News Coverage
Rush to Ethanol is Doing More Harm Than Good
Published August 10, 2008
It’s been apparent for some time that ethanol is no panacea for the nation’s energy problem. Now there is mounting evidence that a 2007 federal mandate aimed at speeding the development of ethanol may be doing more harm than good. Not surprisingly, the federal bureaucracy has been slow to act on that evidence, or even acknowledge it.
On Thursday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency flatly rejected Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s plea for some relief from the federal requirement that 9 billion gallons of ethanol and biodiesel be blended into gasoline between Sept. 1, 2008, and Aug. 31, 2009. Perry had asked in April that the EPA reduce the requirement to 4.5 billion gallons, claiming that the larger mandate was hurting Texas livestock producers and increasing food costs.
Perry offered a compelling case for the relief. The diversion of a third of the nation’s corn crop to ethanol production has nearly tripled feed prices for Texas livestock and poultry farmers, leading to layoffs in the Texas meat industry. As is the case nationwide, it’s driving up food prices, further straining family budgets and the general economy.
The EPA’s refusal to back off this ethanol mandate, even partially, might be understandable if it could be shown that it was contributing to the nation’s energy security or environmentally beneficial. But that’s not the case. Food-to-fuel mandates clearly have not held down fuel prices and have show little potential in regard to reducing the nation’s dependence on foreign oil. Environmentally, these mandates are likely counterproductive.
Indeed, several environmental groups had joined the Texas governor in asking the EPA to halve the federal mandate. They say the increase in corn production is hurting wildlife habitat. They cite studies suggesting that corn-based ethanol produces the same global warming pollution as fossil fuels when calculations include the impact of cleared land and the energy it takes to produce ethanol, according to Washington Post writer Juliet Eilperin.
Further, Richard Wiles of the Environmental Working Group said, “This year’s 9 billion gallon (federal mandate) will cause an estimated 100 million tons of soil erosion and put 300,000 tons of nitrogen fertilizer into Midwestern waters. Thanks largely to the ethanol mandate and an excessively wet spring,” he continued, “pollution levels in the Gulf of Mexico are expected to reach record levels, with a dead zone the size of Massachusetts.”
President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers and the Federal Trade Commission had doubts about ethanol mandates earlier on. According to 2002 Office of Management and Budget memo the council and commission believed a federal mandate would prove costly for consumers and provide little environmental benefit. Those concerns were well-placed. It’s unfortunate that they’ve yet to reach the EPA.
