Advertisement
For openers, please remember why we are using corn — it is the easiest.
Two other quick comments. First, there is no good way to compare the cost/efficiency of American corn versus Brazilian sugar cane ethanol production. Brazilians jump-started their cane ethanol production with huge subsidies to become energy self-sufficient and to eliminate petroleum imports.
They have been quite successful. We have also. U.S. gasoline use rose from 130 billion gallons in 2000 to 141 billion gallons in 2006. What would the price have been if one-third of that growth wasn’t met by ethanol?
Secondly, the food-versus-fuel argument. Food will always have first call on the corn, partly because food-grade corn commands a premium over feed corn. Only about 5 percent of the total corn crop is used for food.
Finally, of the more than 100 ethanol plants in the United States, the vast majority are owned by local farmers and investors. The “big players” in the ethanol industry only produce about one-third of the total production. This is certainly the case in the six operating plants in Wisconsin — all are locally owned. That means that control and profits stay in Wisconsin.
Bob Oleson is executive director of the Wisconsin Corn Growers Association.
The Tribune encourages letters to the editor on current issues. Please limit letters to 250 words or less.
We reserve the right to edit all letters and require that all letters include the name, address and phone number of the writer for verification purposes.
Letter writers will be limited to no more than one letter a month. Please do not send poetry, or items taken from other publication or from the Internet.
Send letters to the editor to letters@lacrossetribune.com.
