In the past few months, three articles appeared in the media that seemed to cover different topics concerning energy-related issues faced by America. Even though they were written by different authors, functioning independently, and even though their content did not always directly relate to transportation fuel, I believe, taken together, the articles lead us in the same logical policy direction –natural gas and methanol should be supported as an alternative fuel.
I read the first article on a Friday morning. While its source material came from Kevin Begos of the Associated Press, the piece was front page material in this newspaper . The headline told the story. "CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low." Why? There was no basic change in government policies or actions. Corporate executives of emitting companies have not become champions of the Kyoto Protocol. Americans have not lobbied and secured tougher emission laws.
The primary reason for the GHG decline was that natural gas became plentiful and was significantly cheaper than coal. Power plants throughout the country shifted from coal, a big culprit concerning GHG, to natural gas, a fuel that generates much less GHG. Adam Smith and opportunity costing won out! Cash flow and profits made power companies into environmental heroes. A step forward!
The second article was published in the NY Times on Friday, Aug. 17. It was written by Clifford Krauss and conveyed bad news, or at least bad news for those of us who care about reducing America's dependence on imported oil. Our appetite for oil, observers noted, combined with a slowdown in Gulf of Mexico production and lack of pipeline capacity increased exports of heavy crude from Saudi Arabia.
Gas prices are once again escalating at the pump and each day the American economy loses dollars to Saudi princes. A step backward!
The third article by John H. Cushman Jr., in the N.Y. Times on Thursday, Aug. 16, provided compelling background concerning the current drought and its likely impact on the availability of corn for food, feedstock for cattle and poultry and continued support for the production of corn-based ethanol. It recorded the terrible toll the months of sweltering temperatures and lack of rain have had on corn harvests.
Corn growers are cautious about changes in the ethanol standards. Many look to corn-based ethanol to sustain future profits. They want and need to keep good relationships with their biggest customers including ethanol refineries. Cattle groups decry the use of the renewable fuel standards because, they say, it increases the costs of feedstock. Ethanol groups argue that the impact of corn-based ethanol production on the cost of food for cattle and people is either marginal or uncertain.
The three disparate articles illustrate one strong, if implicit, pervasive theme. America needs to encourage the increased use of natural gas and its derivative methanol as transitional fuels for cars and heavy duty vehicles. If transportation fuel markets were opened up to alternative fuels, such as natural gas and methanol, the country and its citizens would be better off.
Finally, the increased availability of natural gas and methanol would likely allow the market to arbitrate, through competition, the conflict among the corn, cattle and ethanol producers concerning the allocation of land for food, feedstock and ethanol. Why are we waiting?