May 28, 2006

Editor,

My article on ethanol that appeared in the Herald (Sunday, May 21, 2006, pages C1,3) stirred controversy from both expected and unexpected sources. Some additional points are in order:

Some researchers claim that ethanol provides more energy than is used to produce it. In even the best of these studies, the results are miniscule and the researchers admit that not all energy used in the production of ethanol is taken into account.

Non-human food crops can be used to produce ethanol; however, corn is the most commonly used crop for ethanol production in the United States.

Emissions from vehicles using ethanol emit less of some of the noxious chemicals than those using gasoline or diesel fuels do, but they add some un-wanted emissions of their own.

The honest, actual and complete cost of ethanol - delivered to the pump - is not computed. Data about too many subsidies and tax breaks are unavailable, hidden or honestly unknown.

Ethanol makes up about three percent (3%) of the fuel energy used in the United States. Vast amounts of food and non-food materials would be necessary to increase this percentage significantly, materials presently not available or used in more important and humane ways.

Fossil fuels are used at each every stage of ethanol production. How will ethanol be produced when these fuels are no longer available or when they become too expensive to use in this way?

Question: What is the morality of "feeding" ethanol from corn or other human food stocks to gas guzzling (behemoths, or not) vehicles when millions of humans around the world are starving to death or dying from under-nutrition related diseases?

Sincerely,

Hal Mansfield, 7366 No. C. R. 27, Loveland, CO 970.667.3878

hal.mansfield3@gmail.com

http://halmansfield.com