Sign up to receive email updates, action alerts, health tips, promotions to support our work and more from EWG. You can opt-out at any time. [Privacy]



Environmental connections to public health >>

More reactions to Bush's ethanol plan

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Today North Jersey's The Record highlights some salient observations illuminating the reality behind Bush's ethanol proposal.

Eric DeGesero, executive VP of the New Jersey Fuel Merchants Association, wants to remind us that putting more corn into fuel production could raise the cost of America’s corn-intensive diet (though something tells me Mr. DeGesero should visit a nutritionist).

"You'll pay more for Twinkies or Coca-Cola or Frosted Flakes, which are sweetened with corn syrup, because of the demand ethanol will put on the price for a bushel of corn."


Bush "20 in 10" plan calls for a 20 percent reduction in the amount of gasoline consumed in the country within 10 years.

But, the fine print called for reducing the "projected" amount of gasoline to be used in a decade, not the amount that's currently being used.


Which would explain why:

Environmental groups argued that Bush's proposal was too weak when it came to requiring automakers to increase fuel-efficiency standards, and the alternative fuels proposal might sound popular but was environmentally questionable, if not unfeasible.

And why the Sierra Club takes this position on ethanol:

"The Sierra Club opposes ethanol because it takes more energy to create than you get from it," said Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey chapter of the national environmental advocacy group. "It's really a subsidy for agri-business."

Not to mention that:

Ethanol also provides less mileage than gasoline, requiring more fuel to be purchased.


New Jersey's not buying Bush plans for ethanol, Herb Jackson. The Record (25 Jan 07)

Key Issues: 

comments powered by Disqus