submitting what was reported in Nature Biotechnology as “false claims about the ecological impact of genetically modified organisms.” The discredited claims that Dr. Ingham had made and her subsequent apology raises a larger question: how much of what we hear about the dangers of transgenic plants is hype, and how much is the truth? And implicit within this question is an even larger one: how much do people really know about what a transgenic plant is?
The Science
In practically every university across the world researchers are working with the stuff that makes us what we are. Deep in our cells lies DNA, a long polymer (which basically just means a very big chemical with many constituent pieces) that provides the coding for almost everything that a person or animal or plant physically is. DNA and how it is constructed, which in turn reveals how it stores information, was discovered in 1953 by James Watson and Francis Crick, at the University of Cambridge in England. At first their discovery was interesting but not particularly useful. After all, knowing that there are little marks on a music CD that can be read by a CD player doesn’t mean that we can read the discs ourselves. But knowing they exist does raise the possibility of figuring out what they mean, with enough time and study. After examining the codes for decades, scientists began to discover how to read DNA and how the codes contained in its twists and turns worked to create the various proteins that make a living thing what it is. At first this information was used merely to read the DNA of various organisms. By just comparing the DNA of two different organisms scientists could identify how closely related they are. They could also use DNA to detect genetic problems by identifying genes that weren’t properly organized. Later on, scientists discovered ways to manipulate an organism’s DNA by introducing new pieces of DNA from one plant or animal into another plant or animal. This is possible because essentially, every living thing uses the same coded DNA.
