Everything’s connected

The Wayne/Pike Farm Bureau’s effort to investigate the feasibility of building an ethanol plant (see related article on page 3) is interesting in a variety of ways. We applaud anything that might contribute to the development of sustainable energy sources. And we are particularly happy to see local groups seeking out ways to become producers as well as consumers of green technology.

But what interests us perhaps the most is the controversy surrounding the feasibility of ethanol as a replacement for gasoline. Whether or not ethanol proves to be a good long-term solution to our liquid fuel needs, the conversation about the issue provides a perfect illustration of the way humans will have to change their way of thinking about our economy and ecology if the race is to survive and prosper.

There are two main thrusts to this required change in worldview. First, we must expand our ability to recognize the extent to which one thing is connected to another. Second, we must stop thinking of economic prosperity in terms of rising consumption, and start thinking of it in terms of changes in our aggregate wealth.

The idea of “net gain” is key to understanding both these concepts. Ethanol, like gasoline, can be burned in internal combustion engines. Corn-based ethanol is a natural choice for the United States, which accounted for about 41 percent of global corn production in 2006. But in replacing fossil fuels, one key goal must be sustainability. If we have to put more energy into producing ethanol than we get out of it, then it is no more sustainable, in the long run, than fossil fuels.

Determining net gain or loss, in turn, depends on tracing back the list of inputs used to create ethanol, including factors as various as fertilizer, pesticide, and the fuel consumed by tractors. Scientific studies that have performed this exercise are split as to whether corn ethanol yields a net gain. The different results seem to depend on the extent of the inputs taken into account. One researcher, for instance, who includes the energy costs of manufacturing the farm equipment used to grow corn, finds that there is a net energy loss. Those who don’t take that factor into account find a net gain.

Another connection that must be considered is the impact of ethanol production on other agricultural activities. Already, increased demand due to ethanol production has sent corn prices skyrocketing, putting the squeeze on livestock and dairy farmers. Moreover, it is estimated that 90 percent of the U.S. land mass would have to be planted in corn to replace our gasoline needs. That’s not going to happen, but even a move in that direction could crowd out other land uses.

Our point is not to show that corn ethanol is bad, but to display the extent and complexity of the connections that must be considered in understanding how a new energy source will affect our quality of life. The fact that the Wayne/Pike Farm Bureau is building the possibility of moving from corn- to cellulosic-ethanol production into their plans suggests that they are already engaged in this kind of thinking.

The second required shift in the way we think is even more profound: it is time to discard the idea that economic strength should be measured in terms of rising consumption. The concept of “net gain” is again extremely useful in providing an alternative model. With regard to anything that we produce or consume—whether a form of energy or a physical product—we must ask: what is the net impact on our wealth? Has our inventory of aggregate resources increased, or been drained, by the production of that item?

This way of thinking about economy takes us back to the origins of the word: it comes from the Greek root “oikos,” meaning home or household. The word “ecology” comes from exactly the same root. Economy is the management of our household; ecology, the study or knowledge of it. As good householders, our job should surely be to conserve, nurture and enhance our household goods, not to liquidate, lose or destroy them. From this perspective, the two things are not in conflict, but two sides of the same coin.

If we maintain this viewpoint as we seek out and analyze the benefits of various alternative sources of energy, we ought to be able to avoid falling into the same pitfalls that our fossil-fuel economy has brought us. If not, we will find that we have simply replaced one set of imbalances with another. If nothing else, the feasibility study for the Wayne/Pike ethanol plant should provide us with a useful exercise in this type of thinking, and we look forward to seeing its conclusions.

Dr. Punnybone

Wrecked Havoc