Ethanol is not green

Adam Welz - Mail & Guardian - South Africa - Friday 25 November 2005

Kevin Davie’s article “Green fuels start now” (Feburary 10) seriously overstates the advantages of ethanol auto-fuels. Ethanol may be 45% cheaper than petrol in Brazil, but anyone who has driven in that country will know that you get significantly fewer kilometers per litre from it than from petrol.

Brazilian E85, which is 85% ethanol, is much less efficient than the Australian E10 that Manny Singh punts in your article. South Africans expecting a 45% or greater cost advantage from high-ethanol fuel blends are going to be disappointed.

Ethanol is also not a particularly “green” fuel. Although its exhaust fumes may smell better than those generated by petrol, the expansion of sugar-cane farming for ethanol has meant environmental devastation.

Much of Brazil’s world-famous deforestation has resulted from sugarcane production. The magnificent Brazilian Atlantic Forest has been reduced to less than 10% of its original extent. Not only are many species now extinct, but the water supply to the populous coastal cities is also under threat.

Growing sugar cane on a huge scale can mean immense costs to society. Destroying natural vegetation to make croplands releases large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, contributing to global climate change. Rivers become filled with fertiliser and pesticide effluent. Rural people lose their land to mega-agribusiness. Wildlife loses its habitat. Ecosystems are totally disrupted, degrading their ability to provide valuable services to the human economy.

If we’re going to ride the ethanol bandwagon, let’s do it cautiously. Using crop waste to make it might be a good idea, but wrecking hundreds of thousands of hectares of natural veld to grow sugar cane is not.

Ethanol producers can be every bit as socially and environmentally destructive as the oilmen they replace.

Adam Welz, Cape Town