Ethanol Kills Thousands of Crabs, Fish and Shrimp
In an ironic twist in the drive to become as independent of foreign oil as possible, marine life in the Gulf of Mexico could be paying the ultimate price. It has been know for years that runoff from the chemical fertilizers and pesticides used in the Midwestern farm belt of the U.S. creates a “dead zone” where the polluted Mississippi river empties into the Gulf. With the dramatic increase in demand for corn to fuel ethanol production, fertilizer use is increasing and the dead zone is growing.
You can follow this link to read an article with all the details. The story really made me think about how even positive developments, (like the increased use of ethanol), can have unintended consequences. Commercial corn farmers are loathe to use more environmentally safe methods of production because they are paid by the bushel for their corn. By using synthesized chemical fertilizers they can force the growth of more grow per acre, thus increasing profits. Although there are methods to reduce runoff by creating buffer zones around water ways, there is no real incentive for farmers to do it. The demand for corn is so high right now that any buffer zone removes profitable land from corn production.
Reports like this can be a bit disheartening. There are also some strange aspects to the situation. We are growing more corn to fuel ethanol production but in doing so use more fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, most of which are themselves petroleum based products.
We should to remember that even with the increased demand by consumers for healthy, organically grown, food; much farming in the U.S. produces crops and products that can not be considered food. Ethanol and cotton are two of the biggest examples, but there are numerous others.
One scientist. quoted in this article, has called for farm subsidies to be redirected to corn farmers for creating these buffer zones. Although I have not been a huge fan of farm subsidies in general, this might be better than current subsidies with purposes like keeping the price of conventionally produced milk and beef artificially low. I also think more of our tax money should be redirected to funding research to find ways to minimize adverse impacts like this.
What do you think?
 |
Choose from box
Very interesting post Will I wasn’t aware of any of this stuff, the articles you linked to explain the problem further, and I agree with you I don’t usually like farm subsidies, but in this case seems like a plan.
Comment by Bob (112 comments.) — December 20, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
Will will be back….Anna
Comment by Anna (145 comments.) — December 21, 2007 @ 9:38 am
Bob - I think subsidies should be used only to encourage the adoption of new and better ideas and products. They should not be used to artificially support the price existing products can command in the free market. Maybe this position is a bit contradictory?
-Will
Comment by Will — December 21, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
Hi Will, no it isn’t I agree 100% with you.
Comment by Bob (112 comments.) — December 21, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
In my opinion, even though ethanol seems to have many positives at first glance, it also has many negative effects. For example, as you said, it kills many animals, and on top of that, it drives up food costs. Instead of ethanol, I think that water is a better alternative as an energy source. I have blogged about using water as an energy source on my blog, Water for Gas. Water as an energy source has a lot of potential, and should start to be considered by people as an alternative to ethanol, oil, etc. Remember, water only costs 99c a gallon.
Comment by Scott (1 comments.) — July 8, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
Thanks Scott! I will take a look tonight. I do have an article coming out on Wed. morning that might make us think twice about the future cost of water. Stay tuned!
Comment by Will — July 8, 2008 @ 3:39 pm