Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 351–364 | Cite as

Framing and reframing the environmental risks and economic benefits of ethanol production in Iowa



Recent research exposing environmental and social externalities of biofuels has undermined the earlier national consensus that they would provide climate mitigation and rural development benefits, but support for ethanol remains strong in Iowa. The objective of this paper is to understand how stakeholder groups in Iowa have framed the benefits and risks associated with ethanol’s impact on the local economy and environment. Our case study draws on in-depth, semi-structured interviews conducted with key informants from agricultural organizations, environmental organizations, and government departments in the state. We find that in Iowa, widespread support for ethanol production exists among government, energy, and farm groups, and that they frame ethanol production as economically beneficial to rural communities and agriculture, while minimizing the possibility of associated environmental risks. Although participants from environmental organizations in Iowa express apprehension about the environmental impacts of expanded corn ethanol production, their unease is muted in relation to economic benefits and in relation to other environmental issues, and few have publicly voiced their concerns. To understand these findings, we draw from the environmental sociology literature that examines the role of powerful natural resource interests in framing the importance of resource extraction and commodity production to community identity and economy and in delegitimizing and naturalizing associated environmental issues and problems. We argue that powerful natural resource interests in Iowa both naturalize environmental problems related to ethanol production and engage in diversionary reframing to emphasize the economic benefits while minimizing or rejecting the potential environmental risks.


Agriculture and environment Biofuels Climate change Environmental risk Natural resource interests Water quality 



This research was supported by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) under Grant No. DE-FG02-07ER64476. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the DOE. The authors would like to thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this article. We would also like to thank Albert Jaray, Brandi Geisinger, and Michael Burdick for their research assistance. Finally, we would like to acknowledge our collaborators on this project: Richard Goe, Laszlo Kulcsar, and Gerad Middendorf.


  1. Atwell, R., L. Schulte, and L. Westphal. 2011. Tweak, adapt, or transform: Policy scenarios in response to emerging bioenergy markets in the US corn belt. Ecology and Society 16(1): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Babcock, B., and J. Fabiosa. 2011. The impact of ethanol and ethanol subsidies on corn prices: Revisiting history. CARD Policy Brief 11-PB 5 (April). Ames, IA: Iowa State University.Google Scholar
  3. Bain, C. 2011. Constructing the local: An assessment of ethanol plant ownership in Iowa. Biomass and Bioenergy 35(4): 1400–1407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bain, C., A. Prokos, and H. Liu. 2012. Community support of ethanol plants: Does local ownership matter? Rural Sociology 77(2): 143–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beeman, P. 2007. Industry affects every facet of Iowa’s environment. Des Moines Register. 3 June: ET.3.Google Scholar
  6. Bell, S., and R. York. 2010. Community economic identity: The coal industry and ideology construction in West Virginia. Rural Sociology 75(1): 111–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buttel, F.H. 2002. Environmental sociology and the sociology of natural resources: Institutional histories and intellectual legacies. Society and Natural Resources 15: 205–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carr, P., and M. Kefalas. 2009. Hollowing out the middle. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  9. Catton, W., and R. Dunlap. 1978. Environmental sociology: A new paradigm. The American Sociologist 13: 41–49.Google Scholar
  10. Cox, C., A. Hug, and N. Bruzelius. 2011. Losing ground. Environmental Working Group. Accessed 30 Sep 2012.
  11. Creswell, J. 2007. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Duffy, M. 2012. 2011 Farmland value survey. Ames, IA: Iowa State University.Google Scholar
  13. Dunlap, R.E. 2002. Paradigms, theories, and environmental sociology. In Sociological theory and the environment: Classical foundations, contemporary insights, ed. R. Dunlap, F.H. Buttel, P. Dickens, and A. Gijswijt, 329–350. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  14. EWG (Environmental Working Group). 2012. EWG’s guide to understanding ethanol. Accessed 11 Mar 2012.
  15. FAO. 2006. Introducing the international bioenergy platform. Rome: FAO. Accessed 9 Aug 2011.
  16. Fargione, J., et al. 2008. Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319: 1235–1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Farrell, A.E., R.J. Plevin, B.T. Turner, A.D. Jones, M. O’Hare, and D.M. Kammen. 2006. Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science 311: 506–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fisher, D.R. 2006. Bringing the material back in: Understanding the US position on climate change. Sociological Forum 21(3): 467–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fox, J. 1999. Mountaintop removal in West Virginia. Organization & Environment 12(2): 163–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Freudenburg, W.R. 2000. Social constructions and social constrictions: Toward analyzing the social construction of “the naturalized” as well as “the natural”. In Environment and global modernity, ed. G. Spaargaren, A.P.J. Mol, and F.H. Buttel, 103–119. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Freudenburg, W.R. 2002. Navel warfare? The best mines, the worst of minds, and the dangers of misplaced concreteness. Society and Natural Resources 15: 229–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Freudenburg, W., and R. Gramling. 1994. Mid-range theory and cutting edge sociology: A call for cumulation. Environment, Technology, and Society 76(1): 3–6.Google Scholar
  23. Freudenburg, W., and S. Pastor. 1992. Public responses to technological risks: Toward a sociological perspective. Sociological Quarterly 33: 389–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Freudenburg, W., S. Frickel, and R. Gramling. 1995. Beyond the nature/society divide: Learning to think about a mountain. Sociological Forum 10(3): 361–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gasteyer, S. 2008. Agricultural transitions in the context of growing environmental pressure over water. Agriculture and Human Values 25: 469–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gillon, S. 2010. Fields of dreams: Negotiating an ethanol agenda in the Midwest United States. The Journal of Peasant Studies 37(4): 723–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Greider, T., and L. Garkovich. 1994. Landscapes: The social construction of nature and the environment. Rural Sociology 59(1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hannigan, M. 1995. Environmental sociology: A social constructionist perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Hart, C., S. Ellis, D. Swenson, L. Eathington, and K. Schulte. 2012. Iowa farm outlook. Econ. Info. 2021. Ames, IA: Department of Economics, Iowa State University.Google Scholar
  30. Heffernan, A., T. Galluzzo, and W. Hoyer. 2010. Solution to pollution: It starts on the farm. The Iowa Policy Project. Iowa City, IA: The Iowa Policy Project.Google Scholar
  31. ICGA (Iowa Corn Growers Association). 2012. Ethanol Campaign. Accessed 11 Mar 2012.
  32. IDED (Iowa Department of Economic Development). 2008. Governor Culver signed bill to expand fuels infrastructure and access. Iowa Department of Economic Development. March 12. Accessed 14 Mar 2011.
  33. IDNR (Iowa Department of Natural Resources). 2008. Biofuels: From corn to cellulose consider the policy issues. Iowa Department of Natural Resources 1–12.Google Scholar
  34. IDNR (Iowa Department of Natural Resources). 2010. State of the environment. Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Accessed 12 Feb 2011.
  35. IEC (Iowa Environmental Council). 2006. Biofuels in Iowa. Policy Advisory Statement Iowa Environmental Council 1–9.Google Scholar
  36. IRFA (Iowa Renewable Fuels Association). 2011. Renewable fuels caucus voter guide released. Accessed 13 Mar 2012.
  37. Keeney, D. 2009. Ethanol. US Environmental Science and Technology 43(1): 8–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Langpap, C., and K. Wu. 2011. Potential environmental impacts of increased reliance on corn-based bioenergy. Environmental Resource Economics 49: 147–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Larson, J. 2010. Impacts of the corn grain ethanol industry on the United States agricultural sector. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 65(5): 122A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lehrer, N. 2010. (Bio)fueling farm policy: The biofuels boom and the 2008 farm bill. Agriculture and Human Values 27: 427–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Love, O. 2010. Iowa pheasant harvest at all-time low. The Gazette. Accessed 9 Jun 2010.
  42. McCright, A., and R. Dunlap. 2003. Defeating Kyoto: The conservative movement’s impact on US climate change policy. Social Problems 50(3): 348–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McCright, A., and R. Dunlap. 2011. The politicization of climate change. The Sociological Quarterly 52: 155–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McMichael, P. 2010. Agrofuels in the food regime. The Journal of Peasant Studies 37(4): 609–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Miao, R. 2011. The Land-use change effect of ethanol plants in Iowa: 1997–2009. Working paper. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University.Google Scholar
  46. Mol, A. 2007. Boundless biofuels? Between environmental sustainability and vulnerability. Sociologia Ruralis 47(4): 297–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mol, A. 2010. Environmental authorities and biofuels controversies. Environmental Politics 19(1): 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nassauer, J., J. Dowdell, A. Wang, D. McKahn, B. Chilcott, C. Kling, and S. Secchi. 2011. Iowa farmers’ responses to transformative scenarios for corn belt agriculture. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 66(1): 18A–24A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. NCGA (National Corn Growers Association). 2012. Corn production trends. Accessed 14 Mar 2012.
  50. OEI (Office of Energy Independence). 2010a. Energy independence plan. Iowa office of energy Independence.Google Scholar
  51. OEI (Office of Energy Independence). 2010b. Energy information report. Iowa office of energy independence. Accessed 7 Nov 2010.
  52. Oxfam. 2008. Another inconvenient truth: How biofuels policies are deepening poverty accelerating climate change. Oxford: Oxfam.Google Scholar
  53. Piller, D. 2012. Country strong. Des Moines Sunday Register. 26 February: D1; D4.Google Scholar
  54. Pimentel, D., and T. Patzek. 2005. Ethanol production using corn, switchgrass, and wood: Biodiesel production using soybean and sunflower. Natural Resources Research 14(1): 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rood, L. 2012. Half of incentives went to biofuels firms. Des Moines Sunday Register 15 January: 6A.Google Scholar
  56. Scott, R. 2010. Removing mountains: Extracting nature and identity in the Appalachian coalfields. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  57. Searchinger, T., R. Heimlich, R.A. Houghton, F. Dong, A. Elobeid, J. Fabiosa, S. Tokgoz, D. Hayes, and T. Yu. 2008. Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319: 1238–1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Secchi, S., L. Kurkalova, P. Gassman, and C. Hart. 2011a. Land use change in a biofuels hotspot: The case of Iowa, USA. Biomass and Bioenergy 2391–2400.Google Scholar
  59. Secchi, S., J. Tyndall, L.A. Schulte, and H. Asbjornsen. 2008. Raising the stakes. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 63(3): 68A–73A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Secchi, S., P. Gassman, J.R. Williams, and B.A. Babock. 2009. Impact of high crop prices on environmental quality: A case of Iowa and the Conservation Reserve Program. Environmental Management 44: 732–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Secchi, S., P. Gassman, M. Jha, L. Kurkalova, and C. Kling. 2011b. Potential water quality changes due to corn expansion in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Ecological Applications 21(4): 1068–1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Selfa, T. 2010. Global benefits, local burdens? The paradox of governing biofuels production in Kansas and Iowa. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 25(2): 129–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Selfa, T., L. Kulcsar, C. Bain, R. Goe, and G. Middendorf. 2011. Biofuels bonanza? Exploring community perceptions of the promises and perils of biofuels production. Biomass and Bioenergy 35(4): 1379–1389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sierra Club and Worldwatch Institute. 2007. Destination Iowa: Getting to a sustainable biofuels future. Washington DC: Sierra Club.Google Scholar
  65. Sierra Club and Worldwatch Institute. 2009. Smart choices for biofuels. Washington DC: Sierra Club.Google Scholar
  66. Sierra Club. 2006. Sierra Club (Iowa Chapter) letter to Hon. Frank Cownie, Mayor of Des Moines. 6 November. Accessed 14 Mar 2011.
  67. Solis, P. 2005. Water as rural heritage: Reworking modernity through resource conflict in Edwards County, Kansas. Journal of Rural Studies 21(1): 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sulzberger, A.G. 2011. As crop prices soar, Iowa farms add acreage. New York Times 30 December.Google Scholar
  69. Tibbetts, Ed. 2009. Iowa farms losing the middle ground. The Quad-City Times 5 Feb. Accessed 5 Mar 2012.
  70. USDA/ERS. 2012. State fact sheets: Iowa. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, USDA.Google Scholar
  71. USDA/FSA. 2012. Conservation reserve program: Monthly summary–January 2012. Washington, DC: USDA/FSA.Google Scholar
  72. USDA/NASS. 2000–2011. Acreage. Accessed 14 Mar 2012.
  73. van der Horst, D., and J. Evans. 2010. Carbon claims and energy landscapes: Exploring the political ecology of biomass. Landscape Research 35(2): 173–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Vilsack, T. 2011. Speech to the Growth Energy Legislative Conference. Hyatt Regency Washington, Capitol Hill. 20 September.
  75. Washington Post. 2012. People in the news: Chet Culver (D) Accessed 24 Feb 2012.
  76. Wiens, J., F. Fargione, and J. Hill. 2011. Biofuels and biodiversity. Ecological Applications 21(4): 1085–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Worldwatch Institute. 2006. Biofuels for transportation: Global potential and implications for sustainable agriculture and energy in the 21st century. [CB1] Accessed 10 Mar 2012.
  78. Wright, W., and T. Reid. 2010. Green dreams or pipe dreams? Media framing of the US biofuels movement. Biomass and Bioenergy 35: 1390–1399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyIowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  2. 2.Department of Environmental StudiesSUNY ESFSyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations