Posted by Rachel on: 12.13.2007 /
Guest columnist David H. has been a newspaper editor and reporter for more than 20 years and now works for a large daily in the New York/New Jersey metro area. He also regularly attends a small Mennonite church, where there is frequently a focus on social needs and Christian-service responses.
During a Sunday School presentation I was made aware of another unintended consequence of the short-sighted US effort to produce more ethanol. It seemed like something we might want to discuss at this blog.
The United States is the world’s largest corn producer. According to an industry organization, this country produced nearly 257 million metric tons of corn in 2003. Nearly 20 percent of that crop was exported, making the US by far the world’s largest corn exporter as well (we account for nearly 65 percent of the corn exported around the world).
While 2007 is shaping up to have a larger export than 2006, the world reality is that corn prices are climbing because of weak crops in countries like China and Brazil, but especially because of US demand for corn to meet the exploding demand for ethanol. President Bush has called for the U.S. to be using 35 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2017. A lofty goal considering U.S. ethanol production in 2006 was less than 5 billion gallons.
Many are jumping on the ethanol band wagon to try and meet that goal. If all planned corn-to-ethanol plants come online over the next 3 years, the US could that quickly become a net importer of corn as the demand from those plants along with other uses for corn would exceed the 2006 crop by one-fifth or more according to many experts.
One can argue about the pros vs cons of ethanol (e.g. is it really a clean fuel?) but for the people of Honduras the there is no debating the impact of US ethanol. It is raising the price of corn in Honduras. That central American country has less than 10 percent of its land suitable for agriculture. Also, a staple food for its people are tortillas made from corn. The result is obvious. In Honduras, a country where 65 percent of the population is poor and almost half of the people survive on less than $1 a day, the price of tortillas is rising.
Almost 65 percent of people in Honduras are poor. Nearly half the people are very poor, meaning they make $1 per day or less. According to USAID, in the highest poverty areas of Honduras, some 40 percent to 50 percent of children suffer from malnutrition, related to food insecurity. The high level of malnutrition underlies many of the country’s causes of infant and child mortality.
Mexico, which has its own poverty and malnutrition problems, is the second largest importer of US corn in the world (behind Japan). In January 2007, 75,000 people took to the streets of Mexico City to protest the rising cost of tortillas. That increase was roughly 10 cents a pound (to 45 cents). If US ethanol production ramps up as expected and the US stops exporting corn, the price of tortillas in Mexico could double or triple in the next few years. For the poor in Mexico and Central America, tortillas and beans are the staple foods.
While ethanol may be green, it may not be clean. However, most clear is that ramping up ethanol production does not address US gluttony for fuel. Moreover, the unintended consequences of switching to biological fuel stuffs — such as corn — should be obvious to anyone.
How should those concerned with justice and compassion respond to something like this?
Leave a Reply
Comment by: joe
1 12/13/07 7:43 AM | Comment Link |Yeah, I think you put that very well, David.
On the surface, biodiesel seems to be an ideal solution to the problem - particularly when, as in Europe at the current time, we can use waste food to produce the ethanol.
However, if we don’t at the same time reduce our reliance on fuels all that will happen is that we will switch from a reliance on petroleum to a reliance on agricultural oils, and countries that can produce it the most cheaply.
And so it becomes another cash-crop and the poor lose out. Again.
Also the amount of fuel and mechanisation required to grow the crop is usually not measured, and when it is, the biodiesel starts to look considerably less green.
How should we respond? Well first we should be wary of simple solutions to complex problems. Second, whilst we might find an environmental solution to our problem, if that solution is then exported for manufacturing elsewhere, then we might be exporting an additional problem. Third, we just have to reduce our lifestyles and become less dependant on fuels.
PS, if you want to watch something really disturbing about multinationals and their behaviour in Honduras (and elsewhere), check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5JXmDApzp4
Comment by: Jeff
2 12/13/07 5:17 PM | Comment Link |I was a supporter of ethanol until I learned how much corn it takes, and the influences that will have on the worlds poor. I heard it takes the same amount of corn to fill up a gas tank as it does to feed 1 person for a year. This will be a big blow in fighting world hunger.
I was watching one of the Dem presidential debates, and when the environment questions come up, they talk about a need for creating more energy sources. They never talked about less consumption, and they have the attitude this is America, and we will find more resources to destroy so we can keep up with our lifestyle.
Comment by: David H
3 12/13/07 8:00 PM | Comment Link |In a typical show of American intestinal fortitude, presidential candidates like Hilary Clinton and John McCain, both former opponents of ethanol, have become major proponents of the fuel in time for the Iowa campaigning. Clinton and John Edwards are so enamored with ethanol that they advocate going far beyond the target set by Pres. Bush. They advocate a national target of nearly 70 billion gallons. Reaching that target would require a corn harvest nearly double that achieved 2007 and every ounce of that corn would have to go to ethanol production.
The capper is that 70 billion gallons of ethanol would provide less than 2 percent of US fuel needs today. Yet the removal of that corn could be a matter of life and death for people living in countries such as Honduras and Guatemala.
Comment by: David H
4 12/13/07 8:12 PM | Comment Link |The funny thing is that many legitimate scientists doubt ethanol — at least from corn — is a viable fuel source. They contend that once the other costs are factored (seed, fertilizer, fuel to tend fields, electricity for the refining process and fuel to truck ethanol to market) then ethanol actually requires more fuel to manufacture than it will ever replace.
The dems who oppose ethanol or, more specifically, using food to make fuel, are considered not remotely viable in the election. Analysts say McCain may have lost the 2000 nomination simply because he skipped the Iowa caucus. He skipped it because he was an outspoken critic of ethanol. This year he is a proponent.
Comment by: Rachel
5 12/20/07 7:27 PM | Comment Link |Thank you for that well-written and informative article, David. I will take this into consideration when choosing a candidate to support in the upcoming elections.
I’m afraid I celebrated too soon when I first heard about the possibilities for ethanol fuel. I’m starting to learn that there is usually a back-story to the news we hear and it usually involves the impact on the poor and powerless.
Good point, Joe. But simple solutions are so enticing, especially for us North Americans with our short attention spans.
Wow. That’s a compelling statistic, Jeff!