The topic of global warming and how human activities contribute to it is highly politicized. Despite media claims, human carbon dioxide emissions have not been scientifically proven to be a significant factor in global warming. This fact brings into question the media and political hype over another highly politicized and related debate: that over alternative fuels. Has ethanol’s environmental benefit been exaggerated?

The primary argument of those who espouse the environmental benefits of corn ethanol over oil concerns the so-called greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, or co2. When corn ethanol is burned, the co2 released is composed of carbon that was already pulled out of the atmosphere by the corn plant. In contrast, when gasoline is burned, it releases carbon that was previously locked away deep within the Earth, thereby resulting in a net increase of co2 in the atmosphere. Most agree that, in and of itself, ethanol produces less co2 pollution than gasoline.

As a fuel, ethanol also produces less overall pollution on a per-gallon basis than gasoline. However, much of this advantage is negated since a gallon of ethanol contains less energy than a gallon of gasoline. This results in lower vehicle gas mileage per gallon and means that cars and trucks must burn more ethanol compared to gasoline to travel the same distance. On a per unit of energy basis, ethanol is actually not much cleaner than gasoline. One study from the University of Minnesota reported that emissions of five major air pollutants are actually higher with e85, the ethanol-gasoline blend used in many hybrid vehicles, than with just gasoline (Energy Bulletin, February 4). Similarly, some studies have found that although ethanol lowers some smog-causing pollutants, such as carbon monoxide, it actually increases others (The Heritage Foundation, March 28).

In any case, according to Wall Street Journal sources, employing ethanol to reduce greenhouse gasses is “fantastically inefficient,” and costs probably as much as 16 times the optimal abatement cost for removing a ton of carbon from the atmosphere (January 27).

But not only have doubts arisen over the environmental benefits of replacing gasoline consumption with ethanol, but other side effects are also coming to light.

For one, as the demand and consequently supply of corn ethanol increases (due to governmental legislation and subsidies), additional cropland is cultivated and dedicated to corn production. However, today’s corn hybrids require more fertilizer, herbicides and insecticides than almost any other crop. In fact, corn farming substantially tops all crops in total application of pesticides, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The intensive farming methods employed to grow corn often require massive amounts of water and contribute heavily to soil erosion, which results in chemicals leaching into rivers, lakes and drinking water.

Scientists have shown that the widespread use of fertilizers throughout the Mississippi watershed area has largely created the Gulf of Mexico’s “dead zone” that appears annually each summer. Fertilizer runoff is said to produce widespread algal blooms in the ocean, which deprive aquatic life of oxygen as they decay; as a result, whole sections of the Gulf become virtual underwater deserts deprived of plant and animal life. Additional farmland devoted to corn crops would only worsen this problem.

What’s more, because of the high energy input required to produce ethanol and the methods used, the processing plants themselves are spewing out massive amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere. For example, the federal government recorded that a single corn processing plant in Iowa produced nearly 20,000 tons of pollutants in 2004, including chemicals that contribute to respiratory problems, acid rain and cancer (CorpWatch, June 1, 2006). The agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland, which is the U.S.’s largest producer of ethanol, ranks as the country’s 10th-worst corporate air polluter, according to the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts. It has been charged with violating the Clean Air Act at more than 50 of its plants by the Department of Justice and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Increased corn ethanol production also has some serious implications relating to the nation’s food supply. Corn is used in a substantial amount of the food Americans put in their mouths. Corn chips, corn bread, corn flakes and corn meal are just a start. Thousands of products contain corn syrup, including soda pop, ketchup, jam, licorice, and a litany of baked goods and sugared treats. Bourbon whiskey and other fermented products, including some beers, also contain corn products. The biggest use of corn in America, however, is as feed for livestock, which means every time you eat that fillet mignon or chicken burger, you are also munching good old corn on the cob.

“People had grown accustomed to $2-per-bushel corn. That’s not going to happen anymore,” says Bob Dinneen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association. Why? One fifth of the entire U.S. corn crop is now devoted to ethanol, up from just 3 percent five years ago. At present yields, reaching the president’s stated goal of 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels by 2017 would require the entire U.S. corn harvest. If just the currently planned ethanol factories are built, by as early as next year one half of America’s corn harvest will go toward corn ethanol.

It’s no wonder the price of corn rose nearly 80 percent in 2006 alone. Although good news for farmers and big grain agribusiness, this is obviously not good news for consumers. Higher food prices are already beginning to ripple through the economy. “Ultimately, these increases will be passed on to consumers and we could have a fairly dramatic inflation scenario for food costs,” says William Lapp, president of consultant Advanced Economic Solutions (Business Week, February 5).

Of course, when food prices rise, even though all are affected, those usually hurt the worst are those whose food costs take up a larger share of their disposable income—that is, the poor. In Mexico, the price of corn tortillas has risen so much that widespread protests have hit the nation, prompting the government to institute tortilla price controls. In China, the government has halted additional construction of ethanol plants for the threat that they pose to its food supply (Wall Street Journal, op. cit.).

“Corn is caught in a tug-of-war between ethanol plants and food,” says Business Week. “A host of unintended consequences could appear” (op. cit.).

Unfortunately, unintended consequences seem to be the norm rather than the exception when it comes to human and scientific advancement. Take the example of Europe’s, and especially the Netherlands’, push to use “environmentally friendly” palm oil as an alternative fuel.

Just a few years ago, politicians and environmental groups praised the Netherlands for its rapid adoption of palm oil as a major component of its strategy for “sustainable energy.” Power plants were built to run off it, and vehicles used it as a substitute for diesel. Like corn ethanol, this bio-fuel was cleaner than oil because it is derived from plants—or so people and legislators were told.

However, when scientists and government regulators began to study palm plantations in Indonesia and Malaysia last year, this “green fairy tale began to look more like an environmental nightmare” (International Herald Tribune, January 31). To supply the rising demand for palm oil in Europe, Southeast Asian farmers began clearing huge swaths of rainforest. Since slash-and-burn agriculture and deforestation quickly depleted soils of their fertility, farmers began using massive amounts of fertilizer to maintain productivity. Additionally, space for the expanding palm plantations was often created by draining and burning peat land, which released enormous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Factoring in these emissions, Indonesia quickly became the world’s third-largest producer of what are termed greenhouse gasses—one of the very things the environmentally-minded Netherlands was trying to reduce in the first place. The environmental damage caused by palm oil plantations is so great that Dutch Member of Parliament Krista van Velzen says her country should pay reparations to Indonesia.

Similarly, according to one study, when factoring in the extra pollution caused by clearing forests to make room for sugar cane ethanol plantations, it takes at least 20 years of ethanol use to offset the pollution caused by the deforestation for the ethanol to become cleaner than gasoline usage (Washingtonpost.com, March 25).

Why does mankind have so much trouble finding side-effect-free solutions to its troubles? Society tries to do the right thing, yet seemingly good ideas, like growing the fuel to power our society, end up creating more problems than they fix.

The ramifications of not finding a clean, abundant alternative to oil, however, are ominous. As was mentioned in a previous article on this subject, America spends billions of dollars a year purchasing oil that in effect supports many nations that are unfriendly to the U.S. This leaves America dangerously vulnerable.

There is good news, however. There is a solution for all mankind’s troubles, and a time is coming when America will not have to worry about oil addiction ramifications, threats to its food supply, or unintended environmental side effects. However, the solutions to mankind’s problems, including those involving its energy supply, will only be found when man looks to God. This is what is prophesied to occur when Christ returns to this Earth, as is explained in Herbert W. Armstrong’s book The Wonderful World Tomorrow—What It Will Be Like.