The Ethanol Fallacy
January 22, 2008
 |
| Public domain |
Unfortunately, writes Meigs, the best solutions may not be getting the attention they deserve. Washington politicians have bought the “ethanol solution” hook, line and sinker.
Politicians have been falling all over themselves to prove their commitment to energy independence. The bill they have been crafting and carving has as its moniker the title “Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.” No longer just an energy bill, it is a security matter, giving it a special reverence. According to Meigs, the 2008 presidential candidates “have outdone each other with vows to flood the nation with ever-increasing rivers of ethanol for at least a generation.”
It’s what our politicians love to do, of course. Take action fast. Look like a leader. Problem is, “shoot first, ask questions later” is a silly way to approach these kinds of issues.
The average person who votes is not really that knowledgeable about these matters, which gives the ethanol lobbyists a leg up. The truth is, it takes energy to make energy. The article points out that growing corn requires nitrogen fertilizer, a product of natural gas, and chemical herbicides, made mostly from oil. The heavy machinery that harvests these 93 million acres of corn all require diesel fuel and lubricants, as do the trucks that transport all this corn. According to one Cornell researcher, it takes more than a gallon of oil to make a gallon of ethanol. Now what’s that all about? How does this reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
There’s something corny about this ethanol business. As I have always suspected, and which the author here is not afraid to point out, the big winners are companies like Archer Daniels Midland whose lobbyists labor night and day in those corridors of power inside the beltway. And for who’s benefit? Not yours or mine.
So what can we do about it? Not sure, really. Any suggestions?
The Ethanol Fallacy, Revisited 2025.
 |
| Photo: Farm Progress |
Fast-forward to today, and the "rivers of ethanol" promised by those 2008 presidential candidates have become a flood—one that's drowning common sense in subsidies, environmental strain, and higher grocery bills.
Let's start with the numbers on corn, which is the heart of the original critique. In 2007, about 14% of the U.S. corn crop—roughly 2.05 billion bushels out of 14.5 billion total—went to ethanol production. Fast-forward to the 2023-24 crop year, and that figure has ballooned to a staggering 5.45 billion bushels, or nearly 45% of the total harvest. That's enough corn to fill over 200,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools, diverted from food, feed, and exports to chase the biofuel dream.
Some reports even peg it higher when including co-products like distillers grains used in animal feed, pushing the effective share past 50% for biofuel and alcohol combined. Meanwhile, total U.S. corn production hit a record 15.2 billion bushels in 2023, but the ethanol slice keeps growing—projected to hold steady at 5.45 billion bushels for 2024-25. Farmers love the demand (and the prices it props up), but at what cost to the rest of us?
What's weird to me is how Paul Ehrlich in his bestseller The Popular Bomb (1968) stated the global food supply would not be able to keep up with much more population growth. The world population was 3.5 billion then. Now we're over 8 billion people and instead of using farming to provide food we're using it for fuel. What's with that?
The energy math hasn't improved either. That Cornell researcher I quoted in 2008 nailed it: it still takes roughly a gallon of fossil fuels to produce a gallon of corn ethanol. Recent analyses peg the energy return on investment (EROI) at just 1.04:1 for corn-based ethanol—meaning you get back barely more energy than you put in, and that's being generous.
For context, gasoline clocks in at 8:1 or better; even tar sands beat ethanol at 4:1. No wonder critics call ethanol a "net energy sink" for society—it's like running on a treadmill to power your house. And the environmental toll? Corn ethanol's full lifecycle emissions (including fertilizer runoff, soil erosion, and methane from processing) often make it as dirty as—or dirtier than—regular gasoline, especially when indirect land-use changes like deforestation abroad are factored in. It's led to toxic algae blooms in the Gulf of Mexico, higher water bills for Midwest communities, and a "food vs. fuel" dilemma that's jacked up global prices for everything from tortillas to turkey.
So why is nobody talking about this!!!!
Policy-wise, the machine keeps humming. The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), that 2007 mandate, is still law, with EPA-set volumes ticking up: 21.87 billion gallons of total renewable fuel in 2024 and 22.68 billion in 2025, much of it corn ethanol. Direct blender's tax credits may have expired in 2011, but they've been replaced by a subsidy buffet. The new Clean Fuel Production Credit (Section 45Z), kicking in fully in 2025, dangles up to $1 per gallon for low-emission biofuels—potentially costing taxpayers $8.5 billion in FY2031 alone. Add in $3.2 billion in direct farm subsidies for corn in 2024 (30% of all commodity crop aid), and it's clear the lobbyists are still earning their keep. ADM and peers aren't complaining: the industry pumped out a record 16 billion gallons of ethanol in 2024, supporting 370,000 jobs and $30 billion in inputs—but mostly in rural pockets, while urban families foot the bill through higher feed costs and pump prices.
So, has anything changed for the better? Some might say there are a few positive glimmers in the data. Exports hit 1.91 billion gallons in 2024, easing some domestic pressure, and there's buzz around "second-generation" ethanol from waste or algae, which could sidestep the food fight, though it's years from scaling, and I'll believe i when I see it. (I suspect I will be dead before then.) Electric vehicles are finally denting the transportation pie—EVs made up 7.6% of new car sales in 2023, up from zilch in 2008—and wind/solar now outpace ethanol in renewable energy growth. But corn ethanol clings on, a relic of that "shoot first" era.
What can we do? Demand better. Will Congress be open to reforming the RFS toward truly sustainable biofuels. Better yet, vote with your wallet—seek out E0 (ethanol-free) gas if your state allows. The fallacy isn't just corny anymore; it's costly. Time to harvest smarter solutions before we ethanol-ize our way into a bigger mess.
What do you think—still buying the hype?
