President Bush's plan for reducing gasoline consumption by 20 percent in 10 years relies heavily on ethanol as a solution, and as I've said this goal isn't likely to be achieved with the proposed energy policy.
(I assumed that like nearly every other energy forecast I've ready, Bush meant that we would reduce gasoline consumption by 20 percent from current levels. Apparently he is saying we should cut back by 20 percent from the projected increased demand of the future. Silly me.)
Here in the U.S. of A, people think ethanol today equals corn, but that need not be the case. Ethanol can be made from sugar beets or sugar cane, as is done successfully in Brazil to power its cars as well as being the world's largest ethanol exporter.
Sugar cane provides about eight timesas much energy as corn, but we haven't pursued it here for primarily political reasons. Yes, sugar cane requiresa warmer climate, so it is best suited for being grown in Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and parts of Texas. We currently support sugar cane growers through incentives to protect from imports, the same way we support corn growers, making it difficult to untangle the true cost of producing ethanol from each feedstock.
However, if sugar cane requires less energy, and we have land available and people still looking for work because of the hurricanes of 2005, why aren't we considering adding ethanol to the equation? Is it only because the corn lobby has successfully prevented any domestic competition from getting the "ears" of politicians?
I'm not the only one who thinks we are missing out on a potentially lucrative and more environmentally-friendly method of producing ethanol.
