Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

The Dirty Truth About Green Fuel

By Sasha Lilley, CorpWatch. Posted June 7, 2006.


Agribusiness giants want to produce the 'green fuel of the future' with their dirty coal-fired power plants. The Bush administration is eager to help.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Sasha Lilley

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The town of Columbus, Nebraska, bills itself as a "City of Power and Progress." If Archer Daniels Midland gets its way, that power will be partially generated by coal, one of the dirtiest forms of energy. When burned, it emits carcinogenic pollutants and high levels of the greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

Ironically this coal will be used to generate ethanol, a plant-based petroleum substitute that has been hyped by both environmentalists and President George Bush as the green fuel of the future. The agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) is the largest U.S. producer of ethanol, which it makes by distilling corn. ADM also operates coal-fired plants at its company base in Decatur, Illinois, and Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and is currently adding another coal-powered facility at its Clinton, Iowa ethanol plant.

That's not all. "[Ethanol] plants themselves -- not even the part producing the energy -- produce a lot of air pollution," says Mike Ewall, director of the Energy Justice Network. "The EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) has cracked down in recent years on a lot of Midwestern ethanol plants for excessive levels of carbon monoxide, methanol, toluene, and volatile organic compounds, some of which are known to cause cancer."

A single ADM corn processing plant in Clinton, Iowa generated nearly 20,000 tons of pollutants including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds in 2004, according to federal records. The EPA considers an ethanol plant as a "major source" of pollution if it produces more than 100 tons of any one pollutant per year, although it has recently proposed increasing that cap to 250 tons.

Sulfur dioxide is classified by the EPA as a contributor to respiratory and heart disease and the generation of acid rain. Nitrogen oxides produce ozone and a wide variety of toxic chemicals as well as contributing to global warming, according to the EPA, while many volatile organic compounds are cancer-causing. Last year, Environmental Defense, a national environmental group, ranked the Clinton plant as the 26th largest emitter of carcinogenic compounds in the U.S.

For years, ADM promoted itself as the "supermarket to the world" on major U.S. radio and television networks like NPR, CBS, NBC, and PBS where it underwrites influential programs such as the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. Now, as it actively promotes its ethanol business, ADM has rolled out its new eco-friendly slogan, "Resourceful by Nature" which "reinforces our role as an essential link between farmers and consumers."

Despite the company's attempts at green packaging, ADM is ranked as the tenth worst corporate air polluter, on the "Toxic 100" list of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts. The Department of Justice and the Environmental Protection Agency has charged the company with violations of the Clean Air Act in hundreds of processing units, covering 52 plants in 16 states. In 2003 the two agencies reached a $351 million settlement with the company. Three years earlier, ADM was fined $1.5 million by the Department of Justice and $1.1 million by the State of Illinois for pollution related to ethanol production and distribution. Currently, the corporation is involved in approximately 25 administrative and judicial proceedings connected to federal and state Superfund laws regarding the environmental clean-up of sites contaminated by ADM operations.

Friends in high places

Environmentalists have cried foul, but they are up against the 56th largest company in the United States, as ranked by revenue in Fortune Magazine. ADM has more than 25,000 employees, net sales last year of $35.9 billion, with $1 billion in profits, as well as a recent 29 percent profit increase in the last quarter. The comany is a global force: ADM is one of the world's biggest processors of soybeans, corn, wheat, and cocoa, which it buys from growers in the U.S. and around the world. The company recently hired Patricia A. Woertz, an executive vice president of Chevron Corporation, as its chief executive officer.

Fueling Exploitation: ADM in Brazil and the Ivory Coast

Greenpeace International recently accused Archer Daniels Midland of funding, along with two other agricultural commodities traders, much of the razing of the Amazon rainforest for soy production. The group claims that that ADM, along with Cargill and Bunge, are responsible for 60 percent of the financing of soy production in the vital rainforest ecosystem. ADM lends money to farmers who plant in areas of the rainforest that have been illegally cleared, alleges Greenpeace, and then finances the shipping of soy out of the region. ADM has set up four grain silos in the Amazon, for the export of soy from Brazil. The primarily destination of the soy is Europe where it ends up as high protein cattle feed.

ADM is also currently being sued by the International Labor Rights Fund for alleged involvement in the trafficking, torture and forced labor of children who cultivate and harvest cocoa beans in the Ivory Coast. The suit, which is being filed on behalf of Malian children brought against their will to the Ivory Coast, argues that the company, as well as Nestle and Cargill, has knowingly turned a blind eye to the use of forced child labor in the cocoa plantations where the agricultural processor's chocolate originates.

"It is unconscionable that Nestle, ADM and Cargill have ignored repeated and well-documented warnings over the past several years that the farms they were using to grow cocoa employed child slave labor," says International Labor Rights Fund attorney Natacha Thys. "They could have put a stop to it years ago, but chose to look the other way. We had to go to court as a last resort."

For more information:

Greenpeace's report "Eating Up the Amazon" [PDF]

Human Rights Watchdog Sues Nestle, ADM, Cargill For Using Forced Child Labor [PDF]

Digg!

Sasha Lilley is a writer for CorpWatch and producer of Against the Grain on Pacifica Radio's KPFA.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
slippery slope
Posted by: Must have been the Roses on Jun 7, 2006 5:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another down side to Ethanol: As Oil prices go up, more of the world's food production will be used in making fuel, in the form of Biofuels, or Ethanol. This drives up the cost of food. This means that the world's poorest, who rely on cheap imports of food, will be competing with affluent people who want to drive cars and consume lots of energy. I wonder who will win this battle according to the laws of basic economics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Actually, I am right Posted by: Must have been the Roses
» Hemp is fuel AND food Posted by: YinRising
» RE: Hydrogen Fuel Posted by: WyrdSister
» RE: Hydrogen Fuel Posted by: 9wicket
» RE: Hemp is fuel AND food Posted by: WhatNow?
» RE: Hemp is fuel AND food Posted by: the poet
» RE: Hemp is fuel AND food Posted by: nickptar
» RE: slippery slope Posted by: mike1972
» RE: slippery slope Posted by: mike1972
Biodiesel over Ethanol
Posted by: Sment on Jun 7, 2006 6:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In light of the fact that Ethanol has NEVER been able to distance itself from the obvious evidence that its production simply consumes too much energy. We must turn a cold shoulder to the technology until scientists and engineers can fix it. The political-economic machine is already moving to "lock-in" an imperfect technology that will please the corn farmers, big oil, pesticide companies, herbicide companies (monsanto). It will be done in the name of "good stewardship."

The fuel alternative with the most potential is biodiesel, made from fried food waste, having a non-toxic emmission (albeit CO2), and which can be manufactured in the home safely (as it is non-flamable or explosive) is biodiesel. Some may have noticed that this ecofuel gets little to no mention by the politicians or media. If we started making our own fuel in our homes or buying fuel that does not use fossil fuel, the government would stand to lose billions in pump side tax revenues. They will outlaw this technology before allowing that revenue to be lost.

To anybody in the Los Angeles area who is affected by the port side pollution: The companies are lobbying hard, saying they cannot afford to modify their equipment economically. Biodiesel can be dumped strait into any of those giant diesel factories. And LA will simply reek of french-fries instead of toxicity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Biodiesel over Ethanol Posted by: NYRugby
» RE: Biodiesel over Ethanol Posted by: WhatNow?
» RE: Biodiesel over Ethanol Posted by: nickptar
How about both sides of the story? This could have been written by Exxon's CEO.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jun 7, 2006 6:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I browsed through the story and took a look at the Energy Justice Network, who bases their disdain for ethanol on the work of just two scientists:

Dr. David Pimental (Cornell University) - This guy has built a career around attacking ethanol and has been doing so for years: see Pimental in 2001.

Dr. Ted Patzek (UC Berkeley, Department of Earth Sciences) - oil industry consultant - Look at his C.V. -- he actually brags about his "friend of the oil industry" award.

Both of these guys have ties to the oil industry, and they ring the same mantra over and over again. The fact that the other side of the story is not covered makes this whole analysis suspect, and the fact that they don't do a side-by-side analysis of the energy balance of fossil fuel production makes it even more so.

See RenewableEnergyAccess for a good discussion and refutation of Pimental and Patzek.

The basic fact is that gasoline and diesel fuel sales will be undercut by ethanol and biodiesel sales, and the tranportation sector is very lucrative for the oil industry.

Of course, ADM and the coal industry aren't any better. Can you provide the power for a ethanol plant using wind turbines? Yes! Why doesn't the above article mention that?

Take a look at David Morris article on rural ethanol for a more balanced and sustainable approach then the ADM-coal one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» on Mike Ewall Posted by: mwildfire
Glean ALL the perspectives!
Posted by: jevan98 on Jun 7, 2006 6:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ethanol can not just be considered as a Renewable fuel. That point can obviously be refuted. Ethanol must also be considered as an Alternative fuel... i.e. a way to reduce the US' dependence on fossil fuels (particularly foreign oil). With that in mind, I think that ethanol is an important first step in a long term strategy to achieve both goals... until other alternative fuels become more viable such as hydrogen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hydrogen fuel? Posted by: osage
» Missed the point Posted by: jevan98
» RE: Missed the point Posted by: nickptar
» YOU missed the point Posted by: mwildfire
» RE: Glean ALL the perspectives! Posted by: mwildfire
This Outlet
Posted by: nickprogresss on Jun 7, 2006 7:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm glad we have this outlet to inform us of such crucial issues.

But I'm afraid it might not last!

Check out this short video explaining how the Internet may soon be much more like the medium of TV - highly structured and controlled by financial interests!!

Spread the word - use the Internet to save the Internet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This Outlet Posted by: the poet
Ethanol and Water
Posted by: Moore Hognutz on Jun 7, 2006 7:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It takes a lot of water to produce corn. In 1900, the huge Oglalla Aquifer spead its underground plenty of water from North Dakota to northern Texas. 100 years of growing corn to feed swine and cattle has depleted this amazing resource to an underground lake the size of Kansas(500 pounds of water to produce one pound of beef).

The great Oglalla is shrinking fast. The Colorado River, which irrigates the fields and vineyards, the toilets and urinals, of California and Arizona, has been reduced by overuse and unreliable weather. And so it goes.

At this rate, we could soon (in 20 years, maybe less) have a water supply problem similar to those enjoyed in other Third World countries.

And we're debating the merits of a polluting process of turning food into fuels for SUVs and lawnmowers. What wild crazy guys we turned out to be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: thanol and Water Posted by: the poet
» Beautiful point Posted by: nickptar
Market Forces Only Cure for Oil Prices Part I
Posted by: Liger on Jun 7, 2006 11:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
by Robert L. Bradley Jr.

Little has changed in the 75 years since Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset wrote, "In disturbances caused by scarcity of food, the mob goes in search of bread, and the means it employs is generally to wreck the bakeries."

Revised for the crisis du jour, that sentence would read, "Whenever the price of oil jumps, the first thing the people's congressmen do is demonize and punish Big Oil."

Because worldwide demand for oil is rising, and a quarter of the world's oil is being produced by saber-rattling socialist/nationalistic governments, the price of crude has more than doubled from its historic average.

Fortunately, with higher prices comes increased economic incentive to find, produce, refine and market oil, all of which brings prices down. The cure for high prices is high prices -- if market forces are allowed to turn today's problem into tomorrow's solution.

Of course, Congress doesn't see it that way. Instead, trying to reverse cause and effect, lawmakers assert that high prices are the problem, not uncertain supply in the face of increasing demand.

One "solution," therefore, is to impose back-door price controls via laws against "price gouging." But trying to address increased oil scarcity by forcing prices down is like trying to cure a fever by adjusting the thermometer. It eliminates the feedback that prices provide to consumers and suppliers.

With artificially low prices for gasoline, consumers use more of the limited supply than they otherwise would, while suppliers (including gasoline importers) do not receive the economic signal to bring in a greater supply. Soon, the artificially cheap commodity runs short. People begin wasting time in gasoline lines, and burning fuel while they wait.

Another popular "solution" is to impose a "windfall" profits tax. But why, in times of acute scarcity, should money be taken from those who can alleviate the abnormal scarcity and given to politicians?

Congress is not going to drill wells but redistribute tax dollars. Increasing taxes only gives a congressman the appearance of "doing something about this crisis" during an election year. With any luck, by the time the crisis has passed and his "something" has clearly made the problem worse, he will have been safely re-elected.

Today's petroleum problem is not a shortage of energy resources but a surplus of government. Oil is not the problem, government control of oil is. America is not "addicted" to oil; too many oil-rich countries are addicted to socialism and nationalism, by which problem-solving entrepreneurship is hampered or criminalized.

The solution is not to stop using petroleum -- a physically impossible, economically ruinous response. The solution is to start the educational and political reform needed to promote capitalist institutions in the impoverished, resource-rich areas of the world.

A capitalistic transformation would assign private property titles to the subsoil. Such a privatization will promote greater supply and efficiency, and will demote politicians who are the enemies of oil consumers the world over. Ordinary citizens, having become royalty owners, will be the ones to obtain wealth as oil and gas is found and produced.

And these individuals -- let there be many thousands of them -- will rise from poverty to become part of the investor class, and even philanthropists to their fellow man. Witness the work of oil- and gas-endowed foundations in the United States, for example.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Market Forces Only Cure for Oil Prices Part II
Posted by: Liger on Jun 7, 2006 11:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Effecting this transformation will take a lot of hard work. Counting Iraq, a country with a history of repression, three-quarters of the world's proven oil reserves are controlled by countries that the Heritage Foundation rates as "repressed" (Nigeria, Venezuela, Libya, Iran, Iraq) or "mostly unfree" (e.g., Russia, China, Qatar, Algeria, Brazil, and Kazakhstan).

In all of these lands, the spectre of Karl Marx must be replaced with the spirit of Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, and Hernando De Soto. The Hugo Chavezes of the world must be replaced with leaders who know that socialism is a dry hole, while capitalism empowers citizens, promotes savings, increases investment, and produces wealth that redounds to the masses.

The United States has a government energy problem too. Witness our folly in mandating quotas for inferior energies and blocking access to (government owned) hydrocarbon-rich areas offshore and in Alaska.

Yet there is a silver lining to this folly, for it means that our government can lead the world through example, ending energy subsidies across the board and privatizing public resource holdings.

To blaze a path away from oil statism, our government's leaders must let our own oil industry invest the capital it has earned and thereby increase infrastructure. And they must tell the world why they are doing so: because they have learned that the solution to a bread shortage lies in building more bakeries, not in wrecking them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jevons Paradox...
Posted by: seer on Jun 7, 2006 1:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whether Pimtell is or isn't in the pockets of big oil is moot. Big oil WILL profit off of whatever's done- period! Let us not confuse the message with the messenger.

We are, mostly, debating the wrong topic. The topic should be about how we can wean ourselves from a corporate-controlled travel-oriented society, not how we can make more efficient cars or more efficiently make fuels.

In nearly all cases those carrying on in this discussion (I'm referring to the wider discussions, not necessarily this little one here) are not wont to challenge the fact that we're on the wrong topic. And as usual we will continue to be marketed to by the deceivers (those gaming the game in order to keep control and standing). We will be told that something will work and then we'll demand more and more of it. Jevons Parodox then takes over and gurantees that we chew through whatever resource it is that is the resource of choice for expoitation.

While this article talks about the negative environmental impact of large-scale corn production, it really fails to identify the precariousness of our soil. Pumping in inorganic fertlizers isn't going to sustain much longer, let alone be able to sustain increased demands from increasing corn production for ethanol use. Brazil is touted as the model ethanol producer. Well, a 2004 UN Food Agriculture Organization report concluded this about Brazil's soil health:

“In general terms, the fertilizer nutrient balance in Brazilian agriculture is unsatisfactory. The removal of nutrients by the 16 main crops [of which sugar cane, the primary crop used for ethanol, is one] is higher than the quantities applied in the form of mineral fertilizers. The deficit is much greater in the case of nitrogen than in those of phosphorus and potassium. Thus the soil is being seriously depleted of nutrients and this represents a serious threat to long-term agricultural sustainability.” (emphasis added)

And fertlizers are key (University of Manitoba professor Vaclav Smil is able to calculate that roughly 40% of protein in all of human bodies world-wide wouldn't exist if not for modern synthesized nitrogen, which is highly dependent upon natural gas). I don't know how switchgrass is/is to be grown, but I'd find it hard to believe that it can be mass produced on non-fertile soil.

I find it laughable that in an attempt to become "energy independent" we'll have to rely on ever larger imports of natural gas: Russia and the Middle East are two areas that have the larges concentrations of NG (the US is second behind Russia, but it's rapidly shewing through NG).

But yes, everthing is a transitition. When are we going to ask ourselves whether it's smarter to skip a transition point and leap ahead? Seems that the controlling interests don't want this because they wouldn't be able to stay in control.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Jevons Paradox... Posted by: bttl
EROEI
Posted by: rick.cement on Jun 8, 2006 11:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's talk about EROEI because that's all that really matters. You can cloud it with political, economic or personal issues but at the end of the day it's about how much enrgy you have to invest to produce a return. Oil wells have a very high EROEI. However even that has been dropping. In the 60's it was estimated at 30:1 it has since dropped to 20:1 and is expected to drop into the 10:1 range as deep offshore and Oil sands come to the forefront of production.
Ethanol has at best an EROEI of 4:1 most say more like 2:1
This will cause massive shift's in our lifestyles if it is embraced as an "alternative fuel" for more information on the lies please see http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/3/7/03949/82426
Economiclly coal is set to have one of the highest EROEI's of the next century. If you want to go on believing that corn and switchgrass can run your cars go ahead, but if it's such a great idea why is oil still king?
Want some real solutions to our energy problems try visiting http://mrgreen.biz get the full picture.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bottom Line
Posted by: tkwilson on Jun 10, 2006 5:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The way we're living is unsustainable. Neither Hayek nor Marx can over rule the laws of physics.
Neither the civil state nor the corporate state are going to save us from our own behavior, and, most likely, we will persist until we're dead or damn near so.
So much for having the "biggest brain".

Who knew that the invention of the automobile would be the end, not only of civilization, but of the planet as well?

I would say "get a horse" but even the Amish are eating at McDonalds.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wind Generators. That's all that needs to be said
Posted by: Hairog on Jun 10, 2006 8:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Google "phoenix project" and it will explain the ultimate answer. Wind, tide and wave generators turning water into hydrogen. We can do this quickly while adding jobs and prosperity that are all home grown and produces no CO2.

The Fosil Fools keep lying about this solution because they cannot create a monoploy out of it. They would have to compete in a real free market and the Neocons cannot stand or handle competition. They need a monoploy to exist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

saint
Posted by: b4upoo on Jun 10, 2006 11:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Crop land should remain in food production. The last thing we need is to exhaust crop land in order to raise plants for fuel.
One misunderstanding is that alcohol is as good a fuel as gasoline. It is not in one important way. It takes twice as much alcohol to drive the same distance as a gasoline powered car. What alcohol can do is provide cooling to valves in racing applications.
Also alcohol can power distillation rigs in order to distill alcohol from the slurry. Traditional crops such as potatos, sugar beets and sugar cane can easily compete with corn in alcohol production.
People also need to know that framers ran tractors on home produced alcohol way back in 1900. The technology has been tested and evaluated for more than a century. Alcohol is not the miracle solution to our woes. Solar, wind and wave as well as nuclear are where we need to be heading.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hemp for Fuel
Posted by: burchphotographics on Jun 15, 2006 12:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd just like to add that from what I'm reading about bio fuels, etc for alternatives - The USA may well think about letting growers plant commercial grade hemp accross America. I'm not advocating the other variety...though it may be good for medical purposes.
I see if I'm reading it right that higher yields (tons) per acre are attained over corn and that hemp is far kinder to the environment and also one can use the crop in many...many ways for end products.
It would be nice if some of the environmental groups and their supporting magazines could do more to educate the public and leaders about this plant.
Best Regards, Brad

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree
Posted by: mike1972 on Nov 3, 2006 12:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many things are not being toed to us
ביטוח משכנתא ביטוח רכב

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]