So, we could easily feed the world’s poor and still maintain the high standard of illness and health care expense we’ve become accustomed to. And, if worse came to worse, we might even choose to produce a healthier food supply for ourselves to save a little more of the grain for export, help reduce America’s trade deficit and lower health care costs.
Why then, are the Republicans opposing expansion of ethanol production and attempting to frame the debate as alternative energy vs. world hunger? As with all frames, this frame is significant because of what it excludes from view— mainly all the industries that profit from the hugely dysfunctional status quo. I’ll leave the naming of those industries as an exercise for the reader.
Another important factor to be aware of in the debate over ethanol production is that current research is very close to having a scalable process for producing ethanol from switchgrass [4], corn stalks, wood and every other plant material containing cellulose. There is every indication that such technology will be very important in the decades to come and that it will no longer be necessary to ferment food for ethanol at all—relying instead on corn shucks, stalks, straw, hay, pulp, etc. So, it makes sense to grow the market for ethanol today to provide incentives and markets for this coming technology.
But all that is too complicated for modern sound-bite framing. So, I recommend using this simple frame when discussing ethanol production: Is Feeding the Hungry More Important than Staying Obese and Diseased?
Our answer to that question could potentially transform society forever, and for the better.
==========
Marc Baber develops websites and proudly drives a 2000 Chevy Metro, using 10% ethanol fuel from Sequential Biofuels in Eugene, Oregon.
[1] “Republicans target ethanol mandate”, Matthew Perrone, Associated Press/Eugene Register-Guard, May 6, 2008.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
