2AC:

ROADMAP:

Disadvantages

Ethanol vs. Gasoline

Disadvantages:

First of all, let’s look at the common link that all of his disadvantages are based on. That a)
ethanol replaces a significant part of our oil supply and b) that ethanol decreases the demand for
oil; however ethanol will not replace a significant part of our oil supply.

The Network for New Energy Choices wrote in 2007,1

“Record ethanol production in 2006 was able to displace only 3.5 percent of gasoline demand,
while using 20 percent of the US corn crop for that year. In fact, the Congressional Research
Service estimated that even if the entire US corn harvest was dedicated to ethanol, it would
displace less that 15 percent of gasoline consumption.”

What is the impact of this? The impact is that ethanol will not and cannot replace a significant
amount of foreign oil. You should prefer my evidence above Delta’s because his was simply a
quote from President Bush, who happened to be an ardent supporter of ethanol, but when you
look at research from a scientific organization, ethanol will not replace a meaningful amount of
foreign oil.

Furthermore, ethanol actually increases demand for oil. The Energy Information Administration
reported in 2007,2

“Ethanol blended into gasoline is projected to account for 4.3 percent of the total gasoline pool
by volume in 2007, 7.5 percent in 2012, and 7.6 percent in 2030. As a result, gasoline demand
increases more rapidly in terms of fuel volume (but not in terms of energy content) than it would in the
absence of ethanol blending. Overall, gasoline consumption is projected to increase by 32 percent on an
energy basis, and by 34 percent on a volume basis, from 2007 to 2030.”

What’s the impact of this? Gasoline demand has increase more than it would have if we didn’t
use ethanol.

Actually, ethanol uses more energy than is produced! David Pimentel wrote in2008,3

“Several scientific analyses confirmed that 14 energy inputs go into corn production, plus an
additional 9 energy inputs are invested in fermentation and distillation operations. This confirms
that more than 140% more energy (mostly high value oil and natural gas) is expended to produce
a gallon of corn ethanol than is in the ethanol itself. Some investigators omit several of the
energy inputs required in corn production and processing, such as energy for farm labor, farm
machinery, energy production of hybrid corn-seed, irrigation, and processing equipment.”

Now let’s address Delta’s impacts.

The first impact was about peak oil, and oil disruptions; unfortunately, ethanol actually increases
the risk of oil disruptions.

Tom Elam, an agricultural economist, wrote in 2007,4

“The economics of corn-based ethanol may, in a very small way, reduce our demand for
imported oil. However, the tradeoff is that in addition to influencing our transportation costs, we
now see food costs heavily affected by those who can influence crude oil prices. If Mideast
producers see fit to reduce oil production to drive oil prices higher, not only will our gasoline
prices increase, but our food costs will soar as well.

The effect of ethanol subsidies is to substantially increase, not reduce, the exposure of the overall
U.S. economy to oil market disruptions.”

What can we see here? Ethanol actually increases the risk of oil disruptions.

Now let’s look at the issue of unfriendly countries.

First of all, we do not overly rely on these countries, most of which lie in the Persian
Gulf.

Drew Thornley, who has a B.A. in economics wrote in 2009,5

“Finally, due to the inefficiencies of renewable energies and alternative fuels, the possibility of U.S. energy
independence anytime in the near future is a myth. However, the U.S. is well positioned to meet our future
energy needs, for instead of focusing all our resources on a single energy source or energy supplier, we have a
diversified portfolio of energy resources and numerous supplies that act as an effective hedge against supply
disruptions. For example,
contrary to popular opinion, the U.S. imports oil from dozens of nations
and is not overly reliant on any single country or region. Only 16 percent of our 2007 oil imports
came from the Persian Gulf, for example, while over 61 percent of the petroleum consumed in the
U.S. in 2007 was either produced here or imported from Canada and Mexico, our immediate
neighbors. In spite of such balance, misplaced fears that we are overly dependent on dangerous
regimes for our oil supply could hasten government mandates and subsidies for unproven
technologies that divert resources from more efficient uses—and raise the overall cost of energy
for consumers.”
 Second, withdrawl from these markets would not mean that the nations would stop
getting revenue.

Drew Thornley, who has a B.A. in economics wrote in 2009,6

“Of course, many Americans understandably oppose sending large sums of money to countries
neither democratic nor allied with the U.S. Our withdrawal from these markets, however, while
perhaps a worthy goal in itself, would not stop those nations from realizing revenues from the
sale of oil to other buyers, particularly fast-growing, petroleum-hungry India and China.”

Third, terrorism does not depend on petrodollars. Robert Bryce wrote in 2007,6

“Moreover,terrorism is an ancient tactic that predates the oil era. It does not depend on
petrodollars. And even small amounts of money can underwrite spectacular plots; as the 9/11 Commission Report
noted, ‘The 9/11 plotters eventually spent somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000 to plan and conduct their
G.I. Wilson, a retired Marine Corps colonel who has fought in Iraq and written
attack.’
extensively on terrorism and asymmetric warfare, calls the conflation of oil and terrorism a
‘contrivance.’ Support for terrorism ‘doesn't come from oil,’ he says. ‘It comes from drugs,
crime, human trafficking and the weapons trade.’”

What is the impact of all this? We can see that we do not overly rely on hostile countries for our
oil, and that this disadvantage applies to the negative team as well and staying with the SQ
actually makes the problem worse.

Finally, let’s address the issue of blackouts.

First, no threshold. The Negative team did not provide a threshold when these deadly
blackouts would start happening. That’s because there isn’t one.

Second, we do not use ethanol for electricity. As admitted in cross-x, we use ethanol to
replace gasoline. Gasoline is a fuel. We don’t use ethanol to power our refrigerators, freezers or
to produce electricity. We use coal and nuclear power to produce electricity.

Now that we’ve looked at the disadvantages, let’s compare ethanol and gasoline, and see which
one is truly worse.
 First, let’s examine air pollution. Specifically GHGs. Timothy Searchinger wrote in
7
2008,

“Most prior studies have found that substituting biofuels for gasoline will reduce greenhouse
gases because biofuels sequester carbon through the growth of the feedstock. These analyses
have failed to count the carbon emissions that occur as farmers worldwide respond to higher
prices and convert forest and grassland to new cropland to replace the grain (or cropland)
diverted to biofuels. By using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land-use change, we
found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse
emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years. Biofuels from switchgrass, if
grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%. This result raises concerns about large biofuel mandates and
highlights the value of using waste products.”

We can see that when we compare ethanol to gasoline, it emits more GHGs than gasoline.

Second, let’s look at water usage and pollution.

Point a) ethanol uses a lot of water. Shiney Varghese wrote in 2007,8

“The United States is the largest producer of ethanol, accounting in 2006 for about 36 percent of global
ethanol output, almost entirely with corn grown in the Midwest. For Iowa, in the heart of corn production in
the U.S., the water use (associated with crop water requirement) for producing a gallon of ethanol has
been calculated to be between 1081 and 1121 gallons of water. However in fully irrigated
agriculture, crop water use increases substantially. For example for corn grown in Southwestern
part of Nebraska, where it is irrigated, the average water use (associated with crop water
requirement) for producing a gallon of ethanol has been estimated to be about 1568 gallons of
water.”

Point b) ethanol pollutes a lot of water. Lester Brown and Jonathan Lewis wrote in 2008,9

“Third, food-to-fuel mandates are helping drive up the price of agricultural staples, leading to
significant changes in land use with major environmental harm. Here in the United States, farmers are
pulling land out of the federal conservation program, threatening fragile habitats. Increased agricultural
production also means increased fertilizer use. The National Academy of Sciences reported last
month that meeting the congressional food-to-fuel mandate by 2022 would lead to a 10 to 19
percent increase in the size of the Gulf of Mexico's "dead zone" -- an area so polluted by
fertilizer runoff that no aquatic life can survive there.”

What’s the impact of this? Not only does ethanol waste a resource we need, but it also pollutes it.
 Third, let’s examine the health costs of ethanol compared to gasoline.

Jason Hill wrote in 2008,10

“Environmental impacts of energy use can impose large costs on society. We quantify and
monetize the life-cycle climate-change and health effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) and fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions from gasoline, corn ethanol, and cellulosic ethanol. For
each billion ethanol-equivalent gallons of fuel produced and combusted in the US, the combined
climate-change and health costs are $469 million for gasoline, $472–952 million for corn ethanol
depending on biorefinery heat source (natural gas, corn stover, or coal) and technology.”

What’s the impact of this? Ethanol is a net loser when compared to gasoline.

Fourth, let’s examine cost.

Ben Lieberman and Nicolas Loris wrote in 2008,11

“With pump prices rising to record levels, consumers are not seeing the promised benefits from
ethanol use. Proponents of the mandate insist that without ethanol, prices would be even higher,
but this is not likely. The logistical and regulatory costs of mixing ethanol into the fuel supply
raise the cost of driving beyond the level imposed by plain gasoline usage. Unlike gasoline,
ethanol cannot be shipped via pipelines and must be transported via rail, barge, or truck. Ethanol
use also complicates compliance with some Environmental Protection Agency regulations for
gasoline, especially those designed to fight summer smog. Most significantly, as the American
Automobile Association and others have pointed out, ethanol use lowers fuel economy.”

Fifth, food prices,12

Point a) ethanol has raised food prices. The Congressional Budget Office reported in 2009,

“The upswing in the demand for corn to be used in producing domestic ethanol raised the
commodity’s price, CBO estimates, by between 50 cents and 80 cents per bushel between April 2007 and April
2008. That range is equivalent to between 28 percent and 47 percent of the increase in the price of
corn, which rose from $3.39 per bushel to $5.14 per bushel during the same period. That price
increase occurred despite an increase in corn production—that is, in the amount of corn grown,
harvested, and marketed. During the 2007–2008 corn marketing year, the United States harvested a record 13.1
billion bushels of corn. Of that total, approximately 3 billion bushels, or nearly a quarter (another
record), was used to produce ethanol.”
Point b) ethanol is responsible for millions more people going hungry. Benjamin Senauer wrote
in 2008,13

“Grains are the staple food of most people in the developing world, although which particular
cereal depends on the region. We can combine IFPRI's estimate that biofuels account for 30% of
the rise in grain prices and the World Bank president's figure of 100 million more hungry people
due to higher food prices. This combination suggests that biofuels are responsible for 30 million
more people going hungry in the world. The IFPRI model also allows us to estimate the number of
malnourished children less than age five under various conditions. Based on the model there are some 2.4 million
more malnourished pre-schoolers in the developing countries in 2008 due to the impact of biofuels. Current
research, that I and colleagues are working on, suggests that 390,000 additional children under the age of five will
die because of this increase in malnutrition due to biofuels. If
current biofuel development trends continue,
child deaths will rise to 475,000, almost one-half million by 2010”

In summary, ethanol will not reduce our dependence on gasoline; not only that, ethanol is worse
in every way.
URLs:
1
http://www.newenergychoices.org/uploads/mythandFacts-online.pdf
2
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biomass.html
3
http://www.mdpi.org/energies/papers/en1010035.pdf
4
http://farmecon.com/Documents/Ethanol%20Analysis%20ELAM%20REVISED%209-26-
07.pdf
5
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/energymyths/myth11.htm
6
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/energymyths/myth1.htm
7
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/10/AR2008011002452.html
8
http://sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/1151861
9
http://www.tradeobservatory.org/library.cfm?RefID=100547
10
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/21/AR2008042102555.html
11
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/30/11206.full
12
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2008/05/Time-to-Repeal-the-Ethanol-Mandate
13
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/03/biofuels.usa