The article titled, Ethanol: An economic success story, (April 7, 2011, issue of Farm and Dairy) does not seem to tell the whole story.
This has been typical of many “reports,” not only about ethanol, but many other topics in which just part of the information is given.
The author of the story (unidentified) tells about the jobs, dollars saved and reduced imports for oil. But who got the savings?
The author did not mention who received the savings. I don’t think I did.
Remember when Congress made laws requiring the use of ethanol? There was much concern by others that there were many negatives with this product.
The manufacturing process requires thousands of gallons of water, which is not reclaimable; the addition of 10 percent ethanol will reduce your gas mileage by the same amount — 15 percent will be even worse; the process is a net add to negatives in the environment.
In addition, just think of all the trucks on the road hauling corn to the plants and the hauling of the ethanol to the refineries. It actually is a net loss, with added damage to the environment.
Furthermore, the author forgot to mention that federal government underwrites the cost in making ethanol. The 13 billion gallons that was made cost the taxpayer (that’s you and me) approximately $650 million — that is about 50 cents per gallon. Therefore, I gave them 50 cents a gallon to make it, I pay more at the pump to get it, and I get 10 percent less mileage to use it. How does that add up for you?
When this stipend ends, guess how much more you will pay per gallon? Along with everything else, did we really import less oil last year? If we actually did, would it be because of ethanol or because we have been in a recession?
Wouldn’t you like to know the whole story? How about the outlawing of our incandescent light bulb (but that’s a whole different story)?