Connect with Us:
The Power of Information
Facebook Page Twitter @enviroblog Youtube Channel Our RSS Feeds
At EWG,
our team of scientists, engineers, policy experts, lawyers and computer programmers pores over government data, legal documents, scientific studies and our own laboratory tests to expose threats to your health and the environment, and to find solutions. Our research brings to light unsettling facts that you have a right to know.
Privacy Policy
(Updated Sept. 19, 2011)
Terms & Conditions
Reprint Permission Information
We all want to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and conserve natural resources. But using corn ethanol as transportation fuel is not the answer. Adding small, well-tested amounts of oxygenated additives like ethanol to engine fuel can reduce air pollution in targeted areas. This practice makes sense. But the corn lobby’s efforts to cast corn ethanol as an alternative transportation fuel is misleading.
Environmental Working Group’s numerous analyses have shown that corn ethanol:
Advanced biofuels, like those derived from perennial grasses, wood chips, or agricultural residues, are intended to conserve natural resources and not compete with the food supply. However, these so-called second generation biofuels are not yet on the market. Industry proponents claim they are “just around the corner,” but production is currently still in the early phases. EWG advises drivers to seek environmentally-responsible alternatives. They should use public transportation whenever possible and drive less. For tips to reduce your gasoline consumption and save money, click here.
Ethanol powered the original Ford Model T, produced in the early 1900s. Prohibition forced car makers to switch to gasoline so that ethanol fuel wouldn’t be diverted to illegal use in intoxicating beverages. From the 1940s to the late 1970s, the automotive industry continued to rely on gasoline to power internal combustion engines because gas was cheaper than ethanol.
In 1979, the federal government ordered the gasoline industry to remove toxic lead from fuel to reduce air pollution. Gasoline makers substituted methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) to boost the oxygen content of gasoline to help the fuel burn more completely and prevent engine knocking, but the additive caused underground gasoline storage tanks to corrode, leaking MTBE into groundwater. Many states banned MTBE. In the early 2000s gasoline blenders began using small quantities of ethanol as a substitute booster to increase the fuel’s oxygen content.
Over the last decade, a maze of energy and tax legislation designed to reduce America’s dependence on imported oil and fossil fuels has created incentives for ethanol production.
As a strategy to promote energy independence, in 2005, Congress enacted the federal Renewable Fuel Standard, requiring escalating production of ethanol, mainly from corn, to be blended into vehicle fuel. In 2005, the nation produced about 4 billion gallons of ethanol. In the 2007 energy bill, Congress greatly expanded the mandate by requiring fuel blenders to use 15 billion gallons of conventional biofuels (mainly corn ethanol) by 2015 and an additional 21 billion gallons of so-called second generation or advanced biofuels by 2022. The latter requirement contemplated that by 2010, the advanced biofuels industry would have taken off.
But that has not happened due to economic and technological barriers. Consequently, corn ethanol is the only domestically produced biofuel that is available in large quantities; this is unlikely to change in the near future.
Most American vehicle fuel is a mix of 90 percent gasoline and 10 percent ethanol. This mix is known as E10.
Ethanol industry lobbyists, eager to maximize industry profits, advocate fuel blends greater than 10 percent ethanol. They argue that automotive fuel is about to hit a “blend wall,” defined as the point at which more ethanol is produced than the market for E10 engine fuel can absorb. To sell more ethanol, these lobbyists have pressed for federal government approval to sell E15 fuel. To achieve that goal, they had to secure permission from the Environmental Protection Agency under the federal Clean Air Act. Last year, the EPA approved the sale of 15 percent ethanol blends, called E15, but only for cars manufactured in 2001 and later.1
Drivers and engine owners who disregard EPA’s directions to use E15 only in newer cars may find that older vehicles and small gasoline engines such as motors for boats, chain saws, snowmobile and leaf blowers incur serious damages. Since ethanol is a solvent, the E15 mix can corrode some fuel system parts, especially pumps and hoses. It also eats away at standard storage tanks and pipelines.
The direct and indirect damage to the environment of corn and corn ethanol production outweigh any minimal benefits. Sensitive land like grassed buffers, streambanks and wetlands are being planted with corn to fulfil federal ethanol mandates and maximize corn growers’ profits.
Many U.S. ethanol refineries are powered by coal, hardly the most environmentally-friendly option. Current ethanol production systems may actually emit more greenhouse gases than gasoline.1
Growing corn to make ethanol production requires significant amounts of water, fertilizer and pesticides that can pollute soil and waterways. Corn production consumes fossil fuels: diesel fuel powers tractors, combines and trucks during planting, harvest and shipping. A recent National Research Council report found that corn ethanol uses significantly more water in its production cycle than gasoline.2
Some companies are developing “drop-in biofuels,” defined as biofuels that behave like gasoline and use existing infrastructure like gas pumps and storage tanks. These can be refined from potentially sustainable sources like wood and agricultural residues. The use of some biofuels may not reduce automotive gas mileage. But such fuels are still in the research stage. Much more work must be done before they are developed for the mass market.
Print a copy of the guide by clicking here.
Some small engines lack an oxygen sensor feedback control and cannot compensate for the higher oxygen content in higher ethanol blends. As a result, engines operating under the oxygen-rich conditions caused by high ethanol content can quickly overheat.
But the misguided effort to treat ethanol as an alternative transportation fuel has become a well-founded source of concern for consumers, environmental groups, livestock farmers, automobile makers, the anti-hunger community and the food industry.
For several years, ethanol producers and their lobbyists have been pushing for incentives to increase production beyond U.S. market needs. They have persuaded some lawmakers to support their cause, but increasingly the public has resisted because of ethanol's downsides. Click here to read a letter opposing extension of the ethanol tax credit, signed by EWG and 89 other groups. On June 16, 2011, the U.S. Senate acted on our recommendation and voted to repeal the ethanol tax credit and tariff by an overwhelming vote of 73 to 27.
To find out more about E15, see EWG's other work:
Other useful links:
References:
1. McMahon, Kate and Victoria Wittig. “Corn Ethanol and Climate Change.” Accessed 20 October 2011 at http://www.foe.org/sites/default/files/Corn_%20ethanol_and_climate_change.pdf
2. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13105
3. http://www.agra-net.com/portal2/home.jsp?template=newsarticle&artid=20017912127&pubid=ag002
4. http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/dbs/pdffiles/11pb5.pdf
5. http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Agriculture-Based-Biofuels-Overview-and-Emerging-Issues.pdf
6. http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=249952
Environmental Working Group /// February 17, 2012