President Obama, in his commitment to take on climate change, faces the question about widespread use of ethanol. There are many pros and cons to the ethanl debate in which politics comes in conflict with science. Congress said any fuel produced in plants built after 2007 must emit 20 percent less in greenhouse gases than gasoline if it comes from corn, and 60 percent less if from cellulosic crops. Meeting the direct emissions would not be a problem. But if indirect emissions from expected land use changes are included, ethanol probably would fail the test. Such “indirect” impacts on global warming include land use, including climate-threatening deforestation, as land is cleared to plant corn or other ethanol crops. However, environmentalists say there have been enough studies on the indirect impact on ethanol on greenhouse pollution to justify the science. The environmental organizations also noted that Obama has “vowed to make the U.S. a leader on climate change” and put science over politics, and “now is the time to uphold those pledges.”
After reading this article, I realized that President Obama will have to factor in more than just the direct, heat-trapping pollution from ethanol and its production. Land use must be considered, which puts into question the future of widespread ethanol use in place of oil. In 2007, Congress ordered huge increases in ethanol use, requiring refiners to blend 20 billion gallons with gasoline by 2015 and a further expansion to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022. This transition is just as much of a priority in the Obama White House yet not without considering all impacts resulted from ethanol.
An E-85 fuel pump sits ready for its next customer in Springfield, Ill.
