A new report by Environment America looks at the impact of climate change on U.S. corn crops, which are particularly vulnerable to productivity losses from the higher temperatures expected from climate change. The report estimates that U.S. corn growers will face yearly losses of about $1.4 billion. At current production levels, the loss resulting from projected temperature increases would cost an average $116 million a year to the 10 most vulnerable states.
Corn framers in Iowa, the largest corn producing state, would face losses of almost $260 million per year. These estimates offer a very compelling reason for Corn Belt politicians to start looking at the big picture, and support policies that effectively address climate change, instead of blocking efforts that promote the sustainable development of biofuels.

A new report that examines the extent to which biofuels are subsidized by taxpayer monies concludes that between 2008 and 2022 biofuels will receive more than $400 billion in public funds. The report, published by Friends of the Earth, also shows that because there are no environmental standards associated with these subsidies, much of that money will go to supporting the most environmentally damaging biofuels, such as corn ethanol.

The size of these subsidies is extraordinary, particularly given how poorly we screen the environmental impacts produced by their recipients. The subsidies are accelerating environmental damage,” said Doug Koplow of Earth Track, who authored the report.

According to a study in the April 15 issue of the journal Environmental Science & Technology, ethanol production may be much more water intensive then previously estimated. Ethanol can take up to over 2,000 gallons of water per gallon of ethanol produced, depending on regional irrigation practices. The researchers also concluded that, because the ethanol industry has expanded to drier areas of the country, water consumption in the sector has increased by 246% while ethanol production has increased by 133%.

The study, conducted by researchers at the University of Minnesota, points out that national average ratios are not relevant in understanding the water implications of ethanol production because of the regional differences in irrigation practices.

Water Embodied in Bioethanol in the United States
Yi-Wenchiu et al.
Environmental Science & Technology

A new study on the impacts of expanded ethanol production points out that "increased corn acreage and increased fertilizer application rates due to corn prices will increase N and P [nitrogen and phosphorus] losses to streams, rivers, lakes, and coastal waters, particularly the Northern Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coastal waters downstream of expanding production areas. Both nutrient and hypoxia monitoring are already showing the effects of this increase."

The researchers conclude that "continuing the current direction in ethanol production, particularly with the focus remaining on grain and sugar crops as primary feedstocks, has serious implications for coastal water quality and will almost certainly worsen, already serious hypoxic conditions in many locations around the world."

Impact of Ethanol Production on Nutrient Cycles and Water Quality: The United States and Brazil as Case Studies
Thomas W.Simpson et al.
Scientific Committee on Problems on the Environment

A new report by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, "The Impact of Ethanol Use on Food Prices and Greenhouse-Gas Emissions," concludes that increased use of ethanol and associated food price increases will cost taxpayers up to $900 million more this year in food stamps and child nutrition programs. The study also concludes that while increase in ethanol use accounted for about 10 percent to 15 percent of the rise in food prices during the last year, it reduced gasoline consumption in the United States by about 4 percent and greenhouse-gas emissions from the transportation sector by less than 1 percent.

The report points out that ethanol saves about 20 percent greenhouse gas emissions in the short term. But the CBO analysis also points out that in the long run, the emissions reduction potential of ethanol is less clear: "If increases in the production of ethanol led to a large amount of forests or grasslands being converted into new cropland, those changes in land use could more than offset any reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions— because forests and grasslands naturally absorb more carbon from the atmosphere than cropland absorbs."