News

EPA Won't Ease Requirements for Ethanol in Gas

»

by: Matthew L. Wald, The New York Times

photo
The Environmental Protection Agency rejected on Thursday a request to cut the quota for use of ethanol in cars, concluding that the goal of reducing the nation's reliance on oil trumps any effect on food prices from making fuel from corn. (Photo: hybridfuels)

    Washington - The Environmental Protection Agency rejected on Thursday a request to cut the quota for the use of ethanol in cars, concluding, for the time being, that the goal of reducing the nation's reliance on oil trumps any effect on food prices from making fuel from corn.

    The EPA administrator, Stephen L. Johnson, said that the mandate was "strengthening our nation's energy security and supporting American farming communities," and that it was not causing "severe harm to the economy or the environment."

    The effect of the decision on fuel and food markets is hard to determine. Recently, high energy prices have led to even more ethanol production than the quota required. On the other hand, rising corn prices made some ethanol operations unprofitable, especially as oil prices started to fall.

    So ending the quota might not have reduced the use of ethanol, but it might decline even with the quotas remaining in place. Still, the debate is fraught with symbolism - as a sign of unease over government intervention in the energy and food markets, with all the unintended consequences that ensue. The decision is an indication that Washington is unwilling to retreat from a policy that is very popular among grain farmers, if not among ranchers.

    Companies that use corn to fatten livestock and poultry, along with others in the food business, had called for lifting the requirements, saying that their costs were rising as millions of pounds of corn were diverted from feeding livestock to fueling cars. Farmers argued that the jump in corn prices was driven not so much by the demand for ethanol as by growing demand for grain-fed meat around the world, and their own higher costs for diesel fuel.

    Governor Rick Perry of Texas, a leading cattle state as well as a bastion of the oil business, made the request in late April, and the EPA said it received 15,000 comments during its three-month-long review.

    The rules that the EPA reconsidered on Thursday set a floor for ethanol use, not a ceiling, and not even the floor was firm, because under the rules, the EPA could issue a waiver if the requirement became "onerous."

    Renewable fuel use in 2004 was 3.5 billion gallons, according to the EPA - mostly ethanol, which is a form of alcohol, but including some biodiesel, which contains oil from crops. The goal for this year had been 5.4 billion gallons but in December, with the price of oil soaring, Congress raised the renewables quota to 9 billion gallons for this year, and laid out a schedule of annual increases that would bring it to 11.1 billion gallons in 2009. In 2022, the quota would be 36 billion gallons.

    The agency has not completed an analysis of the effect of the mandate as the quota rises.

    That target requires not only more ethanol but new cars and new filling station equipment, because nationally, gasoline consumption of fuel for cars, vans, sport utility vehicles and motorcycles is only in the range of 140 billion gallons, and ordinary cars can burn ethanol in blends with gasoline no higher than 10 percent. But ethanol is part of the auto industry's long-term strategy; General Motors plans that by 2012, half the vehicles it builds will be able to accept blends of up to 85 percent ethanol.

    The long-term hope, backed up with generous government incentives, is to make motor fuel from "cellulosic," or non-food, sources. Private companies are feverishly pursuing technologies for using wood chips, wheat straw, waste plastic and even municipal garbage to make ethanol and other liquid vehicle fuels. But none of these is commercial at the moment.

»


IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. TRUTHOUT HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR IS TRUTHOUT ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.

"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON TO MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live.

Taras says it all. The

Taras says it all. The corruption of lobbyists determines that this stupid policy continues when everyone knows it is counterproductive, wasteful and detrimental to the food supply. Since hemp makes sense, it is "off the table" in the distorted views of Washington.

The EPA is no different than

The EPA is no different than any other agency and its personnel. They are all power seekers, and will use their power to reinforce their own beliefs. These people I speak of are those that are in the middle ranks that kiss ass to get ahead. They will extort, lie, cheat, fudge, conspire and commit fraud to further their personal interests and the interests of their cultist members. The EPA is a defunct branch of government. I worked for years on behalf of industry through an environmental consulting firm. These industries can get away with quite a bit, if they know the ropes and have connections. I have seen the release of hazardous chemicals to air and surface water and consumer products by industry that was approved by the EPA. Its such a game in the corporate fascist world. As I said before, impeach the goddamn government...every single one of them.

I hope the US government is

I hope the US government is not still paying farmers to not grow food.

This is such a stupid, short

This is such a stupid, short sighted decision. No mention is made of reducing consumption, just pandering to farmers. When the world is on the brink of a major food shortage, how can anyone justify using food grade corn for fuel. It is just plain stupid, especially when there are alternates that would provide ethanol. Hemp, which has been bred for very low THC content, is one of these, but the government paranoia around that is even more ridiculous.

Add a comment:

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
The following question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Please enter the two words seen below. If you cannot read them you may use the button with circling arrows to get a new one.