Everyone knows ethanol and other "renewable' biofuels are king in Iowa, but there's a rebellion afoot.
The editorial board of the Des Moines Register today published Ethanol has been a boon for Iowa's economy. But it's time to pivot and figure out what's next, and the arguments should resound across borders into the offices of agencies and legislatures in Minnesota, South Dakota and other midwestern states.
What the board urges Iowa lawmakers to consider works as well for policy and budget creators in other corn growing states:
What one word do other Americans associate the most with 21st-century Iowa? The possible answers certainly include "ethanol."
The biofuels research and production boom that took off in the 2000s was transformational for Iowa's agricultural economy. Iowans could rightfully take pride in the farmers, agribusiness people, scientists and investors who built a homegrown industry that lessened the nation's reliance on foreign oil.
Ethanol wasn't a new idea, but large-scale use of corn for a domestically made gasoline blend meant huge new markets for crops and potential benefits for the environment. It also catalyzed hopes that research could produce even bigger things, such as cellulosic-ethanol production methods that could use plants grown on land not suitable for food production.
The largest ambitions haven't been achieved, however, and biofuels' warts have become only more prominent. That is hardly a revelation — scientists and other experts have pointed for years to such problems as overproduction's devastating cost to water quality and the industry's inability to wean itself from tax credits and other artificial incentives.
And now, it's difficult to credibly dispute that electric vehicles are the "next big thing."
But neither of the main political parties in Iowa is acting on that message. Rather than using the state's pocketbook and policies to push for ideas on what should come next for the state's farmland and biofuels workforce, Democrats and Republicans seem poised to make the first bill they send to Gov. Kim Reynolds this year a measure promoting biodiesel and requiring gas stations to install pumps that can dispense higher blends of ethanol. . . .
Instead of tossing more eggs into the biofuels basket — including both this bill and the wrongheaded proposals to crisscross carbon pipelines all over the state — Iowa and its leaders would be better served to figure out what comes after ethanol.
The state won't be able to use its own laws and influence in Congress to perpetuate the "need" for biofuels forever. We have to find another way.
Reynolds tweeted Thursday that Biden "is again pouring taxpayer dollars into EV charging stations while ignoring a readily-available renewable energy source grown here in IA. This is why we need increased access to E15."
In 2007, we would have applauded her. In 2022, this sentiment is myopic. We need to pivot and, at the very least, talk about when and how to rip off the Band-Aid.
Numerous hard questions need answers. What can soften the blow of a seemingly inevitable reduction in demand for corn and soybeans? How can monocultured farmland be restored to greater soil health? How can we avoid falling into "greenwashing" traps and prioritize real environmental benefits over profit-making?
We're confident Iowa's farmers, agribusiness people, scientists and investors can think, work, experiment and innovate their way to finding the answers.
But Iowans cannot afford for their elected officials to avoid those questions in favor of propping up bottom lines until the bottom falls out.
There are other proposals that might reappear. Last year, Session Daily's Nate Gotlieb reported in Lawmakers consider increasing MN biofuel standard:
Gasoline in Minnesota could generally be required to contain more ethanol in coming years, a move supporters say could reduce emissions of greenhouse gas and toxic chemicals.
Sponsored by Rep. Luke Frederick (DFL-Mankato), HF1433 would require Minnesota service stations to sell gas containing at least 15% ethanol by volume — or E15 gasoline — by 2022.
The bill could require the sale of E25 gasoline — gas containing at least 25% ethanol by volume — beginning in 2031. In addition, it would create a new Department of Agriculture-run biofuels education and marketing program.
The bill on Wednesday was laid over by the House Agriculture Finance and Policy Committee for possible omnibus bill inclusion. Its companion, SF1178, is sponsored by Sen. Torrey Westrom (R-Elbow Lake) and awaits action by the Senate Agriculture and Rural Development Finance and Policy Committee. . . .
That part of pro-ethanol legislation died but may revive.
What comes after ethanol, the Register editorial board asked:
What can soften the blow of a seemingly inevitable reduction in demand for corn and soybeans? How can monocultured farmland be restored to greater soil health? How can we avoid falling into "greenwashing" traps and prioritize real environmental benefits over profit-making?
Let's hope some in St. Paul--and Pierre--can go beyond those answers in "favor of propping up bottom lines until the bottom falls out" and find other solutions for farmers and rural communities.
Photo: Dirty snow--"snirt"--in Roberts County, South Dakota, where pastures and conservation acres have been plowed up for the expansion of the biofuel and CAFO dairy industries. February 2022. Photo by Sally Jo Sorensen.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.
I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6
I was a lobbyist for the Sierra Club in South Dakota in the 1990s. We saw ethanol as a bridge fuel that could help to stabilize the agricultural base of the Midwest after the devastation of Farm crisis and Reagan years. The Midwest Chapters of the Sierra Club bucked the national office and joined with the Corn Growers to, if not support, at least not oppose the industry. We knew the environmental downsides of corn-based ethanol, but thought the upside of creating a bridge to cellulosic ethanol was worth temporary downsides. Well, that didn't happen. Today, the downsides vastly outweigh the upsides. The question is how best to reduce the ethanol industry without dire consequences to the communities who benefit from it. It's going to be a challenge.
Posted by: Donald Pay | Feb 14, 2022 at 02:33 PM