I have been burning ethanol in my truck and outboard for almost a decade, and like the idea of energy independence. However, before we wrap ethanol in red, white and blue, let’s consider what it can do to wildlife habitat.
Fact is, unless safeguards are in place, loss of prairie and wetlands seem inevitable. That’s why the makeup of the next farm bill is just as important to fishermen and hunters as it is to producers.
America needs a smart, cost-effective energy policy, but one that also weighs the toll on the environment. Unfortunately, the debate to date has been polarized by two extremes.
One side argues that we can achieve energy independence through conservation measures and renewable energy sources. The other claims that limiting atmospheric greenhouse gases can wreck the economy.
However, a bipartisan committee says neither side has the correct answer.
The National Commission on Energy Policy – scientists, energy experts, academicians, business leaders and oil company execs – tells us inaction is not an option.
Burying our heads in the sand means the U.S. will consume 45 percent more oil and emit 42 percent more greenhouse gas emissions by 2025, while global consumption and emissions will grow 57 and 55 percent, respectively. And that, the experts say, will triple greenhouse gas emissions.
To those with a love of our outdoors, the need to maintain grass and wetlands on the prairie is obvious. Scientists take it a step further, noting that the role these resources play will grow.
Of course, this is a political issue, and if you follow the money trail, campaign contributions tell an interesting story. Elected officials need the money to keep their jobs, so it should come as no surprise that political contributions buy influence. Depending on your perspective, the system then becomes either legalized bribery or extortion.
Consider the current congressional budget that whacks the Conservation Reserve Program, and nearly eliminates the Conservation Security Program and EQUIP, while traditional commodity programs remain almost unscathed.
Those wildly popular conservation programs have given us the habitat that provides quality hunting, and the water quality that guarantees good fishing. And make no mistake, the dollars spent on recreation spread far more widely than do commodity programs to individual recipients.
Unfortunately, Joe Citizen isn’t high on the list of big contributors, though key executives of giant agri-business companies are always there, and thus, they win by default. Moreover, they’ve shown no concern about ducks, pheasants or fish in the farm belt.
The problem with ethanol production is in the mindset that increased acres devoted to corn will solve our energy problems. But this view overlooks the toll on grass and wetlands.
There has to be a better way.
A new farm bill must protect conservation programs. If a farmer wants some CRP, he needs to be able to get a payment high enough to match what he would earn otherwise. The only other option is plowing and planting.
Ethanol is a good idea that can help farmers, but if it results in the loss of prairie and wetlands, hunters and anglers lose, as do those who find their basements full of water each spring.
So we need those conservation safeguards in place, and when they are, I’ll become a big ethanol booster.
