Sep 7, 2024
Karen Tolkkinen’s recent column on ethanol was chock-full of myths, misinformation and half-truths about ethanol (“The time is ripe to rethink ethanol,” Sept. 1). We’d like to set the record straight.
First, there is no “food vs. fuel” conflict with ethanol. One-third of every bushel of corn processed by an ethanol biorefinery returns to the food supply. Only the starch in the corn is converted to ethanol; the protein, fiber, fat and other nutrients are concentrated and fed to livestock and poultry. The University of Minnesota says the 4 million tons of feed produced by the sttate’s ethanol plants is enough to feed nearly every cow, a quarter of all pigs and every single turkey raised in Minnesota.
Food security, quality and availability have improved — both domestically and globally — during the biofuels era, and there is no shortage of food. In fact, one-third of food produced worldwide is wasted each year, according to the United Nations. Meanwhile, U.S. cropland has decreased by 26 million acres since 2007, disproving the myth that ethanol has caused cropland expansion. How is that possible? Because farmers produce more grain on less land each year; Minnesota farmers produced 30% more corn per acre in 2022 than they did in 2007.
Second, Tolkkinen cited just one outlier study — which was rejected and debunked by many other scientists — to argue that ethanol is somehow worse for the environment than gasoline. In reality, researchers from places like the California Air Resources Board, Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and other institutions all agree that today’s corn ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions by up to 50% compared to gasoline.
Finally, Tolkkinen misunderstands the biofuels carbon cycle. Plants like corn remove CO2 from the atmosphere as they grow. That same CO2 is rereleased back to the atmosphere when corn is fermented into ethanol and when ethanol is combusted in an engine. The corn ethanol process is simply recycling atmospheric carbon. If CO2 from ethanol fermentation is captured and sequestered via a pipeline (rather than vented), then the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been permanently reduced. That’s why policymakers and some science-oriented environmental organizations see enormous greenhouse gas mitigation potential in corn ethanol paired with carbon capture.
Next time, we hope Tolkkinen visits with some of the 20,914 Minnesotans employed in the state’s ethanol industry. They not only know the difference between field corn and sweet corn, but they also know we can simultaneously feed and fuel Minnesota with environmentally friendly ethanol and nutritious co-products.
This letter was submitted by Brian Werner, executive director of the Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association, and Geoff Cooper, president and CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association.
Read the original story here.