"For years the biofuels lobby has boasted that its product was a green alternative to emissions from oil and gas. But a growing body of scientific evidence is showing that ethanol consumes so much energy and fertilizer, and requires planting so much marginal cropland, that the impact on air quality is at best neutral and on water quality may be negative.
A report released earlier this year by the National Research Council concluded: "Although it may seem obvious that subsidizing biofuels should reduce CO2 emissions because they rely on renewable resources rather than fossil fuels, many studies we reviewed found the opposite." Environmental outfits such as the Environmental Working Group and the Sierra Club now oppose ethanol subsidies.
The EPA reduction is a small win for consumers. Since 1978 when the first "gasohol" subsidies were enacted, renewable fuel production tax credits have drained the Treasury of almost $40 billion. The tax subsidies expired recently, but consumers have still been forced to dole out billions at the pump because of the renewable fuel standards.
About 40% of corn production is now used not for food or livestock feed, but for fuel. This has raised the price of corn, and a 2009 study by the Congressional Budget Office found that in some years ethanol has raised retail food prices by 5% to 10% for everything from corn flakes to ground beef."
"This year's 14 billion gallon mandate required refiners such as Marathon and Valero to pay for hundreds of millions of gallons of renewable energy "credits" to avoid busting through the E10 blending wall. Few cars on the road are equipped to handle higher ethanol blends that can end up doing harm to engines."
Saturday, November 30, 2013
More Problems With Ethanol
See Big Ethanol Finally Loses: The political fuel is losing support as its costs and harm grow. WSJ editorial from 11-17-13. Excerpts:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.