Ethanol Plant May Not Be in Our Best Interests

By Jay Burney

The newly proposed ethanol production facility, announced for downtown Buffalo, may carry with it some seriously negative environmental and economic consequences.

For instance, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has identified a number of hazardous emissions from these facilities, including a wide variety of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), voluble organic compounds (VOCs), methane, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, methanol, toluene, solvents, denaturing compounds, sulfuric oxide, nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide.

Ethanol plants of similar size in the Midwest have been cited for releasing thousands of tons of these dangerous chemicals, many of which are linked to illness in humans, including cancers. Sulfur dioxide is classified by the EPA as a contributor to respiratory and heart disease and the generation of acid rain. Nitrogen oxides produce ozone and a wide variety of toxic chemicals as well as contributing to global warming, while many volatile organic compounds are cancer-causing.

In 2004, a single corn processing plant in Clinton, Iowa, similar in size to the proposed Buffalo plant, generated nearly 20,000 tons of pollutants. The EPA considers an ethanol plant as a “major source” of pollution if it produces more than 100 tons of any one pollutant per year, although it has recently proposed increasing that cap to 250 tons.

In addition, the highly subsidized corn industry, factory farms version, is a polluting industry. Corn requires high inputs of fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides to ensure high yields, according to researchers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These chemicals, when they migrate from fields, cause problems as they enter the water table and waterways.

The single largest source of non-point pollution in the Mississippi watershed is corn agriculture. The nitrogen runoff flowing into the Mississippi River has fostered a vast algae bloom in the Gulf of Mexico that starves fish and other aquatic life of oxygen. This same kind of pollution may be responsible for similar problems in the Great Lakes.

The developers of the Buffalo ethanol plant suggest that 110 million gallons of gasohol would be produced here. That is a huge plant. It requires huge resources. The industry calculation suggests that it takes one acre of corn to produce 328 gallons of ethanol. This will require over 300,500 acres of corn. Those acres will require a lot of chemical intervention.

Yet unknown is how the Buffalo plant will be powered. Similar plants in the U.S. are fueled by coal. This affects the climate change consequences of the so-called cleaner ethanol fuel.

The impact of the Buffalo plant on clean water, clean air and climate change, both here and wherever the corn is grown, will be devastating. Of course, it’s all legal. Pollution for profit is a long-standing policy of the expansive U.S. economy.

When exposed to the light of day, the real costs of these kinds of projects are enormous, dangerous, life threatening and truly unsustainable. Someday, the lack of recognition of these real costs may be considered a crime.

Meanwhile, the real costs of these environmental disasters will be born by citizens and taxpayers for generations. We are the architects of our own destruction.

In addition, the promoters of the proposed Buffalo plant suggest that “up to 60 lake freighters will service the plant annually.” Will this require new dredging of the Buffalo River, and if so, who will pay the cost of this, the taxpayer? And what effect will these lakers, requiring an open water channel, have on the potential plans for removing the Skyway?

Clearly, there are a number of costs that need to be considered when evaluating this project as a good economic investment. In the world of sustainability, an easy test consisting of two questions is used to judge whether or not a project supports a future that works: 1. Who benefits from the project, and how? 2. Who is harmed, and how?

This is a good test to evaluate the concept of “energy independence,” which is often cited as a reason to exploit, grow and destroy environment. Quantify these answers honestly, and you will get a more clear picture of how the contemporary economy works for some and works against the many.

Finally, it seems clear to those in the industry that the use of corn to produce ethanol is almost obsolete. It is not as energy- efficient or as cost-effective and is more polluting than other potential fuels, including switchgrass or even hemp.

In any event, it is critical that the City of Buffalo and any other responsible agencies make sure that a full State Environmental Review Act process is followed, including a detailed Environmental Impact Statement. If this project is given a negative declaration, meaning that there are no projected “environmental or social consequences,” then we know again that the fix is in and our future continues to slip away.

Jay Burney is a Buffalo-based freelance writer who focuses on the environment.

(c) 2006 Buffalo News. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.