This is adapted and expanded from a comment on one of yesterday's diaries, Farm and Biofuels Report.
For those of you who are urban-dwellers (especially if you live outside the Midwest), it's hard to describe how ethanol-mania has spread across the land, and how the ethanol industry is poised to reshape our rural landscapes and communities. Many of us see real potential for ethanol, if done right, to help get us off of our fossil fuel habit, diversify the monocultural landscape, and revitalize depressed parts of rural America. But that potential is being overwhelmed by greed and speed. For those of us who care about land and conservation, the prevailing vision of ethanol development also poses real problems. Now we have reached an important point at the crossroads of this dilemma.
There are still a lot of questions involving the basics of ethanol and energy conversion ratio (i.e., the amount of energy that goes into making ethanol : the amount of energy produced by ethanol). But it's not just about energy. Even assuming that ethanol can be produced much more efficiently, many other questions remain to be answered. These include, for example, questions about the impact of intensified ethanol production on soil erosion, water quality, water quantity, crop rotations, and emissions; the massive, multiple public subsidies that drive ethanol production, processing, and distribution; the intensified competition for corn between livestock growers and ethanol producers; the failure to link ethanol with vehicle fuel efficiency standards; etc. etc. etc.
For a good critique of the corn ethanol orthodoxy in particular, see this good article in the current issue of the University of Minnesota's alumni magazine Minnesota.
One of the questions that ethanol's most myopic proponents have failed to ask (much less address) is the impact that this juggernaut on the midwestern landscape will have on the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands. First established in the mid-1980s, the CRP is one of the nation's cornerstone conservation programs. As described on the website of the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service:
The Conservation Reserve Program reduces soil erosion, protects the Nation's ability to produce food and fiber, reduces sedimentation in streams and lakes, improves water quality, establishes wildlife habitat, and enhances forest and wetland resources. It encourages farmers to convert highly erodible cropland or other environmentally sensitive acreage to vegetative cover, such as tame or native grasses, wildlife plantings, trees, filterstrips, or riparian buffers. Farmers receive an annual rental payment for the term of the multi-year contract. Cost sharing is provided to establish the vegetative cover practices.
More than 36 million acres of marginal and degraded lands have been set aside under the CRP. You and I, as taxpayers, have invested many millions of dollars in these lands. In return we have all received protection for highly erodible soils, improved fish and wildlife habitat, cleaner lakes and wetlands and streams, recharged groundwater, and a deeper commitment to land stewardship among thousands of farmers and other private landowners.
Now the ethanol speculators and agribusiness lobbyists and big investors -- not, I hasten to add, the thoughtful policy-makers and many thousands of great conservation-minded farmers and ranchers -- are pushing to open up the sensitive CRP lands. With the demand (and price) for corn going up, they see dollar signs in them thar hills. And them dollars include the ones that you and I as taxpayers have paid since 1985, and that the farmers have used to improve the health of their land and so enhance the common good.
This question of the vulnerability of CRP lands has been looming out there for anyone to see. But it has been drowned out amid the boom-times hype over ethanol. Now it's hitting the fan, and prompting at least a few newspaper headlines and press releases from conservation organizations:
http://www.startribune.com/...
http://www.deltawaterfowl.org/...
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/...
http://www.ducks.org/...
Here's the opening from the second link:
BISMARCK, N.D. Recent announcements from the Bush Administration regarding the Conservation Reserve Program could have a devastating impact on ducks and other wildlife, warns Delta Waterfowl President Rob Olson.
Widely considered one of the most successful conservation programs ever, CRP is reeling from a one-two combination of announcements out of Washington last week. First, Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said his agency would offer no new CRP enrollments in 2007 and 2008. On the heels of that announcement, Johanns said the Bush administration may allow farmers to cancel existing CRP contracts to plant corn for ethanol production.
"Make no mistake, every CRP acre we lose in the Prairie Pothole Region of the United States will mean fewer ducks, pheasants and other game and non-game birds across the continent," said Olson in response to the announcements. "We encourage President Bush to honor his promise to hunters and conservationists to increase CRP acres."
Meanwhile, on the other side, Big Agribusiness is on the case:
Washington, DC–The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) and 29 other national and state trade associations representing a broad spectrum of U.S. agribusiness have urged Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns to provide flexibility to producers with land currently enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to respond to the current strong demand for corn and other grains.
At a minimum, the groups said, Johanns should allow producers the flexibility to remove certain classes of land from the CRP, without penalty.
Further, they said it was "critical" that Johanns announce such a decision "as soon as possible" to allow the market to utilize any additional acres that might become available.
"Flexibility"... It sounds so nice... What it means is: We want to break our CRP contracts "without penalty." Go to the article if you'd like to see all the lockstepping agribusiness lobby groups lined up to weaken CRP: the Agricultural Retailers Association, American Beverage Association, American Feed Industry Association, American Meat Institute, Biscuit and Cracker Manufacturers Association, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Chicken Council, National Oilseed Processors Association, National Pork Producers Council... and many more! And that's not even to mention the Archer Daniels Midlands of the world. These are the fine folks who want to plow the land-conserving grasslands -- and your well invested tax dollars with them -- into the ground.
If you care about sustainable farming practices... if you like to birdwatch, fish, hunt, or just know that land is being well cared for... if you prefer your local stream or lake to be more than just a catch-basin for polluted run-off... if you like the idea of bringing life back to the hypoxic "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico... if you are someone who doesn't like the idea of losing your 20+ years of taxpayer investment in conservation... then please read up a little on this issue, contact your congress-people, write a letter to the editor, and help bring the voice of conservation into the discussion.