Now that John Thune is getting it done with ethanol, the Argus Leader can start running negative reports. Here is an excerpt from yesterday’s paper:
South Dakota’s growing ethanol industry got a major boost Friday with passage of a $12.3 billion energy bill, but critics are renewing a longstanding claim that making the alternative fuel consumes more energy than it produces, harming the economy and the environment.
If those critics are right, the new mandate to more than double the use of ethanol by 2012 will increase U.S. reliance on fossil fuel and increase greenhouse gas emissions.
The debate is intricate and involves calculating how much energy is used in corn farming as well as ethanol manufacture. Instead of digging into the numbers, many in the debate have turned to questioning the ability and integrity of the researchers with whom they disagree.
Ethanol is popular in South Dakota, but there are a few skeptics who want more focus on the hard data.
"Unfortunately, there isn’t a politician, except on the East and West Coasts, that’s going to say anything negative about ethanol," said Arnie Berkeland of Sioux Falls, who closely follows ethanol research. "Nobody dares speak up against it."
He said he believes the studies that claim ethanol is a waste.
"If you’re just going to spin your wheels and get out exactly what you put in, or get out less, then why spin the wheels?" he said.
The controversy boils down to estimating the amount of energy it takes to produce nitrogen fertilizer and farm equipment.
