Every day, politicians toss around phrases like “energy independence” and “reliance on foreign oil,” disparaging America’s addition to the tainted gold. With the economy faltering and tensions ubiquitous in the oil-rich Middle East, citizens and government officials alike talk about how the United States can sustain itself on domestic alternatives.

In the “Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government” the Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports that foreign imports account for about 66 percent of the crude oil processed in the United States. Of the foreign importers, eight of the top fifteen countries belong to OPEC, an organization formed to control the prices and supply of oil. Depending on a politically motivated association to grease the American machine places the United States in a vulnerable position. With ethanol production concentrated primarily in the American Midwest, ethanol glistens as a domestic savior.

As icing on the cake, ethanol is touted as an environmentally friendly fuel. As the green movement surges across the United States, ethanol producers have flaunted ethanol’s lower greenhouse gas emissions. Its shiny green reputation has taken a hit, however, in the latest study released by researchers at the University of Minnesota. In the study “Climate change and health costs of air emissions from bio-fuels and gasoline,” corn ethanol, the predominate form, performed poorly.

The study examined both greenhouse gas emissions and fine particle matter emissions in various fuels. The combined climate change and health costs as found by the study were $499 million per billion gallons of fuel for gasoline, $472-952 million for corn ethanol, and $123-208 million for cellulose-based ethanol.

Corn ethanol production requires more fossil fuel and fertilizer than cellulosic ethanol. With improvements in technology over the next decade, emissions from corn ethanol could potentially fall to approximately equal but not less than that of gasoline, according to the study. To state that corn ethanol can only hope to be as eco-friendly as gasoline is an unsettling notion.

Nonetheless, proponents of corn ethanol would argue that it is still preferable to gasoline because it lessens dependence on foreign oil, thus granting more national security. Additional costs of ethanol, however, merit further attention. As ethanol production soars, farmers increasingly switch from a consistent corn-soybean crop rotation to planting corn for consecutive years in the same fields. Rich soil is the basis of the agricultural economy—without crop rotation the soil and yield suffer. In addition, pollutants resulting from corn ethanol hit Minnesota and other ethanol producing states disproportionately hard.

Food prices also respond to the increase in corn ethanol production. Corn prices in Minnesota have soared from an average of $1.71/bushel in 2001 to an average of $4.64/bushel in 2008 according to the MDA’s Minnesota Ethanol Economic Impact report. Rising corn prices affect the cost of feed for livestock farmers, which forces retail food prices for red meats, poultry, and eggs to exceed the general inflation rate—making bills at both the grocery store and restaurants higher for the average consumer. Ethanol producers take note: depleted soil and a strained economy do little to strengthen national security.

What does it all come to in the end? Despite the booming corn ethanol production, ethanol represented only 3.5 percent of motor vehicle fuel in 2006 according to the USDA. The future looks similarly grim: the USDA predicted that by 2017 that percentage could rise to just less than eight percent. The unlikelihood of corn ethanol replacing gasoline begs the question of whether the soil destruction and heightened food costs are worth it, especially when a comparatively low level of production results in such palpable effects. Should corn ethanol unexpectedly surge beyond future predictions, the environmental and societal costs will also surge.

Finally, the third option presented in the study: cellulose-based ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol has the lowest health costs by far, contributes to, rather than consumes energy in production, and still represents a domestically produced fuel alternative. As of yet, it seems to do no wrong. Unfortunately, cellulose energy represents very little of ethanol production and is mostly in developmental stages. However, if the money spent subsidizing corn ethanol be granted to cellulosic ethanol, surely production would experience a boom similar to that of corn ethanol.

Until cellulose-based ethanol production becomes a significant chunk of the ethanol alternative, consumers are left with the choice between dirty fuel primarily from foreign countries, and dirty fuel from Minnesota and other Corn Belt states. Not satisfied with those options? Higher fuel efficiency standards on vehicles, hybrid and alternative energy vehicles, and public transportation all provide a way of decreasing both dependence on foreign oil and pollution. To preserve their principles until the world is run on prairie grasses and woodchips, the environmentally and politically conscious always have the option of walking.

Tags: transportation