Matt Hamilton

Eveready
CellulosicBiofuelsCaseMAH
08/08/09
By now it ought to be clear that the U.S. must get off oil. We can no longer afford the dangers that our
dependence on petroleum poses for our national security, our economic security or our environmental security.
Yet civilization is not about to stop moving, and so we must invent a new way to power the world’s
transportation fleet. Cellulosic biofuels—liquid fuels made from inedible parts of plants—offer the most
environmentally attractive and technologically feasible near-term alternative to oil.

George W. Huber, a professor of chemical engineering at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and Bruce E.
Dale,“Grassoline: Biofuels Beyond Corn”, Scientific American, July 2009
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=grassoline-biofuels-beyond-corn

Petroleum is a crucial part of our environment, but it is a finite material. Unfortunately, gasoline is a
requirement for modern transportation, thus being something we cannot do without. The use of corn made
ethanol fuel has been an attempt to lower the price of gas, but that idea is close to being outdated, as we have
found cheaper and more environmentally friendly ways of producing ethanol. That is why my partner and I
stand,
Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should significantly reform its environmental
policies.

Throughout this debate round, despite all of the arguments that will be thrown back and forth, we would like one
point to stand out the most, and be the deciding factor at the end of this round. That is our

Goal:
To transfer production of ethanol from food based crops to cellulosic and waste sources

Now we would like to define some of the terms that will be used, in:
Observation 1: Definitions

Reform: To improve by alteration, correction of error, or removal of defects; put into a better form or condition.
(The American Heritage Dictionary, Forth Edition)

Ethanol: A colorless volatile flammable liquid that is the intoxicating agent in liquors and is also used as a
solvent and in fuel (Merriam Webster online dictionary)

Biomass: The amount of living matter(Merriam Webster online dictionary)

Grassoline/Second Generation Biofuels: A Gasoline made from wood residues such as sawdust and
construction debris, agricultural residues such as cornstalks, wheat straw, tall grass, and various other waste.
(Scientific American, 2009)

Environmental Policy: is any (course of) action deliberately taken (or not taken) to manage human activities
with a view to prevent, reduce or mitigate harmful effects on nature and natural resources, and ensuring that
man-made changes to the environment do not have harmful effects on humans.[1]"(McCormick, John (2001).
Environmental Policy in the European Union. The European Series. Palgrave. p. 21.)

Now lets look at the affects of the current system in:

Observation 2: Facts of the Status Quo

1
 Matt Hamilton
Eveready
CellulosicBiofuelsCaseMAH
08/08/09

A. High Prices, and Increased Emissions

George W. Huber, a professor of chemical engineering at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and Bruce E.
Dale,“Grassoline: Biofuels Beyond Corn”, Scientific American, July 2009,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=grassoline-biofuels-beyond-corn

The additional crop demand raises the price of animal feed and thus makes some food items more expensive—
though not nearly as much as the media hysteria last year would indicate. And once the total emissions of
growing, harvesting and processing corn are factored into the ledger, it becomes clear that first-generation
biofuels are not as environmentally friendly as we would like them to be.

B. Corn Prices Increase Many Food Prices

Lester R. Brown, INSIGHTS: Why Ethanol Production Will Drive World Food Prices Even Higher in 2008,
Environment News Service, January 25, 2008, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2008/2008-01-25-
insbro.asp

As a result, prices of food products made directly from these commodities such as bread, pasta, and tortillas, and
those made indirectly, such as pork, poultry, beef, milk, and eggs, are everywhere on the rise. In Mexico, corn
meal prices are up 60 percent. In Pakistan, flour prices have doubled. China is facing rampant food price
inflation, some of the worst in decades.

Now let us move on to:

Observation 3: The Harms
We have found 4 harms currently in the status quo that must be taken care of.

Harm 1: Fertilizer Costs Rising Significantly

Alan Bjerga, Ethanol Demand in U.S. Adds to Food, Fertilizer Costs, Bloomberg.com, February 21, 2008,
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aUIPybKj4IGs

Increased planting has caused some fertilizer costs to double. Diammonium phosphate, a nutrient used on corn
fields, reached $792.50 a ton on Feb. 15 from $297 a year earlier, USDA data show.

Once the cost of fertilizer rises at such a fast pace, everything else does too. Because it costs more to fertilize
any kind of crop, not only prices of corn rise, but the prices of any other kind of grain, and vegetable rise with it.

Harm 2: Corn-Based Ethanol Raises Food Prices

Bonner R. Cohen , Ethanol Comes Under Fire for Rising Food Prices, The Heartland Institute, July 1,
2008,http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23392/Ethanol_Comes_Under_Fire_for_Rising_Food_Prices.ht
ml

Robert Murphy, an economist with the Institute for Energy Research, notes the monthly average price of corn
jumped from $2.06 per bushel in January 2006 to more than $6.00 per bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade on
May 1, 2008.
In May The Wall Street Journal reported the U.S. ethanol industry this year is projected to consume a record 4
billion bushels of corn--one-third of the expected U.S. harvest. Adding fuel to the fire, the Labor Department
reports U.S. food prices rose 0.9 percent in April, the largest one-month jump in 18 years.

2
 Matt Hamilton
Eveready
CellulosicBiofuelsCaseMAH
08/08/09

Harm 3: Corn-Based Ethanol is Harder to Make

Biofuels 101, Center for American Progress, July 25, 2007,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/07/biofuels101.html

But corn-based ethanol does have its drawbacks. The process requires a substantial energy expenditure, which in
turn reduces the net energy profit. In addition, corn production is land- and water-intensive and uses tremendous
amounts of fossil fuel-based fertilizers. Moreover, some have raised concerns over the effect that the increased
demand for corn as a biofuel will have on our food and feed supply.

Harm 4: $2.5 billion Plus of Taxpayer's Money Used as Ethanol Subsidies

Food & Water Watch and Network for New Energy Choices In collaboration with Institute for Energy and the
Environment at Vermont Law School, “The Rush to Ethanol: Not All Biofuels Are Created Equal”, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/uploads/RushToEthanol-embargoed.pdf

Should the $2.5-billion-plus-a-year taxpayer subsidies to the ethanol industry be continued? Illinois-based
agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), the nation’s top ethanol producer, is a lightning rod for
critics who claim that such subsidies—over $10 billion from 1980 to 1997—are in fact corporate welfare that do
not benefit family farmers. Even pro-ethanol U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman has said that Congress
should consider ending the program when it expires in 2010.

Observation 4: The Plan

Mandate 1: Eliminate federal corporate taxes for the first five years on companies producing ethanol from
waste products or energy crops.

Mandate 2: Continue to provide subsidies to non food based ethanol producers until the costs of plant
conversion is paid off.

Mandate 3: Outlaw production of food based ethanol in seven years

Agency and enforcement: Congress and the President

Funding: No funding will be necessary with this plan, in fact, by elimination of subsidies, net effect on national
treasury should be positive.

Effective: upon affirmative ballot

Observation 5: The Advantages

Advantage 1: Feedstock Costs Are Low

George W. Huber, a professor of chemical engineering at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and Bruce
E. Dale,The Fuel of the Future Is Grassoline, Scientific American, April 9, 2009 ,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-fuel-of-the-future-is-grassoline&page=4

Grassoline, on the other hand, enjoys two major advantages over fuels from petroleum. First, the raw feedstocks

3
 Matt Hamilton
Eveready
CellulosicBiofuelsCaseMAH
08/08/09
that go into making the fuel are far less expensive than raw crude. This should help keep costs down once the
industry gets up and running.

If it costs us less to make grassoline, then food prices will automatically drop because none of it will be diverted
to fuel.

Advantage 2: Switchgrass Equals Better Investment Than Corn

How Corn Ethanol Could Pollute the Bay, The Washington Post, August 26, 2007,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/24/AR2007082401427.html

Compared with corn, switch grass loses little nitrogen, traps greenhouse gases and builds better soils. Regional
farmers could realize multiple income streams by harvesting switch grass for ethanol production, selling nitrogen
and carbon reduction credits to sewage treatment and power plants, and collecting federal incentives for
improving soils. When added together, switch grass is worth investing in. And that's before figuring in the
benefits to our region's coastal waterways.

Advantage 3: Switchgrass Does Not Take up Farmland Meant For Food

Biofuels 101, Center for American Progress, July 25, 2007,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/07/biofuels101.html

Fuels made from cellulosic biomass offer the promise of dramatically lower production costs while lessening the
potential impact of production on land use and on our capacity to grow food, feed, and fiber.

Within this speech I have covered what is currently wrong with the way we are doing things, a simple solution to
fix the problem, and the good things that come about by our plan that help everyone. I now stand open for cross
examination.