Before reading this article, click "Follow" in the upper right corner, which is not only convenient for you to discuss and share, but also can bring you a different sense of participation, thank you for your support!
- Source: 3D Earth Knowledge Bureau
- Author/3D Earth Knowledge Bureau
The global food crisis is intensifying. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, some 2.7 billion people did not have access to adequate nutritious food in 2020, and 340 million of them were in acute hunger.
Africa is the most affected region, with more than 300 million people facing hunger. Against this backdrop, the United States, the world's largest corn producer, is "burning" a large number of corn, a staple crop that Africans urgently need.
Last year alone, the United States "burned" more than 100 million tons of corn. This corn is used to produce ethanol, which is added to gasoline as an alternative energy source.
The U.S. government claims to have done this to lower oil prices, reduce dependence on foreign oil, and protect the environment and the interests of farmers.
But will this really solve America's energy crisis, and what impact will it have on global food security and ecological balance?
The history of "burning" corn in the United States can be traced back to the global energy crisis in the 70s of the last century.
At that time, due to events such as the Fourth Middle East War and the Iranian Revolution, the international price of crude oil rose from less than $3 per barrel in 1973 to more than $40 in 1980.
At that time, the United States had not yet carried out a shale revolution, domestic oil production was limited, a large number of imports depended, and the rise in international oil prices directly impacted the United States without any buffer, making the United States feel the pain of external dependence on energy, and it was urgent to increase energy independence.
That's when the U.S. government received a "perfect solution" from the food giant ADM to reduce the demand for oil by adding ethanol to it, thereby reducing its energy dependence on foreign countries.
ADM is one of the largest grain processors in the United States and one of the world's largest ethanol producers.
It used its influence in the corn market and political circles to push the U.S. government to introduce a series of laws and policies to support ethanol production and consumption through massive political donations and lobbying activities.
For example, in 1978, an amendment to the Clean Air Act was passed, which provided for the addition of ethanol to gasoline to reduce harmful substances in vehicle exhaust emissions;
The Energy Security Act was passed in 1980, providing an ethanol subsidy of 40 cents per gallon to stimulate ethanol production and use;
In 1988, the Alternative Fuels Act was passed, requiring federal agencies and state governments to purchase and use gasoline blends containing 10% ethanol.
As a result of these policies, ethanol production in the United States grew from 150 million gallons in 1979 to 2.6 billion gallons in 1989, while ADM accounted for 75 percent of the ethanol market share in the United States.
The strength of the U.S. government's support for ethanol has a direct impact on its own destiny. Because the first vote they faced on the road to the U.S. presidential election was in Iowa, the largest corn-growing and ethanol-producing state in the United States.
In order to be the first to gain an advantage, no one in Iowa's corn ethanol producers dares to slack off on their profits. For ADM, ethanol is leveraged.
This creates a natural competition between the industrial use and consumption of corn, so that the price of corn can always be controlled.
The purpose of "burning" corn in the United States is to lower oil prices, reduce dependence on foreign oil, and protect the environment and the interests of farmers. But are these goals really achievable? Let's look at the facts.
From the point of view of reducing oil prices, ethanol gasoline does not bring a clear advantage. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
The average price per gallon of gasoline in the U.S. in 2020 was $2.17, while the price per gallon of E10 gasoline (with 10% ethanol) was $2.16, which is only $0.01 cheaper than pure gasoline.
And if you take into account that the fuel efficiency of E10 gasoline is about 4% lower than that of pure gasoline, then the actual use of E10 gasoline will increase the cost of the driver.
If E15 gasoline (containing 15% ethanol) is used, the fuel efficiency will be further reduced by about 5%.
In addition, because ethanol gasoline is corrosive and damaging to the car engine, it may increase the cost of car repair and maintenance. Therefore, from an economic point of view, it is not cost-effective to use ethanol gasoline.
Ethanol gasoline also did not play a decisive role in reducing dependence on foreign oil. According to the EIA, U.S. oil consumption in 2020 was 188 million b/d.
About 140 million b/d of that is in the transportation sector. In the same year, U.S. ethanol consumption was 138 million b/d (equivalent to 42 gallons per barrel), of which about 136 million b/d was used in the transportation sector.
In other words, even if all ethanol consumed is counted as a substitute for oil, it will only replace about 7.3% of oil consumption, which is far from meeting the energy needs of the United States.
The degree of dependence of the United States on foreign oil is mainly determined by domestic and foreign supply and demand and market prices, rather than the proportion of ethanol gasoline used.
In fact, the United States has dramatically increased its energy self-sufficiency over the past decade through the shale revolution and the development of renewable energy.
According to the EIA, U.S. oil production in 2020 was 111 million b/d compared to imports of 54 million b/d, and import dependence fell to 28.9%, the lowest level in nearly 30 years.
In the same year, the United States produced 77 million barrels per day of renewable energy (including hydro, wind, solar, biomass, etc.), accounting for 11.4% of total energy production.
These figures show that the U.S. already has more efficient and environmentally friendly ways to reduce its dependence on foreign oil and no longer rely on ethanol gasoline.
Again, from the point of view of protecting the environment, ethanol gasoline did not bring the desired effect.
Although ethanol gasoline can reduce the emission of some harmful substances such as carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, benzene, etc., it can also increase the emission of some other substances when burned.
Such as ozone, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, etc. These substances can cause adverse effects on human health and the atmosphere. Moreover, ethanol gasoline also consumes a lot of energy and water in the production process, and emits a lot of greenhouse gases.
According to one study, producing one gallon of ethanol consumes 1.29 gallons of petroleum equivalent energy and 1,700 gallons of water, and emits 12.1 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gases.
Producing a gallon of gasoline requires only 0.74 gallons of petroleum equivalent energy and 5.6 gallons of water, and emits 19.6 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gases.
That is, ethanol gasoline is not more energy-efficient or environmentally friendly than pure gasoline over its entire life cycle.
Finally, from the point of view of protecting farmers, ethanol gasoline also does not bring fair benefits.
While ethanol gasoline can increase the demand and price of corn, thereby increasing the income of corn growers, it will also lead to higher costs for other food crops and livestock, and affect the interests of other consumers and countries.
According to one study, without ethanol policies, U.S. corn prices would have fallen by 23% in 2020, while prices of other food crops would have fallen by 8% to 10%, livestock costs would have fallen by 12% to 15%, and consumer spending would have fallen by $1.4 billion. And on a global scale.
Without ethanol policies, maize prices would fall by 14 percent in 2020, other food crop prices by 5 to 7 percent, and 260 million more people globally would be food secure.
These data show that the ethanol policy is a subsidy policy that benefits corn growers and disadvantages others, distorts market prices, undermines resource allocation, and harms social welfare.
From the above analysis, it can be seen that the practice of "burning" corn in the United States has not achieved its stated goal, but has caused a series of negative effects.
So, how much damage has been caused by the "burning" of corn in the United States? We can estimate it from the following aspects:
Damage to the U.S. economy: According to the EIA, U.S. ethanol production was 138 million b/d in 2020, of which about 136 million b/d was used in the transportation sector.
If calculated at 42 gallons per barrel, then the United States "burns" about 5.7 billion gallons of ethanol a year.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. corn production in 2020 was 148 million tons, of which about 40 million tons were used to produce ethanol. In other words, the United States "burns" about 100 million tons of corn a year.
If calculated at the price of $150 per ton of corn, then the United States "burns" about $15 billion of corn a year.
And if this corn is used for food or feed, it can meet the food needs of about 300 million people for a year. In addition, since ethanol gasoline is less fuel-efficient than pure gasoline, the use of ethanol gasoline increases the cost of motorists.
According to the EIA, U.S. gasoline consumption in 2020 was 138 million b/d, of which about 135 million b/d was E10 gasoline.
If calculated at the price of $2.16 per gallon for E10 gasoline and $2.17 per gallon for pure gasoline, then using E10 gasoline would increase the driver's annual expenditure by about $550 million.
Combining the above two losses, we can estimate that the "burning" of corn in the United States will cause about $15.55 billion in economic losses a year.
Loss of global food security: According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, global food production in 2020 was 2.96 billion tonnes, of which maize accounted for 18.8%.
In the same year, global food consumption was 2.94 billion tons, of which maize accounted for 19.7%. In other words, the global food supply and demand are basically balanced, but there is a certain gap in corn.
And the global food crisis has been exacerbated by the fact that the United States has "burned" corn, which has reduced the global corn supply by about 3.4%.
According to one study, without ethanol policies, the number of people living in global food security would have increased by 260 million in 2020. In other words, 260 million people around the world are starving and malnourished as a result of the U.S. practice of "burning" corn.
Loss of the global environment: According to one study, the production of one ton of corn consumes 16,000 cubic meters of water and emits 0.9 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gases.
To produce one tonne of ethanol, it consumes 21,000 cubic metres of water and emits 1.3 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gases. In other words, producing one tonne of ethanol consumes 05,000 cubic metres more water and emits 0.4 tonnes more of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gases than producing one tonne of corn.
As a result of the U.S. practice of "burning" corn, about 100 million tons of ethanol are produced each year, which consumes about 50 billion cubic meters of water and emits about 40 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gases.
These figures are equivalent to 10% of the annual water use and 1% of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. These water resources and greenhouse gases have a significant impact on the global water cycle and climate change.
To sum up, we can estimate that the "burning" of corn in the United States will cause about $15.55 billion in economic losses a year, the loss of food security for 260 million people, and the ecological and environmental losses of 50 billion cubic meters of water and 40 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gases.
These losses are enormous, long-term, and irreversible.
Since the U.S. practice of "burning" corn is so unreasonable and unsustainable, is there a better alternative for the U.S.?
The answer is yes. In fact, the United States is already exploring and implementing some more efficient and environmentally friendly energy policies and technologies.
Improving vehicle fuel efficiency: According to the EIA, U.S. cars averaged 25.4 miles per gallon in 2020, an increase of 3.6 miles from 2010.
This means 14% more distance per gallon of gasoline traveled, saving 14% on oil consumption. And if it is in accordance with the "Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency Standards" set by the U.S. government.
By 2025, U.S. cars will average 54.5 miles per gallon, a 114% increase from 2020. This would save the U.S. about 1 billion barrels of oil per year.
Developing renewable energy: According to the EIA, the U.S. produced 77 million barrels per day of renewable energy (including hydro, wind, solar, biomass, etc.) in 2020, accounting for 11.4% of total energy production.
In the same year, U.S. renewable energy (excluding biomass) consumption was 33 million barrels per day, accounting for 4.9% of total energy consumption.
That said, the U.S. already has a sizable renewable energy industry and has a lot of potential for growth.
Moreover, renewable energy can replace not only oil, but also other fossil energy sources such as coal and natural gas, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions and environmental pollution.
Utilization of other biomass: According to the EIA, U.S. biomass energy (including ethanol, biodiesel, wood, waste, and others) produced 29 million barrels per day in 2020, accounting for 4.3% of total energy production. Ethanol accounts for 94% of this.
In other words, the United States currently mainly uses corn to produce biomass energy, while ignoring other more biomass resources. In fact, there are many other biomass resources in the United States.
Such as straw, weeds, waste oil, animal manure, etc., these resources can be used to produce more efficient and environmentally friendly biomass energy, such as second-generation ethanol, biogas, bio-oil, etc.
These biomass energy sources can not only reduce competition for corn, but also reduce the use of water and land resources, thereby improving the sustainability of biomass energy.
In short, the practice of "burning" corn in the United States is an energy policy that is neither economical nor environmentally friendly, and it can neither effectively solve the energy crisis in the United States, nor effectively protect global food security and ecological balance.
The United States should abandon this approach and move towards more rational and sustainable energy policies and technologies to achieve true energy security and environmental protection.
Finally, due to the rules of the platform, you will only be considered a fan if you interact with me more. If you like my articles, you can click "Follow" and receive the article push as soon as you become a fan.