|
Ethanol is supported by a lot of corporate welfare and public
relations, but grassroots activists throughout Wisconsin are beating
back attempts to produce the fuel in their communities and require
it in their gasoline.
The smell of
spin By Christa Westerberg
If you
once associated ethanol with clean air and green goodness then you
are no different than most of the members of the Wisconsin
Initiative for Sustainable Local Environments (WISLE), the
grassroots group that has prevented ethanol’s sponsors from building
plants in five Wisconsin locations and has efforts underway in
several others.
Most WISLE members will tell you they were
not initially opposed to ethanol and ethanol plants. They believed
what the most of us believe: that ethanol is a clean-burning fuel
that is good for the environment.
Despite its green
reputation, the specter of having ethanol plants move in next door
prompted many of the people who eventually formed WISLE to do some
research. And as citizens throughout the state learned more about
ethanol, they realized that ethanol plants make poor neighbors and
the fuel itself is a pretty sorry excuse for an environmentally
friendly product. Eventually, these citizens came together and
formed WISLE to educate people about the problems with ethanol and
to assist other communities throughout the state in fights against
ethanol plants.
In a nutshell, while ethanol does reduce some
tailpipe emissions it increases others and contributes to
ground-level ozone and smog. Ethanol plants are environmental
nightmares, emitting such pollutants as volatile organic compounds
and particulate matter, in addition to a particularly strong and
unpleasant odor. Given the vast amount of water, natural gas and
other resources it takes to generate ethanol, the fuel is
essentially a net energy loser. Of course, this says nothing of the
resources it takes to grow the corn from which ethanol is produced,
or the consequences of the monoculture required to grow it. (Lots of
fertilizer and genetically modified corn, for starters.)
To
date, WISLE has run ethanol out of Menomonie, Arlington, Elba,
Algoma, and Nekimi. Current battles are raging in Cambria, Utica,
Augusta and a number of other communities. Meanwhile, ethanol plants
have been built in only two Wisconsin communities, Stanley and
Monroe.
Ethanol is a model of corporate welfare that is as
economically unsustainable as it is environmentally unfriendly. It
relies on a 54-cent-per gallon federal subsidy and a 20-cent-per
gallon state subsidy. Agri-business conglomerate Archer Daniels
Midland (ADM) controls more than 40 percent of the ethanol market
and is the biggest beneficiary of the government handouts. ADM’s
ubiquitous television advertising has had much to do with ethanol’s
undeserved, sparkling image.
Most ethanol plants are located
on rail lines so that cheap corn can be shipped in from the lowest
bidder, and many ethanol plants or ethanol corn processing
facilities that begin as farmer co-ops end up as ADM buyouts. Corn farmers who are enticed by the prospect of higher corn prices are
often disappointed when ethanol plants move in nearby.
Which
is all to say that Wisconsin’s current piece of pro-ethanol
legislation—Senate Bill 13 and Assembly Bill 33—must be stopped.
Introduced by Republican Sen. David Schultz and Republican Assembly
Rep. Steven Freese, the bills have 13 cosponsors from across the
Legislature’s ideological spectrum. If it passes, the bill will
require 3 percent ethanol content in automobile gasoline beginning
in July 2004, and 10 percent by 2008.
The legislation ought
to die under its own enormous economic weight. The fiscal estimate
predicts that it would result in $102 million of lost federal
transportation funding annually, or a total of $227 billion by 2013.
During this time of fiscal crisis in state government, opting out of
$102 million in annual federal funding does not sound smart.
Yet, anything seems possible given this nation’s love affair
with ethanol. Just to be safe, WISLE will remain vigilant.
March 8, 2003
Christa Westerberg lives in Stoughton and is an attorney
with law firm Garvey & Stoddard.
|
print-friendly e-mail
article comments?
|