Having written a dozen blogs on ethanol, my record on the issue is clear. Too many question marks along with the dramatic impact on the world food supply make me more than skeptical about the value of ethanol. My constituents have also informed me of their strong opposition.

In America, members of Congress and the food industry are calling for an end to ethanol mandates. The nationwide corn-based ethanol mandate requires blending 9 billion gallons of ethanol into America’s fuel supply this year. Midwest flooding during June devastated several million acres of corn and soybeans fields, pushing the price of corn to record highs that have, in turn, severely hurt livestock producers.

The British also understand the ramifications of the ethanol craze. Christopher Booker and Richard North recently published Scared To Death: From BSE to Global Warming, How Scares Are Costing Us The Earth. They have written a column in the Daily Telegraph, chronicling the historical rise and speedy fall of biofuels.

Booker and North write, “Rarely in political history can there have been such a rapid and dramatic reversal of a received wisdom as we have seen in the past 18 months over biofuels.” Prior to the change in heart over biofuels, Booker and North document what they call “mankind’s love affair with biofuels,” a process that developed in five stages going back decades.

Stage One-The internal combustion engine is born. Henry Ford wanted his autos to run on ethanol made from corn and hemp. The petroleum business boomed during the 1920’s, and ethanol got placed on the back burner.

Stage Two- During the 1970’s, skyrocketing oil prices put the focus back on biofuels. The United Nations, after holding a conference on the issue in 1981 adopted a program in 1987 emphasizing biofuels.

Stage Three- Two key developments occurred during the 1990’s: 1) After the first Gulf War, the United States, staring at a spike in oil prices, viewed surplus crops as the answer to dependence on foreign oil, and 2) The United Nations considered biofuels a solution to global warming.

Stage Four- Between 2004 and 2007, hysteria over global warming grew. In an attempt to show leadership on global warming, the European Union (EU) set a required target of 10 percent of all EU transport fuel to come from biofuels by 2020. A United Nations report during 2006 indicated that in order to meet the EU goal of 10 percent, 70 per cent of dry land would have to be taken out of food production. Despite the UN report, the EU today refuses to alter its 10 percent target.

Stage Five- The ethanol backlash exploded, coming from some unpredictable sources. Environmental groups, once chief biofuel proponents, now had serious doubts, spurred by the effects in the Third World and rainforests. Worldwide food shortages had critics pointing the finger squarely at the biofuel craze.

Booker and North quote a United Nations official who says biofuels can only bring "more hunger to the poor people of the world, "and that biofuels are a "crime against humanity".

The world needs to get over its ethanol hangover and dramatically cut back on ramming food into fuel tanks. Here is Booker and North’s column in the Daily Telegraph.

You can add bananas to the list of foods that are seeing a sharp increase in price thanks to the rising cost of fuel.

Like the corn tortilla in Mexico, the banana is an important part of the daily diet in Britain.

There seems to be a consensus that ethanol has been a major factor in the rising cost of food that has led to food crisis conditions in many parts of the world.

It is encouraging to see the editorial board of the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel write that ethanol mandates should be reconsidered.

A blog I wrote during February 2007 about the effects of ethanol mentioned the impact on food with emphasis on Mexico. It read, in part:

“Excitement over ethanol, a renewable fuel made with corn, has reached such a high level that there has been a virtual rush on corn. The effects have been devastating, especially in Mexico with a society, culture, and way of life dominated by the tortilla. Tortillas make up 40 percent of the diet for poor Mexicans, and with corn prices quadrupling in Mexico since last summer, Mexico is suffering through its worst tortilla crisis.

Exorbitant tortilla costs created by the buzz about ethanol have left few alternatives in Mexico. Mexicans who can afford food are bypassing tortillas for options that are less healthy, so they are gaining weight. The poor are eating less, eating less healthy, or going hungry.

There are many concerns about ethanol, its effect on world hunger being the latest. Ethanol has been known to wreak havoc on small engines, and now it is likely to wreak havoc on the food supply.”

Surely there were some who read that column and dismissed the conclusion. I doubt that’s the case today.

This is no longer a Mexican tortilla problem. Food supply epidemics have reached global proportions. The latest Agricultural Outlook from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, unveiled in late May in Paris has the grim details about escalating prices:

“Using data for February 2008 compared to February 2007, milk product prices have generally risen sharply, as shown by those for butter with price increases of 50% in Poland, 40% in France, 36% in Spain, 32% in the Czech Republic, about 36% in Jordan and some 12% in Malaysia. Egg prices have also risen sharply, by 34% in the US, 30% in the UK and the Czech Republic and 10% in Spain. Vegetable oil prices rose 18% in India and 47% in Botswana in the past year. Meat prices rose sharply in some countries such as China, where the increase was 45%.”

Sixteen months ago I pointed the finger at ethanol. Recently in Paris, world food experts did the same. OECD agriculture official Loek Boonekamp, according to the Washington Post, says about 33 percent of the projected increase in food prices over the next 10 years can be attributed to biofuels. Boonekamp also called the benefits of converting food into fuel, “probably smaller than commonly expected."

An OECD press release says growing demand for biofuels is leading to higher food prices, reporting “World fuel ethanol production tripled between 2000 and 2007 and is expected to double again between now and 2017 to reach 127 billion liters a year. Biodiesel production is seen to expand from 11 billion liters a year in 2007 to around 24 billion liters by 2017. The growth in biofuel production adds to demand for grains, oilseeds and sugar, so contributing to higher crop prices.”

The prognosis for the future of food prices from the OECD is bleak:

“Commodity prices will average substantially above the levels that prevailed in the past 10 years. When the average for 2008 to 2017 is compared with that over 1998 to 2007, beef and pork prices may be some 20% higher; raw and white sugar around 30%; wheat, maize and skim milk powder 40 to 60%; butter and oilseeds more than 60% and vegetable oils over 80%.

The poor, and in particular the urban poor in net food importing developing countries, will suffer more. In many low-income countries, food expenditures average over 50% of income and the higher prices will push more people into undernourishment.”

The report predicts more violent outbreaks and riots over food shortages that have already been reported in some countries.

The OECD recommends further review of existing biofuel policies. The suggestion comes as some members of Congress are requesting a relaxation of a requirement that 9 billion gallons of renewable fuels be produced in 2009, up from 6.5 billion last year. How widespread does the world’s food crisis have to get before we put the brakes on converting our food supply into fuel?

The Wall Street Journal has a great editorial tracking the ramifications of ethanol. It reads, in part:

“Corn ethanol can now join the scare over silicone breast implants and the pesticide Alar as among the greatest scams of the age. But before we move on to the next green miracle cure, it's worth recounting how much damage this ethanol political machine is doing.

To create just one gallon of fuel, ethanol slurps up 1,700 gallons of water, according to Cornell's David Pimentel, and 51 cents of tax credits. And it still can't compete against oil without a protective 54-cents-per-gallon tariff on imports and a federal mandate that forces it into our gas tanks. The record 30 million acres the U.S. will devote to ethanol production this year will consume almost a third of America's corn crop while yielding fuel amounting to less than 3% of petroleum consumption.”

Here is the entire editorial.

The Senate version of the ethanol mandate bill is temporarily in limbo since the Senate couldn’t find enough votes for passage when it was considered on January 31, 2008.

The Assembly companion bill to the Senate ethanol mandate, Assembly Bill 682 gets a public hearing by the Assembly Befouls and Sustainable Energy Committee today, February 13, 2008. Committee members also plan to vote on the bill. It then could be considered for a floor vote before the state Assembly.

Passage of ethanol mandate legislation will lead to higher gas and food prices, a negative effect on engines and engine performance, and will increase pollution.

It is my strong hope that leadership in the Assembly will prevent Assembly Bill 682, because it is such bad legislation, from going to the Assembly floor. 

The merits of ethanol should be determined by consumers, not mandated by government. 

A bill mandating the use of ethanol in gasoline is still pending before the state Senate. I have stated the jury is still out on the benefits of ethanol. There are too many unknowns. We are unsure ethanol will cost less, we are unsure ethanol will be more fuel-efficient, and we are unsure ethanol will be good for the environment.

New studies have just been released indicating bio-fuels like ethanol can damage the environment, and even lead to global warming.

Here are the details from ABC News.

The state Senate today referred Senate Bill 380 (SB 380), the ethanol mandate bill back to the Senate Committee on Organization. The bill could still be scheduled for state Senate floor debate before the current legislative session ends in mid-March.

SB 380 requires that gasoline sold in Wisconsin contain the following percentages of ethanol:

(a) In 2009 to 2014, 10 percent.
(b) In 2015 to 2019, 15 percent.
(c) In 2020 to 2024, 20 percent.
(d) In 2025 and thereafter, 25 percent.

There are penalties for refiners who fail to comply.

A refiner may be required to forfeit not more than $10,000 for a first offense, not less than $500 nor more than $50,000 for a second offense, and not less than $1,000 nor more than $100,000 for a third and subsequent offense.

This is bad legislation for many reasons.

The state Senate, without a reliable crystal ball, is legislating into the year 2025 and beyond. Applying these mandates without knowledge of what our energy capabilities or technology will look like decades from now is irresponsible.

The bill is a mandate. Government should refrain from mandating the kind of gasoline consumers put in their automobiles. The free market should make this decision instead of state government.

The jury is still out on the benefits of ethanol. There are too many unknowns. We are unsure ethanol will cost less, we are unsure ethanol will be more fuel-efficient, and we are unsure ethanol will be good for the environment.

I recognize there is not a groundswell of support from the general public for an ethanol mandate that is a perfect example of legislation driven by special interests.

For all of these reasons, I will vote no on SB 380 if it ever comes to the floor of the state Senate.

As I write this at 4:00 p.m., the state Senate is in recess while Senate Democrats huddle behind closed doors in a closed caucus.

The Senate has completed most of its calendar, but has not taken up Senate Bill 380, the ethanol mandate bill.

Rumors are circulating throughout the Capitol that Senate Democrats called for the closed caucus to discuss the ethanol bill because they don’t have the necessary votes for passage and are now engaged in some serious arm twisting.

Senate Democrats would not say how long this closed door session would last. At the moment, the ethanol bill hangs in the balance while Senate Democrats battle with one another.

If and when the Senate comes to the floor for a vote on Senate Bill 380, I will be voting no.

A bill mandating the sale of ethanol is back before the state legislature.

The state Senate Committee on Campaign Finance Reform, Rural Issues and Information Technology will hold an executive session Tuesday, January 29 at 10:00 a.m. on Senate Bill 380 (SB 380).

SB 380 requires that gasoline sold in Wisconsin must contain the following percentages of ethanol:

(a) In 2009 to 2014, 10 percent.
(b) In 2015 to 2019, 15 percent.
(c) In 2020 to 2024, 20 percent.
(d) In 2025 and thereafter, 25 percent.

There are penalties for refiners who fail to comply.

A refiner may be required to forfeit not more than $10,000 for a first offense, not less than $500 nor more than $50,000 for a second offense, and not less than $1,000 nor more than $100,000 for a third and subsequent offense.

Here is a copy of SB 380.  

I understand the importance farmers place on ethanol. The Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation says, “The use of grain for ethanol adds up to 10-15 cents for every bushel of corn for Wisconsin farmers.”

Certainly we all wish success for our hard-working farmers. However, the market should decide ethanol sales to consumers, not the government. The government should not interfere with the lives of consumers by determining the fuel they put in their gasoline tanks.

For that reason, I made the successful motion on the Senate floor in the previous legislative session to kill the bill that would have mandated gasoline sold in Wisconsin contain 10 percent ethanol.

As I have stated in the past, if ethanol is of great benefit, then the market should decide. At this time, I do not see a groundswell of support among consumers demanding this product.

Corn farmer David Kurtz of Urbana, Illinois is enthusiastic about ethanol. Kurtz, who owns about 800 acres of farmland, told the Associated Press, “I happen to be more encouraged by what I see going on in agriculture now than anytime from the time I got involved in it in 1977. More demand for corn, it’s very simple, it leads to higher prices.”

Contrast Kurtz’s optimism with the skepticism of cattle rancher Kerby Barker of Wyoming who knows it’s more expensive to feed cows, chickens and pigs due to the rising cost of feed corn. Barker told NewsMax.com, “It’s hard to see where the future is, if corn keeps going up. Anytime you jack up the price of fuel, anytime you jack up the price of corn, it just drives up your bottom line.”

Ethanol, and the corn craze to produce it, is causing a wide rift between farmers. Some rejoice over skyrocketing corn prices. Others aren’t so happy because they’re battling for the very same corn to feed their livestock, and have to pay more.

Being a farmer is difficult, so the ethanol buzz can be welcome news to a rural community. A new ethanol plant can generate new investment, create new jobs, and open new real estate markets. The ethanol boom can also lead farmers to grow corn instead of other crops. That creates shortages and higher prices for other commodities, and higher costs to produce food will mean higher food prices at grocery stores.

There are other reasons not every farmer has jumped on the ethanol bandwagon. Corn requires a great deal of water to grow, more water than many other crops. Some farmers and other concerned residents near ethanol plants can’t compromise losing the water the ethanol plants require.

“That’s what’s really going to kill the water situation here, the amount of water it will take to irrigate all that corn,” said Lowell Brakey of Dodge City, Kansas to the Lawrence Journal-World. Harry Coambes of southwest Missouri told the newspaper, “What would you do to protect your home, your livelihood and your net worth? If they have to empty our aquifer, I am financially ruined, me and about 100 some other families.” Coambes’ solution was to go to court to fight a proposed ethanol plant.

Opposition to an outbreak of ethanol plants includes concern over pollution and the danger of overextending water supplies. Worries abound over polluted water being discharged onto other property or underground.

Many new ethanol plants popping up are farmer-owned cooperatives. Financially-troubled farmers thought corn was their light at the end of the tunnel. However, some grapple with the dilemma of the ethanol craze driving up the cost of feed that drives up the cost of food. Their sudden fortune can deplete a community’s water supply, fueling a fight over who gets to use it. Some plants divide a community to the point of court litigation.

There’s no sign of America’s intoxication with ethanol wearing off. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's annual prospective plantings report says demand from the ethanol industry is expected to result in the biggest U.S. corn planting since 1944. Corn planting will be up 15% this year to 90.5 million acres, 12.1 million more acres than in 2006. The Renewable Fuels Association says our ethanol output was about five billion gallons last year and is expected to double to nearly 11 billion gallons by 2009. That could intensify the public backlash against the production of corn for fuel, and widen the chasm between today’s farmers.

Your trips to the grocery store are going to get more expensive, thanks to the frenzy over ethanol production.

The United States Agriculture Department (USDA) in its monthly crop report says the huge demand for corn from ethanol plants will cause an increase in meat, pork, and chicken prices. Corn is the primary feed for livestock and the price of corn has skyrocketed due to ethanol. Producers of meat and poultry, facing higher feed costs, will reduce production.

Poultry producers have no choice. The National Chicken Council says the cost of feeding chickens has gone up 40 percent. Chicken, the meat most preferred by consumers, will certainly cost more and consumers will be the losers. Tyson Foods Chief Executive Dick Bond said, “Companies will be forced to pass along rising costs to their customers, meaning consumers will pay significantly more for food.”

The culprit is ethanol. Ethanol chewed up 20 percent of last year’s corn crop and is expected to take up 25 percent of this year’s crop. Corn costs $3.20 per bushel, up from $2 per bushel last year.

I wrote in a column February 2, 2007, “Excitement over ethanol, a renewable fuel made with corn, has reached such a high level that there has been a virtual rush on corn. The effects have been devastating, especially in Mexico with a society, culture, and way of life dominated by the tortilla. Tortillas make up 40 percent of the diet for poor Mexicans, and with corn prices quadrupling in Mexico since last summer, Mexico is suffering through its worst tortilla crisis.

Exorbitant tortilla costs created by the buzz about ethanol have left few alternatives in Mexico. Mexicans who can afford food are bypassing tortillas for options that are less healthy, so they are gaining weight. The poor are eating less, eating less healthy, or going hungry.”

We’ve learned the problems created by the ethanol buzz are even worse than the crisis south of the border. America will now produce less meat, poultry and chicken. Shoppers will have to pay more at the grocery stores in order to feed their families.

Governor Doyle is proposing what he calls a $40-million investment in renewable energy. The Governor’s enthusiasm to spend more on ethanol, an unproven fuel that costs more, harms the environment, and reduces gas mileage, will directly contribute to a reduced and more expensive food supply.

In a blog entry February 2, 2007, I made the connection between the rush to use more corn to make more ethanol and the subsequent impact on the food supply and the Mexican economy. I wrote in my blog:

"Excitement over ethanol, a renewable fuel made with corn, has reached such a high level that there has been a virtual rush on corn. The effects have been devastating, especially in Mexico with a society, culture, and way of life dominated by the tortilla. Tortillas make up 40 percent of the diet for poor Mexicans, and with corn prices quadrupling in Mexico since last summer, Mexico is suffering through its worst tortilla crisis.

Exorbitant tortilla costs created by the buzz about ethanol have left few alternatives in Mexico. Mexicans who can afford food are bypassing tortillas for options that are less healthy, so they are gaining weight. The poor are eating less, eating less healthy, or going hungry.

There are many concerns about ethanol, its effect on world hunger being the latest. Because corn is used to produce ethanol, it requires so much water, energy and land to produce, making its benefits highly questionable. Evidence suggests that ethanol costs more, harms the environment, and reduces gas mileage. Ethanol has been known to wreak havoc on small engines, and now it is likely to wreak havoc on the food supply."

Apparently I am not alone in this analysis.

One week after my blog, Caspar Weinberger, the son of the late U.S. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, and writer and lecturer on world events, has written a column making the same essential point:

"The issue is corn and the skyrocketing prices for tortillas, a flat bread made of white cornmeal. Since this food is the basic staple of the poor of Mexico, any dramatic rise in its price is bound to cause misery and outrage among the working and impoverished classes of America's southern neighbor. Over the last year, Mexican tortilla prices have more than doubled and now cost about 45 cents a pound. What is really behind the spike in this commodity appears to be the relatively new push in North America for alternative fuels to help rid the Western Hemisphere and particularly the U.S. of its dependence on foreign oil. As a result, ethanol is now the latest domestic fuel alternative under massive development."

You can read Weinberger's entire column here.

Some of the same concerns I have raised about ethanol were the subject of the cover story in the February 12, 2007 print edition of U.S. News & World Report.

The Wall Street Journal has editorialized about big corn and the consequences of ethanol.

The Earth Policy Institute believes the more ethanol we produce, the fewer people we will feed.

Edwin Black is the author of Internal Combustion: How Corporations and Governments Addicted the World to Oil and Derailed the Alternatives. Black says corn ethanol is a bad idea, America's next big fuel mistake.

Consumer Reports has conducted tests showing vehicles get poorer fuel economy from gas containing ethanol.

University of Minnesota researchers have concluded that even if we used every cob of corn, we would not solve America's energy's problems.

Will ethanol wreak havoc on the food supply? With too many doubts remaining and plenty of documentation to warrant concern, the jury is still out on ethanol.

The “E” word is back. I am referring to ethanol.

If we turn the clock back to March 9, 2006, it was on that day I made a motion on the floor of the state Senate to indefinitely postpone a bill to mandate the sale of gasoline in Wisconsin that contained 10% ethanol. The motion was approved and for the past 10 months, we could breathe a sigh of relief. Not anymore.

Governor Doyle said during his State of the State speech, “I'll propose the next major step forward in our effort to become America's leader in energy independence - a $40 million investment in renewable energy. We'll provide incentives to dramatically increase the availability of E-85.” E-85 is fuel that is comprised of 85 percent ethanol.

Excitement over ethanol, a renewable fuel made with corn, has reached such a high level that there has been a virtual rush on corn. The effects have been devastating, especially in Mexico with a society, culture, and way of life dominated by the tortilla. Tortillas make up 40 percent of the diet for poor Mexicans, and with corn prices quadrupling in Mexico since last summer, Mexico is suffering through its worst tortilla crisis.

Exorbitant tortilla costs created by the buzz about ethanol have left few alternatives in Mexico. Mexicans who can afford food are bypassing tortillas for options that are less healthy, so they are gaining weight. The poor are eating less, eating less healthy, or going hungry.

There are many concerns about ethanol, its effect on world hunger being the latest. Because corn is used to produce ethanol, it requires so much water, energy and land to produce, making its benefits highly questionable. Evidence suggests that ethanol costs more, harms the environment, and reduces gas mileage. Ethanol has been known to wreak havoc on small engines, and now it is likely to wreak havoc on the food supply.

When the Governor talks about investing, another word for spending, a substantial amount of state dollars on proliferating ethanol, it makes me very skeptical. Before our deficit-riddled state commits to earmarking large sums of taxpayer dollars to ethanol, we should be assured with hard, empirical findings that the benefits are worth the expenditure. Today, that information is lacking.