The Smell of Spin
By Christa Westerberg
If you once associated ethanol with clean air and green goodness then you are no different than most of the members of the Wisconsin Initiative for Sustainable Local Environments (WISLE), the grassroots group that has prevented ethanol’s sponsors from building plants in five Wisconsin locations and has efforts underway in several others. Most WISLE members will tell you they were not initially opposed to ethanol and ethanol plants. They believed what the most of us believe: that ethanol is a clean-burning fuel that is good for the environment. Despite its green reputation, the specter of having ethanol plants move in next door prompted many of the people who eventually formed WISLE to do some research. And as citizens throughout the state learned more about ethanol, they realized that ethanol plants make poor neighbors and the fuel itself is a pretty sorry excuse for an environmentally friendly product. Eventually, these citizens came together and formed WISLE to educate people about the problems with ethanol and to assist other communities throughout the state in fights against ethanol plants.In a nutshell, while ethanol does reduce some tailpipe emissions it increases others and contributes to ground-level ozone and smog. Ethanol plants are environmental nightmares, emitting such pollutants as volatile organic compounds and particulate matter, in addition to a particularly strong and unpleasant odor. Given the vast amount of water, natural gas and other resources it takes to generate ethanol, the fuel is essentially a net energy loser. Of course, this says nothing of the resources it takes to grow the corn from which ethanol is produced, or the consequences of the monoculture required to grow it. (Lots of fertilizer and genetically modified corn, for starters.) To date, WISLE has run ethanol out of Menomonie, Arlington, Elba, Algoma, and Nekimi. Current battles are raging in Cambria, Utica, Augusta and a number of other communities. Meanwhile, ethanol plants have been built in only two Wisconsin communities, Stanley and Monroe. Ethanol is a model of corporate welfare that is as economically unsustainable as it is environmentally unfriendly. It relies on a 54-cent-per gallon federal subsidy and a 20-cent-per gallon state subsidy. Agri-business conglomerate Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) controls more than 40 percent of the ethanol market and is the biggest beneficiary of the government handouts. ADM’s ubiquitous television advertising has had much to do with ethanol’s undeserved, sparkling image.Most ethanol plants are located on rail lines so that cheap corn can be shipped in from the lowest bidder, and many ethanol plants or ethanol corn processing facilities that begin as farmer co-ops end up as ADM buyouts. Corn farmers who are enticed by the prospect of higher corn prices are often disappointed when ethanol plants move in nearby. Which is all to say that Wisconsin’s current piece of pro-ethanol legislation—Senate Bill 13 and Assembly Bill 33—must be stopped. Introduced by Republican Sen. David Schultz and Republican Assembly Rep. Steven Freese, the bills have 13 cosponsors from across the Legislature’s ideological spectrum. If it passes, the bill will require 3 percent ethanol content in automobile gasoline beginning in July 2004, and 10 percent by 2008.The legislation ought to die under its own enormous economic weight. The fiscal estimate predicts that it would result in $102 million of lost federal transportation funding annually, or a total of $227 billion by 2013. During this time of fiscal crisis in state government, opting out of $102 million in annual federal funding does not sound smart. Yet, anything seems possible given this nation’s love affair with ethanol. Just to be safe, WISLE will remain vigilant. March 8, 2003 Christa Westerberg lives in Stoughton and is an attorney with law firm Garvey & Stoddard.
* taken from http://goodlandenergy.com/
Ethanol is a model of corporate welfare that is as economically unsustainable as it is environmentally unfriendly. It relies on a 54-cent-per gallon federal subsidy and a 20-cent-per gallon state subsidy. Agri-business conglomerate Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) controls more than 40 percent of the ethanol market and is the biggest beneficiary of the government handouts. ADM’s ubiquitous television advertising has had much to do with ethanol’s undeserved, sparkling image.Most ethanol plants are located on rail lines so that cheap corn can be shipped in from the lowest bidder, and many ethanol plants or ethanol corn processing facilities that begin as farmer co-ops end up as ADM buyouts. Corn farmers who are enticed by the prospect of higher corn prices are often disappointed when ethanol plants move in nearby. Which is all to say that Wisconsin’s current piece of pro-ethanol legislation—Senate Bill 13 and Assembly Bill 33—must be stopped. Introduced by Republican Sen. David Schultz and Republican Assembly Rep. Steven Freese, the bills have 13 cosponsors from across the Legislature’s ideological spectrum. If it passes, the bill will require 3 percent ethanol content in automobile gasoline beginning in July 2004, and 10 percent by 2008.The legislation ought to die under its own enormous economic weight. The fiscal estimate predicts that it would result in $102 million of lost federal transportation funding annually, or a total of $227 billion by 2013. During this time of fiscal crisis in state government, opting out of $102 million in annual federal funding does not sound smart. Yet, anything seems possible given this nation’s love affair with ethanol. Just to be safe, WISLE will remain vigilant. March 8, 2003 Christa Westerberg lives in Stoughton and is an attorney with law firm Garvey & Stoddard.
* taken from http://goodlandenergy.com/