Make More Energy... or Just Use Less?

I notice that Tony Dean shares some of my concerns about ethanol. Mr. Dean makes a connection between the push for more ethanol and the Bush Administration's plans not only to not add any more acres this year to the land protected under the Conservation Reserve Plan but also to "release former CRP holders from their commitments." CRP lands protect wildlife, groundwater, and the wily pheasant, the hunting of which adds $153 million to South Dakota's economy annually. Dean notes that switchgrass promises to be a much better source of alternative energy. But he also quotes fellow conservationist Ted Williams ("Under the Influence of Ethanol," Fly Rod & Reel, April 2007, p. 18) on a better route to fuel economy:

We do, however, possess the technology to build fuel-efficient automobiles. In the current charade designed by and for agribusiness we're allocating 18 percent of the corn we grow to ethanol, thereby cutting our petroleum consumption by one percent. But [UC-Berkeley chemical engineer Dr. Tad] Patzek has calculated that if we doubled automobile fuel efficiency, we'd cut petroleum consumption by 33 percent or, put another way, we'd increase our petroleum supply by a third. It's a revolutionary concept that America has never tried. Fish-and-wildlife advocates are calling it conservation.

Then again, maybe Connie Blanco at the Lakota Country Times has a better alternative (you'll appreciate this cartoon if you've seen Chris Eyre's Smoke Signals):



Given the surge in backyard inventors figuring out how to run their vehicles on used cooking oil, Blanco may not be joking!