Independence from our reliance on expensive foreign oil is essential to reducing gasoline prices at the pump, grocery prices at the store and overall costs throughout our economy. As Americans continue to feel the pain of rising fuel prices throughout the economy, Energy Independence Day and must represent the dawn of a new era.
However, achieving energy independence won't be easy. It is going to take hard work, innovation, investment, conservation, collaboration, and patience. It also is going to require change to a more diversified energy portfolio of clean domestically produced alternative fuels and renewable energy - energy sources which also will help reduce greenhouse gasses that cause climate change.
American consumers must stand up and demand unity in finding clean, renewable solutions to our dependence on expensive petroleum. If we cannot have this debate now in the face of crippling fuel prices, then what does the future hold?
In both our nation and others around the world, the struggle over oil has spawned ugly conflict, economic trouble and humanitarian concerns. Food prices are on the rise and the globe's poorest regions struggle to feed their people.
High worldwide demand, along with political events, conflicts and the declining value of the dollar, are putting pressure on supplies and driving up prices. As the Earth's population continues to grow, so too does demand.
Unfortunately, today 40 percent of our energy comes from petroleum and 22 percent of our energy is derived from coal. That adds up to more than $1 billion dollars a day spent by the U.S. on imported foreign oil. It's an expensive habit, and globally we are paying a hefty price for our inability to work together to find viable solutions to our dependence on fossil fuels.
While anti-ethanol sentiments are splashed across headlines in the papers, biofuels remain the only current viable fuel alternative. To secure a future of energy independence, we must create a more diversified energy portfolio, and ethanol is a part of that portfolio.
In Wisconsin, we have nine ethanol plants in operation, with the first opening in 2002. We are now on pace to produce 500 million gallons of ethanol a year right here in our own state. We are helping to lead the way to American independence by producing a clean, renewable fuel alternative. These plants not only help remove our dependency from foreign oil, but provide good wage paying jobs and strengthen Wisconsin's economy.
Nationally, in 2007, ethanol displaced 200 million barrels of imported oil. Continued development of clean alternative fuels, renewable energy and improved energy efficiency must remain at the forefront of the domestic agenda. In 2009, using domestically produced oil and ethanol only, American consumers could drive for 185 days without using foreign oil or to July 4, 2009 - Energy Independence Day.
But this is far from enough. The situation is simply too urgent to allow corporate and political self-interest to prevent us from progress. We must end the finger-pointing and band together in the fight for energy independence by focusing on shrinking dependence on foreign oil. And to do this, we must turn our support to ethanol and biofuels. Together, we can work to provide a clean, renewable form of energy that will help us to find our Energy Independence.
Joshua Morby is the executive director of the Wisconsin Bio Industry Alliance and spokesman for the Wisconsin Ethanol Coalition.
8 Comments
Josh,
When we consumers are faced with having to make a tough decision and we're given ALL of the facts, we typically make the correct choice. In this case, we are being asked to trust individuals who have a financial stake in the success of the biofuel industry. What makes your "opinion" any more trustworthy than the oil executives? How come you don't point out all of the negative aspects of ethanol? You mention that food prices are on the rise, but you don't connect the dots and point out that some of these increases are directly caused by the use of food for fuel. There is also no mention of reduced gas mileage when using ethanol or the lack of decreased emissions from burning ethanol.
We consumers are tired of everything being politicized and your letter is not helping the situation. I'm an American, I'm proud of domestically produced consumer goods as much as the next guy, and I would be thrilled to have the ability to purchase any fuels that are produced here in the US. But if I can't afford to drive to work, feed my family or keep my employees because we're being forced to use ethanol, there's something wrong.
I understand that you are a spokesman for the ethanol industry, so your opinion will be just a bit biased. However, in order for your opinions to be believed, you need to focus on the reality of the situation and embrace ALL forms of domestic fuels, not just the one you represent. Drill here, drill now.
Switch Grass (which can grow in dry areas) will be the best plant to make gasoline, diesel, and ethanol. The problem with E85 is hardly any cars on the road can use it because it corrodes rubber hoses etc. We also need to build more modern nuclear power plants to eventually go to electric cars. France's nuclear power plants provide 80% of its electricity so they will be able to move to electric cars very easily. If the government wants to have a good regulation, it should require new cars to be flex-fuel (adds about $400 to a car) so it solves the chicken and egg problem with ethanol.
Unfortunately, ethanol is not the liquid gold that it's corporate proponents maintain. It requires multiple times more energy to produce than it yields, its price is artificially low due to government subsidy of corn (which Americans pay indirectly through their taxes), and it is, after these adjustments, MORE expensive than the current price of crude oil.
I agree with the author that it is the only technology currently viable. However, I would argue that dollars would be better spent devising methods of turning current bioWASTE into fuel instead of simply building more ethanol plants and subsidizing further use of valuable Wisconsin farmland on corn that will never enter the food supply. Biowastes (corn stalks, wood pulp, vegetable oil, and other byproducts) are already produced by other agricultural and industrial activities, eliminating the necessity to divert further farmland from other food activities to ethanol-quality corn. This will ease our dependence on energy imports WITHOUT driving up the costs of food.
Josh,
You, the Wisconsin Bio Industry Alliance, and the Wisconsin Ethanol Coalition totally rock! Thanks for the uplifting essay about fixing our dependence on foreign oil.
We all know how destructive ethanol is, and we all know that without government subsidies and mandates, no one would build ethanol plants or buy the stuff.
Thanks ethanol industry for destroying the fuel injectors and fuel system of my minivan and my 30 HP fishing boat motor! Thanks for lowering my gas mileage! Thanks for helping raise the price of my family's food! Especially thanks for showing me that political contributions really do buy legislators! (I didn't always believe that, but you've shown me it sure is true) You're doing great work.
And thanks SBT for allowing crap like this to be published as a legitimate editorial instead of the press release that it should be considered! If I send all of my press releases to you under the guise of editorial content can I get his same platform? (United States needs to reduce its dependence on foreign oil, and Konica Minolta MFPs with their new energy star rating are reducing power consumption in offices all over! Its a green revolution!)
Maybe I am in an overly critical mood today. Now, I am going to support another industry that produces liquid from corn, to help me relax.
You rock Josh! And the Wisconsin Ethanol Coalition rocks along with you!
Biofuel lobbyists suffer from fuzzy math ...
"In a city of 100,000 people, at a population density of 5,000 people per square mile ..., the city itself would consume 20 square miles. The land necessary to provide the inhabitants with 100% of their automotive fuel would consume an additional 190 square miles, a ratio of 9.5 to 1.0."
http://ecoworld.com/blog/2007/12/28/land-for-biofuel/
How about algae? "...can produce about 100,000 gallons of algae oil a year per acre, compared to about 30 gallons per acre from corn; 50 gallons from soybeans."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/04/01/algae.oil/index.html
For posterity's sake, let us use logic and reason! Our society needs to be making decisions based on science and math, not based on editorials written by lobbyists.
What the heck is an Art Flater? It's people like that, who just gunk up everything, that fight against any changes and progress. Algae may be the way to go, eventually. But don't use old data to derail ethanol now. That's what you're doing. Update yourself. Challenge yourself. Let's move forward. Any oil drilled in Alaska won't see the light of day for 10 years. And then McCain wants to sell it to China and India anyway. Forward!
Josh, it is coming clear that ethanol, even from switchgrass is environmentally disasterous. Sure it is bad for auto's and yes; it is far and away more expensive to produce but at least it also ruins millions of gallons of water as well (5 gallons of water for one gallon of ethanol, even more if you include additional irragation for corn versus the crops it is replacing; soy for example).
As a side note Josh, I believe the politicians are working themselves out of their investments in ethanol plants. This can not bode well for the likely future of ethanol. Another telling sign is the engineering of most auto's is sliding toward hybrid, battery and hydrogen propulsion.
The capper though may just be the farmer's PAC's that are now doing the advertising to try to convince people of the virtues of corn ethanol. It is almost pathetic especially when these commercials try to sound like talk radio hosts.
We need to drill right now and don't forget the refineries we'll need. EVERYONE is for finding/developing renewable resources. But let's not forget to cover our needs in the short term.
We need to give the expectation of expanding drilling to really pop the oil bubble. If Congress would join in with Bush with similar talk, the futures oil price would hit $100 soon. That said we do need to drill where it is easy to get the oil in the near future. But at the same time we have to invest for the 10-20 years from now which means more nuclear power, 2nd generation biofuels, and a new power/fuel distribution network. Nothing is going to change over night.