Readers Write: Ethanol, policing, wealth inequality

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Karen Tolkkinen’s recent column on ethanol was chock-full of myths, misinformation and half-truths about ethanol (“The time is ripe to rethink ethanol,” Sept. 1). We’d like to set the record straight.

First, there is no “food vs. fuel” conflict with ethanol. One-third of every bushel of corn processed by an ethanol biorefinery returns to the food supply. Only the starch in the corn is converted to ethanol; the protein, fiber, fat and other nutrients are concentrated and fed to livestock and poultry. The University of Minnesota says the 4 million tons of feed produced by the sttate’s ethanol plants is enough to feed nearly every cow, a quarter of all pigs and every single turkey raised in Minnesota.

Food security, quality and availability have improved — both domestically and globally — during the biofuels era, and there is no shortage of food. In fact, one-third of food produced worldwide is wasted each year, according to the United Nations. Meanwhile, U.S. cropland has decreased by 26 million acres since 2007, disproving the myth that ethanol has caused cropland expansion. How is that possible? Because farmers produce more grain on less land each year; Minnesota farmers produced 30% more corn per acre in 2022 than they did in 2007.

Second, Tolkkinen cited just one outlier study — which was rejected and debunked by many other scientists — to argue that ethanol is somehow worse for the environment than gasoline. In reality, researchers from places like the California Air Resources Board, Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and other institutions all agree that today’s corn ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions by up to 50% compared to gasoline.

Finally, Tolkkinen misunderstands the biofuels carbon cycle. Plants like corn remove CO2 from the atmosphere as they grow. That same CO2 is rereleased back to the atmosphere when corn is fermented into ethanol and when ethanol is combusted in an engine. The corn ethanol process is simply recycling atmospheric carbon. If CO2 from ethanol fermentation is captured and sequestered via a pipeline (rather than vented), then the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been permanently reduced. That’s why policymakers and some science-oriented environmental organizations see enormous greenhouse gas mitigation potential in corn ethanol paired with carbon capture.

Next time, we hope Tolkkinen visits with some of the 20,914 Minnesotans employed in the state’s ethanol industry. They not only know the difference between field corn and sweet corn, but they also know we can simultaneously feed and fuel Minnesota with environmentally friendly ethanol and nutritious co-products.

This letter was submitted by Brian Werner, executive director of the Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association, and Geoff Cooper, president and CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association.

•••

Karen Tolkkinen’s column clarifying that ethanol — specifically corn-based ethanol — is an environmental scourge that created a farming welfare state made me giddy. Ethanol never was and never will be a viable gasoline alternative. It is a product in search of a use and only then as an unneeded additive to gasoline as mandated by the government and propelled by the corn lobby. I first learned of corn-based ethanol in 1991 when the Department of Energy engaged my employer to value its investment in co-op plant to decide to retain or sell their interest. I did the analysis and came to the same conclusion Tolkkinen states in this column. In addition to ethanol, the corn lobby has done an extraordinary job getting the government to subsidize corn to ensure it is less expensive than sugar and used in every dang thing we consume (sugar was never so ubiquitous). Corn as a fuel source is now fully debunked, so let’s stop subsidizing this buggy whip industry and move forward with Tolkkinen’s ideas to convert ethanol corn acreage to better foodstuffs, raw materials for truly viable and useful products, and soil-replenishing crops such as soybeans/legumes.

Dan Patton, Minneapolis

•••

Thank you to Tolkkinen and the Star Tribune for having the guts to question ethanol. The production of ethanol was never a good idea and initial criticisms of it due to its capacity for wasting water and causing pollution have been borne out through the following decades. The government involvement in its production began in the late 1970s and is a classic example of lazy politics, finding a simple solution to sell and putting money behind it in order to buy voters. Ethanol has never solved a single problem, it only makes more — and Tolkkinen’s article does an excellent and succinct job of exposing those. The money used in subsidizing corn cultivation for ethanol production could easily begin the transformation to a much more environmentally and aesthetically beautiful landscape, one that could be very hospitable for young families wanting to farm on a small scale and produce many products while making the land healthy for humans and many species of wildlife. Why not subsidize that instead of huge fields of monoculture that degrade the environment and offer no wildlife habitat? I challenge those farmers who consider themselves “stewards of the land” to actually be that. Read the article, rethink the future for us and your family and make the right choices. There are many. None of them include growing corn for ethanol.

Alan Briesemeister, Delano

Jeremy Norton’s commentary on Sept. 1, on police quickly resorting to attempts to physically control people in distress, reminded me of a session on workplace safety that I attended well over a decade ago (“A mental health crisis should not be a death sentence,” Strib Voices). We were told that police are trained to immediately take control of a situation and demand immediate compliance from people they encounter in a professional capacity. Tragically, the same expectation is still resulting in death for too many civilians. Probably most people, even those not in mental or physical distress, feel more tense in encounters with police officers. Probably many police officers feel stress in their work. How many more years, and how many more people killed, before public safety officers are receiving different training? For their own safety, and the public’s, this is an urgent crisis that must be a top priority.

Laura Haule, Minneapolis

I noted with amazement the article on the front page of the Sunday edition about a “lake house” on the market for $68 million (“On the market for $68M, lake house has no peer”). A front-page real estate advertisement, essentially, for an obscenely elaborate estate built for a businessman who died before occupancy should help accomplish the sale, I’m sure. I’m not sure exactly who needs $4 million worth of bullet-proof windows on Lake Minnetonka, but there must be someone!

In a different section of the paper, on the other hand, I notice that Agate Housing may not be able to procure a piddly $5 million to repair and update its building housing 137 less-fortunate folks in downtown Minneapolis (“Workers decry loss of Mpls. shelter,” Sept. 1, and “Minneapolis City Council members propose emergency funding to save downtown shelter, food shelf,” StarTribune.com, Sept. 6). If it closes, 42 emergency beds and 95 transitional housing units, along with rare facilities for free showers, will be lost, and 23 workers will lose employment.

The juxtaposition of the conspicuous display of wealth that a home that includes the amenities of a resort with our society’s inability to provide even the most basic of shelter for those down on their luck is so disheartening. A tiny percentage of the profits on the sale of that behemoth of a house would be enough to fix Agate Housing’s building, no bullet-proof windows required (although they might be more useful downtown!).

Karen Karn, Golden Valley